Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive775

User:ByCMY

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

---

This user's page and their edits to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects might require someone with more experience than me in these issues to look at them. --86.40.97.160 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Hate speech at The New Normal

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 SPA Cellus registered strictly to post the following hate speech [1] on the page for the U.S. television show The New Normal. This editor needs an immediate and permanent block, and the edit permanently removed; such vile behavior cannot and should not be tolerated. --Drmargi (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive IP editor resorting to personal attacks...

User:68.200.28.150 has routinely removed the same factually correct piece of information from Ancient and Primitive Rite. When warned about it, user assumed a battleground/ownership mentality (basically "you're not one of us, so what's in the article is none of your business"). When further informed as to the fact that that was irrelevant, user engaged in a personal attack. Normally I wouldn't care, but this is definite intent to disrupt and continue to do so because of a personal agenda, so some action is needed to nip this in the bud. MSJapan (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest ceasing to edit war, using the article talk page and ceasing to call a content dispute vandalism NE Ent 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly I'm an idiot, then, because I thought that repeatedly removing factual information without discussion was vandalism, whereas a content dispute was something else. Clearly, I must know nothing about Wikipedia, and should therefore consider retirement on COMPETENCE grounds. MSJapan (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours. I think the repeated removal of material probably does come under the WP:VAND definition, though to be fair to the IP the sentence being repeatedly removed is not cited in any way. However edits like this one are not the right way to progress a content dispute and I've blocked to prevent them reverting once again and to stop the disruption at source. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing it in WP:VANDTYPES, seems like like the converse of Wikipedia:VANDAL#Misinformation.2C_accidental. (Block is fine, of course, for the PA) NE Ent 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw it as illegitimate, repeated and unexplained blanking. But on its own that wouldn't have been enough for a block (a final warning, maybe.) The PA of course is the clincher. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

[2] or removal of unsourced content -- there's no reference to UGLE in the rest of the article to support its inclusion. NE Ent 22:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I've sourced the statement, and the reason it doesn't appear elsewhere in the article is because A&PR never really took hold historically because of the prohibition (and several other reasons as well). So it's important to the context of the whole Rite. MSJapan (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Profanity

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.

---

Sitush has called my edits testicles[3] and flatulence.[4] I shared my discomfort with him, he however retorted with more of it.[5] Is it fine to do so? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a complete misrepresentation of what he said; I'm sure even you know that bollocks is a common British expression (I know that as an American myself) and "farting around" is not calling your edits "flatulence" (what on earth that's even supposed to mean escapes me). However, seeing your edits to the first article, I'm wondering if some sanctions are warranted for you; I'm not going to make that decision at midnight, but a preliminary look would seem to back up Sitush's thoughts about your edits there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• First off, you can't tell another editor to "refrain from using slang/profanity", and you really shouldn't act surprised that that wasn't received well. Besides, "bollocks" and "fart around" are such mild slang that there's absolutely no way any administrator is going to sanction a user for it. I'm not going to address whether your edits are or aren't bollocks, but if they aren't the best way to show that is to provide rock-solid reliable sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, that is 'bollocks', not 'bullocks' - and the two words have entirely different meanings. AS for whether it is always appropriate to use such words, I'll not comment - but I'd suggest that there are more important things to concern us all than the odd mild British English obscenity - how about going back to improving the article in question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User keeps making unnecessary deletions

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, I'm Slurpy. I was adding information to the article Separation of powers to add the true fundamental information for the article that Montesquiu was also inspired by the Roman Constitution through Polybius and you can see this for yourself in the source but for some reason, User (talk) unnecessarily keeps interfering and deleting my statements and sources for no reason. He and or She said that the source i provided contradicted my statement when it actually supports it. I'm not sure if he just didn't read the whole thing in the source and misunderstood it or he just does it because he just doesn't like to embrace this truth. I would like to avoid an argument and the same time that my statement would be supported and be kept on the article not because i put it there, but because the statement is true and i want to contribute by adding historical background information. sincerely --(talk) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge has been attempting to discuss the matter with you at Talk:Separation of powers. You should join him in that discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The deletion is good faith: it's based on the principles of WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. It looks like Demiurge1000 is questioning whether a high school research paper meets the definition of a reliable source. I'd suggest discussing the situation at Talk:Separation of powers to see if you can alleviate the concerns of the other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, Slurpy121 has persisted in edit warring and is now blocked for 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by 75.51.172.205

An admin is needed to look at 75.51.172.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now disrupting Armenian history related articles by incessantly edit warring with other editors over whether a template should be expanded or hidden. Gave 3RR warning on talk, will notify him of this thread. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If he's been 3RR-warned, why isn't this reported at WP:ANEW? —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not worth the time to fill out a doggone 3RR report, and I thought it needed to be stopped more urgently. He has also been accused of being the sock of a blocked user:Frost778 blocked 3 days ago by DrMies for the very same thing, and it's ongoing at the rate of several rvvs per minute. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He has ignored the 3RR warning and continues to edit war with no discussion. Kentronhayastan (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that because the template itself is protected, he is instead edit-warring the layout of the template on all of its transcluded articles, which means he is breaking 3,4,5,6,7 RR all over the place. So the disruption seems to rise to the level of a more wide scale "incident", and it is still ongoing throughout this whole past half hour. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Swarm got him a few minutes ago:

00:39 (Block log) . . Swarm (talk | contribs) blocked 75.51.172.205 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎(Disruptive editing: Modification of templates on an immense number of articles and edit warring over said changes)

You can close this case now. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I spoke too soon. He's back already doing the same with a new IP:75.51.171.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And now yet again doing the same as 75.51.164.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, typed this a while ago but got a conflict and never resent it: I've just blocked the IP for 31 hours, but upon further review, it's does appear that this IP is indeed a sock of Frost, as suggested above. Both seem to have the same mildly flawed English, write blatant run-on sentences, use the word "sir" in edit summaries, and of course edit war over Armenian history templates. Even as I'm writing this, another IP sock has sprung up making the same edits. All things considered, I think this is a duck situation. I'm going to indef Frost and block the IPs for a week, but I'll leave this open for any other admins to weigh in or modify my actions. Swarm ^X 06:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IPs individually but I'm not remotely familiar with range blocks. Any admins who are familiar with them around (I don't know whether one's necessary)? Swarm ^X 06:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It continues. [6]. Page protection might work if there weren't so many options for Frost to work his puppetry on Jonathanfu (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And again. I should probably stop wasting my time undoing all his edits, and just leave them until someone can rangeblock him. Jonathanfu (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

another oneJonathanfu (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC).

It's a pity more admins beside Swarm don't seem to be here atm. He could be shut down. I have seriously never seen anything like this, it's just as if it were an automated revert-bot... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

All blocked, but still waiting on a rangeblock-familiar admin. Tried to drop in on the admins IRC channel, but I don't have access. Damn. Sadly I can't sit around and babysit this thread, nor wait for IRC access, so it appears we're going to have to keep playing whack-a-mole for awhile. Anyone else around who can keep an eye on this for awhile? Swarm ^X 06:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

75.51.165.128 (talk · contribs). Doc talk 07:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I put a 31 hour rangeblock on 75.51.160.0/20 (no anonymous editing, no account creation). Hopefully that's all it takes. It's a fairly small range (~4000 IP addresses). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Rian13

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.

---

Rian13 (talk · contribs). User indef blocked since 2010 for account violation appears to have emerged again as Rian2008 (talk · contribs). This account, which began editing on 6 November, appears to have a similar editing pattern to the sockmaster. Could someone take a quick look? Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific? Lay out a few diffs and explain what the interest/pattern is--thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rian13 was blocked for persistent image policy violations by Rodhullandemu back in 2010. So far, Rian2008 hasn't done the same, although their lack of edit summaries doesn't make looking easy. Overall, there's nothing about their edits that stand out as anything problematic. They're doing a fair number of tidying edits and corrections, both of others and themselves. Their edits seem to fall largely into British celebrities categories and although some of their insertions could do with sources and less crystal balling, I don't really see anything troubling. Blackmane (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Rian13 was blocked for image-related disruption, often adding them incorrectly to articles. So far I've found this from Rian2008. Also some unsourced material has been added (like this) though that's less of a problem. There are actually several accounts using this name, all of which have been blocked for disruptive editing. Examples include Rian2010 (talk · contribs), Rian2011 (talk · contribs), Rian117 (talk · contribs), Rian16 (talk · contribs) and Rian19 (talk · contribs). The common interest between them all seems to be UK celebrities, chart music and reality shows. Generally they seem to start off editing fine, then things go down hill. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there an SPI? That would be the easy way out. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've just found one here, so reopened the case. As I haven't done one of these for at least three years I hope it's correct. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

it does look excessively ducky (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Request for IP block exemption

Resolved

As noted and discussed at VPT#Avoiding IP address blocks, I deliver a lot of Wikipedia editor training, on large networks (universities, councils, libraries, etc. I hit a problem today, while training at a venue where there was an IP block in place; it badly disrupted the training, leaving me unable even to demonstrate editing from my account. I understand that it's possible for established accounts in good standing to be exempted from such blocks, but WP:IP block exemption seems to cater only for single instances where an editor is affected by an active block on their usual IP address. Is it possible for me to have such an exemption; and, if so, could someone enable it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be Ok. I've added it to your account. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Eyes 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.

---

Just saw this userpage looks like it's being used only for chatter between Shadow Axis and another user. I see no other edits except to userspace for this user. I didn't want to outright MFD it. I have blanked it and left a note that this isn't myspace. It may need more, but I thought I'd get eyes on it first before I MFD it.

Thanks

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  21:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'm one of two users who use this to communicate. It's a user's talk page and doesn't interfere with anything else. By the way, there is no WP:NOTMYSPACE, so I'm not sure why that was written in the edit description when you blanked another user's userpage. Using someone's personal talk page to communicate is not an issue. I was very surprised to find this on an administrator notice board at all. Thanks --♪ ChrisBkoolio ... (Talk) 21:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ironically enough, there is indeed WP:NOTMYSPACE, which is part of policy. Maybe you never actually thought to enter it into the search bar? Zad68 21:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for, Kosh? No offense, but this seems fairly ridiculous...a polite message explaining why this isn't allowed would have adequately sufficed, rather than blanking someone's talk page. That being said, WP:NOTMYSPACE is a real thing that actually exists. Using talk pages for your personal correspondence simply isn't the purpose of Wikipedia...and I'm not sure why you'd want to communicate with Wikipedia in the first place. You need to take your conversations elsewhere, but there's no admin intervention needed at this time, IMO. Swarm ^X 21:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I just sent it to MFD. Seems clear to me that this does not belong on Wikipedia, and since one user just reverted the blanking and continued chatting, deletion may be the only way to put an end to it. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy appears to be violating a topic ban

Per community consensus Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#Alternative_Proposal_by_IRWolfie-, User:IjonTichyIjonTichy is topic banned "from the Zeitgeist movement, broadly construed", including "everything he does on Wikipedia, whether in articles, on talk pages, or anywhere else, and that 'broadly' means that he can't do anything that remotely links to TZM, to anyone involved with TZM, or to anything that TZM is involved in". [7]. As can be seen, IjonTichyIjonTichy has chosen to flout this ban on his talk page, and is now soapboxing regarding the article on movement and on his ban, while engaging in personal attacks on me (thinly disguised). [8]. Can I ask that appropriate action be taken? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not violated the ban. I have not even viewed (not to mention edit) the TZM article or its talk page or related articles. Instead, I focused on editing other WP articles and contributing to developing the encyclopedia. However I recently noticed that the user above has attacked me repeatedly prior to my topic ban (just search for the many the many times 'IjonTichyIjonTichy' appears on the above user's talk page) and post-ban [9] [10] [11]. And I did not identify the user above, or the TZM article, by user name or article title, and I did not mention the TZM article on my user page, user talk page or any WP page since the topic ban. And I refuse to interact in any way, shape or form in the future with a user who vandalized a WP article and who has repeatedly engaged in other offensive, uncivil, abusive behavior, including, but not limited to personal attacks on me, both before my topic ban and after. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The material on your talk page clearly relates to TZM. You have violated your topic ban. And if you don't wish to interact with me, don't post personal attacks on me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Note that in this edit [12] (material added to an old talk-page post), is accusing multiple editors of 'bias' against him, and of them - and seems to be arguing that the topic ban was unjustified, and that he'd been 'railroaded'. Given that it was made absolutely clear that any discussions regarding the ban would need to be done with an admin via e-mail, rather than in public, this seems to be further evidence that IjonTichyIjonTichy is failing to abide by the topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not, and will not interact with this vandal in any way, shape or form, even after my topic ban is lifted. The material on my talk page or user page does not identify TZM or anything remotely resembling TZM (I have now removed the direct copy-paste of the user's vulgar, offensive statement that he used to deface the WP article in his act of vandalism). I am entitled to revise material that I've posted immediately after the topic ban was posted, and in which I directly communicate with the admin who has administred the ban, and I made it very clear the new material is an addition and revision of my original posting from Aug. 23 in which I'm trying to express my thoughts and feelings; as these thoughts and feelings continue to evolve in light of my new understanding of how WP works, I have inserted new material which expresses new insights I gained which help me articulate the (old) feelings I've felt when the topic ban was originally implemented. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Posting personal attacks is 'interaction'. The material you posted unequivocally relates to TZM, and in this edit of yours (dated 6 November) [13] you explicitly refer to "TZM". You have violated your ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked anyone in my revision to my conversation with the administrator. I'm only describing material that is well-known on WP (although regretfully it was not well-known to me up until very recently), and that appears in various forms on various user's pages, WP essays, etc. (Please see my recent revisions to my own user page in which I list some of the things I've learned recently about how WP works). I'm entitled to modify the original way I've expressed my original thoughts and feelings to clarify and to better-articulate my original observations and personal feelings in light of new information that has come to my knowledge and new understandings(s) I've developed. (For example, one of the many sources that I discovered recently that helped me develop new insights is WP:Disruptive_sanctions.) I've made many contributions to WP since my topic ban and none of them come anywhere close to being related to TZM. And I intend to continue to make many more contributions to WP articles in upcoming weeks and months (for example, I have plans to continue my efforts to develop articles on various areas in high technology, especially AI, robotics, etc., and their many subfields, based on citations from IEEE peer-reviewed journal articles), and eventually appeal my topic ban. (I've already written some portions (but not all) of my appeal and will submit it in a few days or weeks when I'm fully ready.) I wish I was aware of the many resources (some of which I recently listed on my own user page) before the topic ban, as they would have prevented, or at least helped resolve, many of the conflicts I've been involved in on the TZM article; in fact if I were aware of this info I would have left the TZM article months before the topic ban and focused instead on contributing to non-TZM-related articles. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is clearly gaming, and a poor attempt at that: [14]. I'm going to presume "UVWXYZ" is meant to be Andy and the protected article is for TZM. I see more hints about andy being a nasty contributor here: User:IjonTichyIjonTichy#Some_insights_on_editing_Wikipedia in this rather long soapbox. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything I wrote is based on direct diffs -- except I did not list the diffs, and don't intend to list the diffs in the near future, and thus my post does not identify any particular, specific user. Everything I wrote is based on hard evidence. It is all hard data/ evidence/ diffs. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the section from my talk page and pasted it to my user page, but it did not fit there so I removed it, although I intend to re-post it in the near future after I develop it more fully and I will not re-post it. By the way, I'm curious. IRWolfie- has quickly revised the original uncivil comment I posted on the user's talk page (although I realize now, based on what I've learned in recent months, that all IRWolfie- - or any editor - needed to do was to encourage me to revise or delete my uncivil comment, and I would have deleted my comment), and quickly proceeded to open an AN/I on me. My question: why has IRWolfie- not revised, or deleted, the many attacks on me by the same user, on the same user's talk page, in the weeks preceding the AN/I? And why has IRWolfie- not revised the two additional attacks on me by the same same vandal post my topic ban -- specifically, the comment on the user's page, [15] and on my own user talk page [16], in both of which the same vandal again attacked me? (The numerous attacks in the first diff are obvious; in the second he disparages, belittles and mocks my contributions as "while you do nothing else remotely useful".) Does this (among other things which I'll more fully discuss in my appeal) not appear to justify my revision to my communication on my own talk page with the topic-banning administrator? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I support an indefinite block based on the violation of the topic ban. Ijon's responses are nonsensical. His attempts to deflect this discussion to other editors' alleged misconduct or alleged failures are a transparent distraction. Similarly, his attempts to wikilawyer his way around the ban by thinly disguising the name of the article and the name of the editor are offensive. Having been involved with Ijon and the TZM article in the past, I cannot block him. Otherwise, I would.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I also support an indefinite block. It's a clear violation of the topic ban and a blatant attempt at gaming the system, despite Ijon's pathetic attempts to disguise it. His responses here just destroy any credibility he might have had. Sorry, but I can't see this user contributing more good to WP than bad. He clearly has no intention of improving the behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not initiate the discussion on revising my original comment to the administrator. And I'm not wikilawyering anything. I firmly believe everything I've written. Although I admit I am relatively inexperienced in many aspects of Wikipedia and thus I may be (and probably am, based on the response here) wrong in my assumptions and my understandings and my approach, and it seems I probably should have waited until after my topic ban is lifted to try to more properly and civilly address the issue of the uncivil behavior by the vandal. As far as I know I have not violated the topic ban in any way, shape or form in recent months as I've continued to make many contributions to the encyclopedia, despite the fact that an editor continued to attack me on his user talk page post the topic ban. I'm continuing to learn and develop and probably will learn from this exchange too to help me continue to develop to become a better WP contributor. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this diff [17] is clearly and unequivocally about TZM. The topic ban was violated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights on gaming the system by all the editors above. I thought about what the editors wrote and I now understand that your concerns regarding appearing to game the system are valid, and even though I did not intend to game, it may well appear that I have, given that I'm still on a topic ban. Good intentions alone are insufficient -- actions, and all possible consequences including all possible appearances and interpretations of my actions by all involved actors are also very important and I should have thought more carefully about these issues before clicking the 'save page' button. I appreciate the feedback. Thanks for the insights on being much more careful not only about being motivated by the right intentions but also about taking into consideration all possible appearances and interpretations, among the other useful feedback provided above. I realize now that starting the section on my talk page was an error on my part, and does not fit-in at all with my contributions and good behavior in the months since after the topic ban. (By the way I also had strong personal doubts before I started the section, I should have listened to my own inner voice more carefully.) Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:ROPE. — raekyT 23:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please more fully support your accusation of WP:COMPETENCE? Can you please explain how making a single mistake in two and half months of making many contributions post my topic ban (a mistake I quickly corrected after receiving useful feedback above from editors more experienced than me) constitutes incompetence? Is it not true that mistakes are supposed to be an inevitable part of the wiki process? Is anybody on Wikipedia perfect in every way? I certainly admit that my development as an editor has not always been linear. It has been marked by forward progression overall, but with many temporary bumps and detours and dead-ends and misguided efforts. In some cases (such as above), I've taken two steps back for every three steps forward. But I believe the overall trajectory of my development as an editor, compared to my efforts as a newbie about six months ago, has been one of positive growth and progress. Do you have specific data (in addition to the mistake I made above) to prove otherwise? Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. In response to the question regarding WP:COMPETENCE, I think it need only be pointed out that IjonTichyIjonTichy seems to be continuing with his soapboxing and personal attacks: [18]. If this isn't a demonstration of a clear lack of clue, it is trolling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. In fact, in response to the helpful feedback from the editors above, I'm in the process of making the material on my own user page even more neutral in tone, and trying to remove any hints of anything that might be mistakenly perceived as relating to the TZM article (or any particular article) or to any particular user. And by the way, since we are on the topic of WP:COMPETENCE, why did the vandal willfully ignore the warning by the admin on my own user talk page to leave me alone? I agree with the admin that there are two sides to every story and I fully admit that my own behavior is the sole cause of my topic ban; but my behavior is not at all the sole cause of the dispute between me and everyone involved, including the vandal. I'm not the sole problem and my topic ban does not vindicate everyone else, including the vandal. I have plenty to say about everyone's behavior that I cannot now. The admin specifically wrote on Aug. 23: Just back off. What you are doing is grave dancing. Please go away. Then why did the vandal continue to attack me about full 10 days after the above notice by the admin [19] [20]? When an uninvolved editor (Dennis Brown) discussed the vandalism, the vandal admitted he should not have done it [21], but in the same breath the vandal [22], instead of taking full personal responsibility for his own actions, appears to be Wikilawyering in an apparent attempt to dodge responsibility and blame others for his own actions, including: blaming what he calls "TZM supporters" and "POV-pushing sockpuppets"; blaming me ("drive(s) everyone insane with walls of text"); accusing me of using a sock puppet; accusing me of POV-pushing and spinning; misrepresenting and twisting what I said earlier about AOTE (ATG, OpenFuture, Tom harrison and Earl King Jr.) (ATG falsely claims I habitually ("at the drop of a hat") accused editors of a conspiracy against TZM where in fact I explicitly and clearly said they were not part of a conspiracy or cabal); attempting to paint a picture of me as a confused, incoherent, inconsistent, incompetent and incapable editor; blaming user: Zgoutreach; conflating me with user Zgoutreach; accusing Zgoutreach of being "the latest TZM-pusher" and implying I was a (previous) TZM-pusher; accusing me and Zgoutreach of exhibiting passive-aggressive behavior and paranoia; accusing me of being coached by TZM ("TZM supporters all get lessons"); calling me a 'contributor' in single quotes to denigrate, disparage and belittle my work; insulting user Zgoutreach by characterizing him as having a "tiny little head" to imply Zgoutreach's intellectual abilities are inferior and implying the vandal is his intellectual superior; etc. ( By the way, the vandal seems to be repeatedly implying that Zgoutreach and myself belong to a POV-pushing cult, conspiracy or cabal, but these are the same exact labels which the vandal himself appears to denigrate, ridicule and belittle when others accuse him of ... Editors have been warned by the topic-ban admin to leave me alone and stop attacking me, as this can easily be seen as an attempt to provoke me to initiate my block; the vandal has in the past, post the topic ban, and is continuing now, to ignore this warning. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that, contrary to IjonTichyIjonTichy's allegations of 'gravedancing', I had made no postings whatsoever to his talk page prior to his recent personal attacks on me - this is my first post, dated yesterday: [23]. AndyTheGrump (talk)

The vandal has not commented on my own talk page, but he appears to have danced on my grave on his own user talk page. The vandal's posting on his own talk page is a serious personal attack on me post my topic ban. The admin's warning to leave me alone and not provoke me applies to all editors, not only to the one (not ATG) who appeared to maybe grave dance. The right course of action for ATG was to leave my name out of his response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about ATG's vandalism. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

Yet more Wikilawyering to evade discussing the obvious issues - the violation of the ban, and the continuing personal attacks on multiple contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply that the vandal has commented on my own talk page. But he appears to have danced on my grave on his own user talk page. The vandal's posting on his own talk page is a serious, multi-faceted personal attack on me full 10 days post my topic ban. The admin's warning to leave me alone and not provoke me applies to all editors, not only to the one (not ATG) who appeared to maybe grave dance. We are talking about competence here, and if ATG would insist on continuing to attack my competence, I can bring many more examples. The right course of action for ATG was to leave my name out of his response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about ATG's vandalism, and to realize that his own action has directly contributed to my recent mistake (although he is not responsible for my own mistake which I take responsibility for), and to accept my admission of my recent innocent mistake, and leave me alone and stop appearing to attempt to provoke me. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

Are you actually trying to get yourself blocked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm interested in continuing to contribute to the project. I have not even viewed (not to mention edit) the TZM article since the topic ban, and instead focused on learning how WP really works (although I'm open to considering my new understanding is probably flawed -- hopefully not fatally flawed ...) and on contributing to non-TZM articles. I suggest we both stop attacking each other's competence (or attacking anything else) because it's a waste of everyone's time because I'll attack you back, you will respond in kind, I'll respond and we'll get nowhere. Instead of exclusively focusing on my actions, please also consider your own (without reducing your focus on my actions). Please consider the possibility that the best course of action for you was to leave my name out of your response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about your vandalism, and to realize that your own attack on me, which may appear to some editors to be a direct violation of at least the spirit and the principle, if not the letter, of the admin's prohibition on attacking me, may have directly contributed to my recent (mistaken and misguided) attempt to list the diffs to your attacks (although I'm not sure if my posting the diffs-without-real-diffs was a direct response to your attacks on me). (I admit you are not responsible for my own recent mistake which I take responsibility for.)

Let's declare peace; I'm asking that editors, chiefly (but not exclusively) yourself, accept my admission of my recent innocent mistake, and leave me alone to continue to contribute to non-TZM articles. Persistent, continued accusations may increasingly appear to be an attempt on your part to provoke me into personally attacking you in order to initiate my block. Please accept my admission of mistake, and consider going away, and fully leaving me alone, as the admin requested almost 3 months ago; please consider doing as I did: I've left you alone, and I've left all editors on the TZM topic-ban AN/I alone, and I've left all TZM-related articles alone over the last almost three months (until my mistake a few hours ago). I hope this solution is agreeable to you. Peace and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

So now, after the multiple personal attacks you have posted yesterday and today (hardly 'leaving me alone'), and the clear violation of your topic ban, you want everyone to pretend nothing has happened? It doesn't work that way. (and BTW, no admin ever informed me of any prohibitions on me commenting on you - you are making that up). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the long post, but I'm trying to post one final post before I get some sleep. ( By the way after my topic ban is lifted I will restrict all long posts to my own user talk page, and only post short, concise and relevant posts to the article talk page.)

With all due respect, please refrain from putting words in my mouth and speaking for me. I have not said nor implied I want anyone to pretend anything. I respect all editors here, including yourself, as mature, smart, highly capable adults and I did not request them to pretend anything. Instead, I am proposing a resolution to this issue, (an issue which frankly is becoming increasingly tiresome, cumbersome and nonsensical by the minute), so that we can stop wasting everybody's time here in endless, fruitless discussions and instead redirect our energies to what we are passionate about - developing the encyclopedia.

What I tried to say is that I feel I fully abided by the spirit and principles of the topic ban over the last almost three months, although I fully admit I appear to have broken the letter of the ban in my misguided, mistaken, erroneous, stupid attempt to list the diffs of your vandalism and your many vicious personal attacks on me pre- and post-topic-ban. Thus, your persistent, insistent, repetitive mention of my recent, and only, violation may appear increasingly suspicious (at least to me), as if you may be appearing to have some ulterior motive -- are you hinting that perhaps I should be faulted on a technicality? Can you please explain why it is so important to you that I be infinitely blocked? What good would come to the encyclopedia if I would be blocked as you seem to insist, considering that I made many contributions over the last 3 months since my topic ban, while exhibiting exemplary editorial and personal behavior (until my mistake a few hours ago which may have damaged the high credibility I worked so hard to re-build)? I repeat my suggestion we both stop attacking each other because it's a waste of everyone's time; it's a vicious circle -- you'll continue to attack me, I'll respond, you'll respond and we'll get nowhere.

With all respect to you, please don't pretend you were not aware editors were explicitly prohibited from attacking me. And don't pretend you only 'commented' on me as you write; I can only hope that you may someday realize that what you did was infinitely worse than 'commenting'. You yourself sought the extremely punitive, very harsh sanctions which were eventually agreed by the community against me on the topic-ban AN/I, and common sense combined with a basic sense of fairness and fair-play on your part would have amply dictated that you refrain from attacking me (because you yourself explicitly requested, and the community agreed, that I be forbidden from responding to any potential attacks on me post-ban). Not to mention that you violated WP policies that explicitly prohibit editors from attacking banned or blocked editors. The admin ban on commenting or attacking me or engaging me, the harsh conditions you sought to attach to the ban, the spirit and language of WP policies, common sense, and reasonable levels of awareness and careful consideration of others' feelings would have have all combined to strictly and amply dictate that you should have left me completely alone post my topic-ban. And some awareness would also have revealed to you that (as far as I know) nobody else, except you, appears to have initiated 'comments' on me post-ban. (Although I may be mistaken on the last item as I don't know what has been said about me, if anything, post-ban on the TZM article talk page.)

May I request something of you. Instead of exclusively focusing on my actions, please also take some time to consider your own (without risking reducing your focus on my actions). Please consider the possibility that the best course of action for you was to leave my name out of your response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about your vandalism, and to realize that your own lengthy, massive, multi-faceted, brutal, injurious attack on me post-ban, which appears to have been an attempt to deflect all blame of your vandalism onto me, an attack which may appear to be a direct violation of at least the spirit and the principle, if not the letter, of the admin's prohibition on attacking me as well as common sense and a violation of WP policies, --- I am asking that you reflect on your own actions (in addition to mine), and consider that your own actions may have, directly or directly, contributed (to whatever extent) to my recent (mistaken and misguided) attempt to list the diffs to your numerous personal attacks on me and to your vandalism. And please note that I admit you are not responsible for my own recent brain-dead mistake which I take responsibility for.

Let's declare peace (or, at least, a truce). I'm asking that editors, chiefly yourself, accept my admission and explanation of my recent innocent, inexperience-motivated, foolish mistake, and leave me alone to continue to contribute to non-TZM articles. Persistently continuing to accuse me may increasingly appear to be an attempt on your part to provoke me into personally attacking you in order to initiate my block. Consider admitting that we've both made mistakes: you've made a big mistake in viciously, broadly and deeply attacking and injuring the innate humanity, intelligence, abilities, personality and editing skills of a banned editor (you've shown no compassion or mercy when you've 'hit a person when he's down') on your user talk page, as well as fully deleting and vandalizing a valid WP article; and I'll admit I've made a big mistake as I amply discussed above. Consider accepting the fact that both of our mistakes (as almost all serious mistakes on WP) have unintended consequences, and consider the fact that nobody is perfect on WP and everyone is entitled to make mistakes on WP. Furthermore, consider accepting that the best thing to do right now may be for both of us to go our separate ways, declare a continuation of our 3-month-old divorce, keep a wide distance from each other in the future, and leave each other alone, as the topic-ban admin originally requested almost 3 months ago. Consider following my example: with the single, isolated exception of my recent mistake, I've left all TZM-related articles alone over the last almost three months, I've left you alone for almost three months, and I've left all editors on the TZM topic-ban AN/I alone over the same period of time (and, as far as I know, they've all blissfully left me alone too). I hope this proposed solution is agreeable. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely a violation of the topic ban, a purposeful gaming of the system. I support an indefinite block or ban. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As I explained above, there was no purposeful gaming, although, in hindsight, based on the helpful feedback from editors above who are more experienced than me, I now understand why and how my actions may have appeared to be gaming the system. I now understand my mistake, and have taken action to correct it. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• IjonTichyIjonTichy blocked for 1 month by me for "WP:DE and violating topic ban". The thinly veiled attempt on the talk page and insistence on referring to Andy as "the vandal" in this discussion show a serious lack of clue. While there are many editors here that support an indef block, I'm going to give a small amount of rope and use the least amount of block I think will work to prevent disruption, which is a month. This is in part because they have shown willingness to back off (which may be simply trying to avoid being indef blocked) and some of the rhetoric may be in the heat of the moment. They have never been blocked before and have stayed off the article as well. It is my hope that they will take this month and reflect a bit and try to understand that gaming the system will not work and will not be overlooked, as the next block will likely be for an indefinite period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you took action, Dennis, but I think you're being unduly optimistic. Ijon's behavior here is consistent with his violation of the ban and his previous passive-aggressive behavior. Your parenthetical ("which may be simply trying to avoid being indef blocked") is spot on. That's exactly what he's doing. You should also note in the wall of text (why he has to subject this board to that as he's done elsewhere is beyond me) that not only does he "assume" he is he not going to be blocked but even that the ban will be lifted. Such chutzpah. And it's intentional. There's very little Ijon does that isn't thought out. His problem is he underestimates his audience. The idea that any of this was a "mistake" is implausible. Thus, a one-month block is only delaying the inevitable. But it's your call, and erring on the side of leniency and assuming some good faith is rarely a bad thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it costs us nothing to try. If he is tries to bypass the block, or comes back with the same attitude, I will be happy to revisit it. He is a newish user, and hopefully this "shot across the bow" will cause him to take notice. I prefer giving everyone one extra chance to conform to community standards when there is any hope. If he fails to have an epiphany during this break, well, blocks are cheap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor still has a lot of soapboxing on his page: "My research is based on being on the receiving end of many personal attacks and other uncivil behavior from several editors, and from browsing various user and article talk pages, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) archives, WP:ANI archives and other archives, and various additional boards (e.g. civility board, administrators' boards, dispute resolution, arbitration etc). There, I observed the behavior of several editors with an specially long history of extremely nasty, hostile and disruptive behavior, including: lack of respect for other editors, personal attacks, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, casting aspersions on others and using offensive language (including, but not limited to, abusive, rude, insulting, derogatory or sarcastic language), gaming the system, stonewalling, creating and spreading Wikidrama and World Wrestling Federation-style melodrama, using wordplay formulated to mock other users, and other various forms of disruptive editing and disruptive behavior -- some very sophisticated, some more crude.". IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That is all from before the block, and he hasn't commented since being blocked. I'm inclined to leave well enough alone and let him make the first move, hoping it will be one in the right direction. If any of it is genuinely personal attacks, then redacting it would be fine. Otherwise, I prefer to not antagonize the situation and offer a fair chance for him to see the error in his methods. No need to poke a bear once you have confined him to the talk page cage, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin; image issues

Experienced image policy editors badly wanted at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin/Archive 8#Biases. In addition, the image File:Trayvon Martin.jpg which I removed from the article was loaded by a short term editor as "own work" but I have serious doubts about that. Not sure whether to take that to the NFCN or not, I have no experience with that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it as a copyvio.©Geni 02:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

thank you; I removed it from the article as a probable copyvio. Would you be so kind as to voice your views at the article talk page? An editor is stating his belief that IAR covers violating the image use policy. I am involved and I am concerned this will become a problem. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been working with images a lot lately so I have reviewed the current set of images and posted an opinion on the article's talk page. Hope this helps. -- Dianna (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope so too. I am deeply concerned when I see someone using IAR in a discussion about copyright and fair use images. Needless to say, I would appreciate anyone else who wishes to take a look and leave an opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

An underage user has outed themselves

Page deleted. 28bytes (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Mustafa_ejero has posted personally identifying information on their user page, including a photo, despite being under the age of 18. Worth looking into. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 05:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Why? Doc talk 05:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Simply announcing how old you are is not a big deal. If he gave his home phone number and address, I would be inclined to get rid of the page, but this is nothing serious. I'm sure not everyone will agree with me, but that's my opinion anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I assumed Wikipedia had a policy on underage users giving out identifying information. That, and I originally thought this was a COPPA issue, but I misread the age cut-off for COPPA. Apologies. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 05:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC) For the record, if there was a <13 year old user who identified themselves, or a <18 year old user who gave out too much public info, that goes to oversight, not a highly-trafficed place like ANI. --Rschen7754 05:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Yes, please. Contact your friendly local neighborhood admin before drawing attention to it here. Doc talk 05:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Not exactly, it goes to oversight: WP:RFO --Rschen7754 05:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Kollyfan

Hello. Over the past few days, the mentioned user Kollyfan (talk · contribs) has been making large-scale edits to a number of articles, which usually pertain to removing large amounts of factual content along with sources with usually misleading edit summaries from articles related to Tamil cinema (a branch of Indian cinema). It is evident from his contributions that the account is primarily used only to edit/remove box office data pertaining to the specific branch of articles I mentioned above, bordering on WP:SPA. Indeed, it is over a year old, and has gone through a couple of blocks due to personal attacks and edit-warring which arose due to heated disagreement over the same topic.

The user has rarely touched a talk page over the recent past, even though one can be pretty sure that he knows the level of subjectivity his edits carry and that he must get consensus first, as he has had a lifetime experience of disagreements over the same topic over the Enthiran article (that incident took place a year ago, he took a break for one year and returned a few days back, but without any change of attitude). It is high time he was given a topic ban or a further block (it is also worth noting that his past blocks were solely about disruptive behavior, whereas his editing part has failed to receive any actionable notice despite the frustration caused) since he has been told several times in the past not to remove sourced data or perform any controversial edit for that matter without consensus but still failed to abide by the advice. Please share your thoughts over this matter so that further disruption can be prevented. Thank you. Secret of success · talk 09:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see that you have approached the editor on their talk page before coming here. If you have talked extensively somewhere else, please link it. The reason we require that you try to solve the problem before coming here is because most problems can be solved outside of ANI, and ANI can often make problems worse. I see the person has been blocked before for removing this type of information, but you still must try to work it out on some talk page before filing, preferably on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe Kollyfan has been sufficiently enlightened on what is right and what is wrong here, and trying to explain things to him will not produce any result, as a great effort has been put by editors in the past on it. Explaining his edits has only lead him to lawyer his way through. Examples are available in User talk:Kollyfan and in the archives of Talk:Enthiran, where not only me, but a number of editors—including admins—have attempted to settle things right. This issue had temporarily stopped because he took a one-year wikibreak and has risen again as he has come back with his usual standards. Secret of success · talk 13:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess what I am saying is that you need to provide better info here. I see him making some changes on pages, but I'm not inclined to dig through every single edit and try to figure out his motivation. His previous blocks were for edit warring and such, but I can't go block him for something he was already blocked for. If he is edit warring, you need to take it to WP:AN3. If you just disagree with his edits, WP:DRN is for dispute resolution. Unless he is doing something actionable, I'm not sure what I can do here. You haven't said much except he is doing something you don't like, nor provided any diffs to some kind of abusive behavior recently. I can't read your mind, and we don't settle dispute resolutions at ANI, we just handle behavioral problems, ie: Incidents, the I in ANI. You say he was told to not remove info, but was it at DRN or just one users opinion? How can I tell there is a genuine consensus against his actions? Without specific claims and diffs, I can't tell what the complaint is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IP 74.87.9.114

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 Special:Contributions/74.87.9.114. Practically a vandalism-only account, specializing in blanking, with a preference for blanking interwiki links. Has been warned many times and been blocked before: see User talk:74.87.9.114.

Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the static IP for three months, which not coincidentally is the same time period they have been disrupting Wikipedia with their random section blanking.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Violation of topic ban by User:DeknMike

User:DeknMike was banned on 22 May 2012 from all content related to Messianic Judaism and related topics for one year on as per here. With this edit, he clearly violated that ban. It is a comparatively minor matter, admittedly, but it does violate the ban. To my eyes, personally, the fact that he was even watching the pages he has been banned from to make the edit at all is as troubling as the edit itself. I believe a block is called for under the circumstances, but am not sure that, as the person who requested the ban in the first place, I am myself necessarily in a position to determine the appropriate length. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? First asking for a ban and now trying to hammer him for an small layout matter? This looks like harrassing and following around. The Banner _talk 17:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, a block is not called for. The ban was for POV pushing, and the edit was a column tweak. Prudent? No. A technical violation? Yes. A bad faith edit? Don't see how. NE Ent 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this was rather hastily shut down, perhaps because John Carter slightly mis-stated the issue in question. but the issue wasn't dealt with. DeknMike's topic ban was quite clear: "User:DeknMike is topic banned from Messianic Judaism and related pages for one year. He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles". The ban was not for "content related to Messianic Judaism and related topics" - rather it was editing those articles. DeknMike is quite well aware that this applies to any edits he makes; in the past, when he's tried this kind of thing before, he's been notified and reverted himself. He's engaging in breaching experiments: trying to see exactly what he can get away with. The question here is whether to give a final warning, or to sanction. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you reverted my closure, I'll restate what I said there: de minimis non curat praetor. To block someone over such an edit is process wonkery at its finest. Call it IAR, call it commonsense, this thread should be closed now. By the way, if DeknMike (talk · contribs) were to be blocked over that edit, I would immediately unblock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Threatening to start a wheel war? That doesn't seem like prudent administrative behavior. Rather than escalating this, why not step back for a bit and look at the bigger picture: Wikipedia is filled with people who receive topic bans, and a certain percentage of them engage in breaching experiments, trying to see just how far they can break the terms of their ban before people are willing to take action. This, of course, wastes the time of others who then have to wade through these edits, trying to decide exactly how far the person has violated his ban, and whether it is worth pursuing - which is, of course, the whole intent of the breacher. DeknMike has been banned from all edits - not just "good" edits or "harmless" edits, but from all edits, and for good reason. He has been given a protocol for getting "harmless" changes made to the article; he has been explicitly told, in the terms of his ban, to propose such changes on the article's talk page. Instead, he has chosen to thumb his nose at all those who spent (or in reality, wasted) a good deal of time dealing with his inappropriate behavior in the first place. Claiming that these obvious provocations should be ignored could itself be seen as "process wonkery at its finest". Again, the question here is whether he is simply warned not to do this again, or is actually sanctioned, so he realizes this time-wasting isn't appreciated. Which will it be? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, your comment is completely out of line. Topic bans are bright-line situations: they say "don't touch this, or you will be blocked". There's no reason for a topic-banned editor to so much as adjust the width of a space within the scope of his topic ban. Actual editing blocks are the natural progression for someone that doesn't understand that concept.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the edit is a violation of the letter of the topic ban, correct? And the edit clearly can be seen as a breaching experiment. If the edit is allowed to go unremarked, the message being sent is formatting changes in violation of the letter of the topic ban are allowed. The problem is that formatting changes can change the message conveyed by the article. Simple "formatting changes" such as applying a different way of quoting something, or greying something out, or using a larger font, etc. can have a significant change in the emphasis an article gives to certain content, without stepping outside "formatting changes." Besides, the original intent of the topic ban was to have DeknMike gain experience editing in other areas with different editors from the ones he was working with in this topic area. Allowing "formatting changes" is in invitation to allow further, possibly disruptive edits in this topic area, undermining the therapeutic intent of the original topic ban. I don't really have an answer as to whether this is block-able or not, but DeknMike has already made two previous MJ-related article content edits in violation of his topic ban. If those two previous incidents didn't happen, a simple warning here might be sufficient, but I think we're beyond that now. Zad68 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous topic-ban violation problems:

1. List of Messianic Jewish organizations, 22 June, handled by AniMate (original topic-ban closer) here, with a warning and clarifying instructions, "Your topic ban was very specific about what kinds of edits were acceptable. You should not edit the articles, but you may participate in discussion on article talk pages."
2. Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, 17 August, instead of reporting I asked him to self-revert here and he did.

Zad68 20:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked DeknMike until he agrees to follow the terms of his topic ban. Might be a 10 minute block, might be forever ... his choice.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a false dichotomy that anything which is not blocked for is permitted. The ban statement provided by AniMate did not specify a sanction, and WP:BAN does not specify how topic bans are to be enforced. John Carter could have simply reverted the edit, or raised the discussion on the editor's talk and asked them to self revert, or have contacted AniMate. Instead -- speaking of technical policy violations -- they appear to have started an ANI thread (contrary to the discuss with editor first guidance at the top of this page) and canvassed Jayig [30] NE Ent 21:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

They've tried those approaches twice before, and the problem continues. This seems to be a reasonable escalation.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Arguable, as the nature of the edits was different (content vs. format), but not unreasonable. Any comment on the canvassing selection notification of other editors? NE Ent 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Corrected NE Ent 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a few, actually. First, I would very much appreciate a clear explanation of exactly how my comment to Jayjg qualifes as canvassing as per WP:CANVASS. I do not believe telling an individual who had been significantly involved in the matters which had led to the ban being placed who is also one of our most respected editors and an admin that a discussion regarding the matter he had been involved in is canvassing. Otherwise, I myself believe that there might perhaps be a rather prejudicial rush to judgment on the part of one of those commenting here, and I believe that it is not unreasonable to request that others not raise apparently unfounded allegations in prejudicial terms, such as have been rather clearly done above. And I believe it is worth noting that I only did this action after having received more than one e-mail regarding this matter from different parties. Also, I should note that I had myself basically stopped watching the discussion after Salvio closed it earlier until I saw DeknMike had been blocked indefinitely. Although I did not myself say this earlier, for fear of prejudicing the outcome, I myself thought that maybe a sanction of one week might be the longest I myself would support given the nature of the edit, and I wouldn't have objected if it were even shorter than that. I am sorry if I sound irritated, but I honestly thought people who commented here might actually be capable of using loaded language would actually be able to use it in a way which indicated they were familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines. Evidently, I may have been wrong in drawing that conclusion. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, Zad68, ThatPeskyCommoner, In incti occuli, Secretlondon, Malleus Fatorum, A sniper, Avi, Plot Spoiler, Evanh2008, brewcrewer, Wikid77d, and MastCell commented on the ANI discussion and AniMate closed it and placed the ban. Of that group, JohnCarter only notified Jayjg. As ANI has 5628 watchers, it's hard to see a justification for notifying one specific administrator. NE Ent 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Informing individuals who have been involved in issues previously is not WP:CANVASS, by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it is recommended practice. Feel free to notify any others you feel were left out. In any event, this is not relevant to what sanction is appropriate for DeknMike. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) FWIW, I was going to clean up some grammatical problems in earlier comments before others commented further. But it is also worth noting that Jayjg had been involved in the previous discussion on the article talk pages, which the others were not. I think that would have been obvious to anyone who might have made an effort to look that far into the history of the matter, and it is also acceptable as per WP:CANVASS to notify some of those who had been significantly involved in those discussions which led to the postings here. I otherwise agree that this line of discussion is in no way relevant to the topic of this thread, and honestly, think it really only serves to demonstrate the lack of familiarity with policies and guidelines of some individuals who have commented. If they believe that there is a serious reason to raise allegations of canvassing, I believe that it is reasonable to ask them to demonstrate exactly how the actions involved qualify under WP:CANVASS, and probably to raise that discussion in a separate thread. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." NE Ent 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No evidence has been shown that Jayjg was chosen based on his opinions, but rather based on his prior knowledge of the discussion from the article talk pages. The comment above is in no way demonstrably relevant to this discussion. More than one editor has commented above that these accusations, which are as of yet still not clearly founded and seem to border on personal attacks, have any clear relevance to this discussion. If you think you have a basis for a complaint, as has already been said, please start a separate section for it. Otherwise, these dubiously supported which have no direct relevance to the subject of this thread really should stop. If you wish to file a formal complaint, it is pretty much standard practice to start a separate subthread at least. But, really, the above seems to me to be grasping at straws. Should this continue, I think that it would not be unreasonable for me to start a separate subthread regarding the abusive use of this page by the above editor. John Carter (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• An indefinite block for a technical change which had no impact on the content of the article? One which was made on the seventh and where the author hasn't edited since the eighth? And when an uninvolved admin has already reviewed the situation and declined to take action in no uncertain terms? This is definitely one of the poorest blocks I have ever seen and I fully intend to overturn it. While it's true that topic bans do certainly mean "do not edit a given page", we are not bots and we can apply commonsense and don't have to mechanically apply the rules, which is what WP:IAR/WP:NOTBURO are all about. That edit warranted a warning at most, but certainly not a block. Much less an indefinite one. To an uninvolved observer, this looks like a mere show of force. That's why I'll give Kww time to self-revert, but if he chooses not to do so, I will. And, before someone goes around saying I'll be wheel warring: per WP:WHEEL, to undo a fellow administrator's action is not wheel warring. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's only indefinite in time, Salvio. As I said above, it will last precisely as long as DeknMike chooses: all he has to do to get unblocked is agree to abide his topic ban. You are right that it wouldn't be wheel-warring, but it would still be wrong of you to undo a perfectly sound block with such a reasonable unblock condition. If DeknMike won't agree to conform to his topic ban, why should he be permitted to edit?—Kww(talk) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, sorry, but I didn't see you respond to the points being raised. A block requiring DeknMike to agree by writing in his own words that he understands the topic-ban--"He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles." (copied verbatim off of his User Talk page, emphasis mine)--seems a reasonable step, based on

1. DeknMike's previous two topic-ban violations
2. The danger that sending the message that 'technical changes are allowed' could result in changes in the meaning conveyed by an article (as discussed above)
3. The intent of the original topic ban--to get DeknMike to start working collaboratively with editors in other areas so that he better understands WP:V. (Why couldn't he have accomplished his change through an edit request to the article Talk page?)

Could you please address these points? Cheers... Zad68 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread is an overreaction. What should (ideally) have happened was a user talk page message along the lines of What the heck are you doing? You know you're under a topic ban. I know you weren't changing content but just editing the page means someone is going to have to check the diff. You can't make any edits to the article, okay? That said, I think Kww's block, while unnecessary, was well-done: They specifically disavowed "ownership" of it, allowing any admin to unblock, and clearly laid out what DeknMike needs to say in an unblock request to resume editing. As an unblock at this point would not send a clear, consistent message to DeknMike, I think it would be counterproductive. NE Ent 15:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

May I point out:

1. AniMate was the closer of the original topic ban
2. DeknMike's first topic-ban violation (diff) was to the article List of Messianic Jewish organizations
3. AniMate's response to this included "the next time you violate your topic ban will result in a block"
4. This topic-ban violation was at this same article, List of Messianic Jewish organizations: diff

Wouldn't not blocking or undoing the block be undermining AniMate's previous actions on this without discussion? I will invite AniMate to this discussion. Zad68 15:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm away from keyboard for the next 8 hours or so.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the block was justifiably preventative but DeknMike should be unblocked if he agrees to completely stay away from the topic. Unlike the incident from June, this wasn't a major violation. Kww summarized the incident well in his block message. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• I note that BWilkins has declined DeknMike's unblock request. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• With the reasoning "A minor format change to an article that is part of your topic ban is as flagrant as it gets." NE Ent 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• BWilkins? Oh, you mean that guy who said he was going to turn in his tools for 6 months? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Salvio: I'm waiting to see if you have the integrity to follow through on your promise to unblock. Something tells me I'm going to be disappointed but certainly not surprised. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The least possible reaction is the best possible reaction, in this instance. A note on a Talk page of an article or a note on a User page is all that this tempest in a teapot should have amounted to. Sorry but this is way overboard. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as "might be a ten minute block, might be forever", I'd like to point out that this topic-ban expires on 22 May 2013. So if this user chooses to take the high road by refusing to kiss Kww's ass and beg to be unblocked, I don't see how this "indefinite" block can continue past the expiration of the topic-ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it can. You've obviously not been around Wikipeida long enough. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no demand for groveling, or any expectation of it either. All he has to say is "I agree to abide by my topic ban". He's been warned on two previous violations, so there's no particular reason to believe that a third warning would have had any effect. If he posts an unblock request on 23 May 2013, it will be considered. I won't grant it, because I have no use for editors that won't abide by consensus, but others might.—Kww(talk) 04:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, someone surely will. (Salvio, sadly seems to have lost his nerve.) All this required was at most, a talk-page note: "This was a violation of the topic-ban and if you perform such an edit again, you'll be blocked". Instead, you have blocked first, while stating the user can be unblocked once he genuflects before you and promises to be good. Blocking this user was an entirely unnecesary vulgar display of power. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where this was already his third offense, and the warning he received on his second offense said he would be blocked if he did it again? Wouldn't it be pretty pathetic to just keep warning him that he will be blocked the next time, and never actually do it?—Kww(talk) 05:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

He states[31] The latest was not a 'breaching experiment,' but simply added two lines to help a column line up, fixing an error other editors had previously ignored. Such a minor infraction! I have kept away from all discussions regarding doctrine or history, instead taking what little time I now spend on Wikipedia on improving discussions about the historic region of Southeast Virginia, on SEC Regulation D, etc. This indefinite block on all edits is over the top vindictive in that while I vehemently disagreed with the results of the ban, I have honored the spirit, and (except when I forget in those 3 trivial edits) even the letter of the ban for the main topic at hand. Request the block be removed, and the editors involved get back to improving Wikipedia. and is told "A minor format change to an article that is part of your topic ban is as flagrant as it gets'." (emphasis mine). Whatever point, whatever disruption to the encyclopedia is being prevented, has been made. Unblocking him wouldn't be pathetic, it would be humane. It would be honoring the spirit of Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. I can't see how a table formatting edit is hurting Wikipedia. Continuing to enforce the ban because he didn't say the right magic words -- which the blocking statement didn't actually tell him -- is the epitome of what we're not supposed to be bureaucratic. NE Ent 10:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude, did you see how many people voted for the Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse? Admin hands are completely tied these days. Who'd wanna run for RfA under such circumstances? Bots only. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Salvio (an administrator) wisely closed the thread, as no administrative intervention was necessary. No one's hands were tied. No one had to reopen the thread and no one had to block this user. Even now, no one's hands are tied. Any admin could step in and reverse this completely unnecessary block. But these folks consider themselves infallible to the degree that even the admin who had previously vowed to undo any block that was placed is now unwilling to touch it. It is the users whose hands are tied. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio has not contributed since the 12th there's no evidence about what he will or will not do. NE Ent 13:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that "The latest was not a 'breaching experiment'…" because the nature of a "breaching experiment" is that it is easily deniable. Bus stop (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request posted

Mike has just posted a reasonable-looking unblock request. If an admin would process that, it would obviate the need for any further discussion here and we can get back to editing... Zad68 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DeknMike now unblocked. Zad68 14:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, again

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

---

I've been caught in a near-edit war over whether to blank the page and put a {{blocked user}} tag on User:StillStanding-247. Given that he made a death threat and was blocked with a wide consensus, I didn't think this would be contentious... but evidently, it is, and it's considered 'grave dancing'. I'd appreciate constructive comments on my actions here (and not a new battle about StillStanding's actions). Thanks to everyone in advance. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears what's being viewed as contentious is not the placing of the {{blocked user}} tag, but rather the page blanking. Perhaps just place the block tag at the top of the page, and leave it at that? Mojoworker (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What's your reasons for blanking his page? He's not banned. Caden ^cool 08:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Good call, ed. Page should be blanked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Horrible, childish call. As I told Ed, if his need to gravedance is truly that overwhelming, he should seek a formal community ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bad call. But grave dancing over it is just plain wrong, especially by an admin. Caden ^cool 09:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Amen. Especially an admin who claims "it's no big deal", yet will stop at nothing to ensure his precious badge of shame stays in place. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Are you sure you got enough bad faith between the two of you? This sort of nonsense, this terminology, is precisely why I think this should be a page for administrators, like the title suggests--not a page where everyone gets to spew their venom. Childish indeed. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Ed's initial post is quite misleading. While there was wide consensus for the block, there was also wide consensus that there was no credible death-threat. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup Ed's post is very misleading. Unacceptable from an admin. Caden ^cool 09:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed asserts "he made a death threat", and then goes on to say he doesn't want "a new battle about [Still*'s] actions". Then stop making accusations! (Still* made no such threat. He told a joke. His joke became twisted & manufactured into something else by others.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this tag should be controversial. StillStanding-247 was indef blocked for a good reason and has had their talk page locked for abusing it following the block. As far as I'm aware it's a common practice (though not compulsory) to mark the user pages of editors in this situation with this tag. Unless there are some issues with StillStanding-247's talk page I'm not aware of, I'd suggest that it be unblanked as it provides useful evidence of why the block was imposed and then broadened. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Ed17's post. I can't see any reference in the "edit war" to the blocked user tag. Ed17 deleted the whole page with the edit summary "unneeded". His other edit is again to delete the whole page with the edit summary "I've explained my actions, and there is still no compelling reason to restore the page. Please feel free to bring it up on my talk page or request wider input if you disagree." The edit summaries are about page blanking not the blocked user tag, which seems not to be referred to by anybody. I can't see any reason to blank the page - that would be unusual wouldn't it? DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit war is clearly visible in the user page's history [32] (it's also important to stress that Ed didn't 'delete' anything; he replaced the page's content with the tag. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the edit war is clearly visible. I saw it. Ok, he deleted the whole content of the page, not the page. Nice semantic spot there. But his edit summaries are about the page blanking. It's obvious from the edit summaries that the tag is not the issue, it's the page blanking. So why did he open this claiming it's about the tag? DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I took the issues as related, so my opening post was meant as a shortened form of 'blanking the page and putting a blocked user tag'. As this seems to be a point of confusion, I'll add that now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not gravedancing, and I support replacing the page's content with the tag. GiantSnowman 11:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personally, never saw the point in sticking labels on pages -- anyone can add the label, the good information --including the reason for the block -- is in the block log, and I'm not aware of any policy requiring such labels -- it's certainly not in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy, and strikes me as just Scarlet letter gravedancing. With regards to page blanking, a discussion regarding the similar situation of a banned user Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_6#User_pages resulted with the tag being added to the existing material on the page. The {{blocked user}} template instructions themselves suggest While everyone can add this tag, it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't. So I'd say its acceptable for Ed17 to add the template. I really don't understand how that improves Wikipedia, and have yet to read an argument that's doesn't strike me some variant of this editor was bad so we have to punish them. NE Ent 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no policy reason, no is it common practice, for the redirection of the talk page to the user page -- that should be reverted. NE Ent 11:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on that point. GiantSnowman 11:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The user in question egregiously violated Wikipedia policies, and is unlikely to return. Nonetheless, the block notice should remain on the talk page, and the main user page should be blanked (the reverse of the admin action). IIRC, removal of a block notice is against "da rules", and the current state of the user page appears to show that user in good standing with barnstars. IIRC also, a person blocked for threatening violence is an eensy weensy bit unlikely to be welcomed with open arms, so the distinction here bewteen "blocked" and "banned" is not very strong. Meanwhile "gravedancing" is not the issue here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Still* made no such threat. Please exercise better responsibility when comes to accusing others of something so serious. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've struck the text above, as it wasn't a direct threat, but it was the catalyst for his indefinite block. Context and links are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#StillStanding-247_discussing_my_murder. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso: While not a threat, joking about my murder has the exact same chilling effect. If not, I have a whole lot of murders to joke about. Who should I start with?--v/r - TP 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're making the mistake, TParis, of assuming I'm in defence of Still*'s joke, that I approve of his telling it. (I'm not, and I don't.) But it's a whole other thing, to turn it into something it wasn't, as several have tried to do. (That kind of irresponsiblity, I guess, is okay by you? Because it isn't with me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never said it was a threat. In fact, when I created the original ANI thread, I had to think of how to say it because it wasn't a threat. But it was certainly chilling and it bothered me. I shrugged off a lot of things that were said about me that week that I could've taken to ANI. The joking about my murder bothered me. My question is: did StillStanding purposefully portray it as a joke to subvert WP:NPA? He was quite talented at getting around WP:NPOV and WP:EW when it didn't suit him. I'm not sure. But I've said several times it wasn't a threat, as far as threats go. So I'm not sure how I am turning it into something or supporting folks turning it into something. What likely happened is folks diverted to the word threat for the sake of ease of associating a thought with verbiage we already use often here. ie. they misspoke and never went back to correct it. That makes more sense to me. Whether there is a block notice or not doesn't matter to me. But to say that the 'joke' was not a threat and therefore acceptable (which you may or may not have said, but others have) doesn't leave me with the most comforting feeling about folks sensibilities.--v/r - TP 23:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I already said I didn't approve of Still*'s joke. (How does that turn into "to say that the 'joke' was [...] acceptable (which you may or may not have said [...]"? It doesn't.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• The block notice must stay there while he is blocked as does any relevant and directly related discussion about the block (explanation by the blocking admin,etc), any portion that appears to be the death-threat/joke/whateveryouwanttocallit should be hatted or deleted, but the rest of it the page should be able to stay unless there is some other reason to delete. He isn't banned, he is still a member of the community according to our own policies, so he enjoys the right to use his talk page, even if it is limited to Wikipedia related (and not just block related) discussions. If any part of a post need removing (attacks, etc.) then those individual parts can be redacted. If he uses the page for purely soapboxing, then access can be removed. No reason to treat the case any different than any other simple block case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be clarified that blanking a page isn't grave dancing. Adding to it could easily be, but a simple blanking cannot logically be. Based on that, all the silliness can go away. The only other point is the template, which shouldn't be controversial to add, either. Where's the problem? --Nouniquenames 18:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's not really grave dancing, but there's no policy-based reason for blanking a blocked editor's page. Doing so has only stirred up more needless drama. Although I think it was blanked in good faith, it would be wise to leave it intact. I also think that the talk page should be restored, but protected if necessary. Dennis Brown's comments are spot-on. - MrX 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh. Restore the pages, add the blocked templates and be done with it. Since SS is blocked from editing the talk page there is no problem. If this editor's off-wiki activities lead others to use this page inapproriately, then those editors can be dealt with if/when that occurs. The only thing this is doing is feeding the zombies who want to eat your brains and gain your knowledge.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  18:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page to its state and the time of the block and redacted the comments about terminating another human's life. I've also readded the {{blocked user}} template to the user page -- although I personally disagree with I believe current consensusiness tends towards its inclusion if the blocking admin wants to put it there. NE Ent 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider this, nor should anyone else, as supporting or endorsing StillStanding's actions. I just think we should follow a consistent protocol for altering the state of Wikipedia pages designated for reference to banned/likely defacto banned users, and fail to see either how blanking improves Wikipedia or is supported by any documented policy. NE Ent 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I just noticed his talk page access had been taken away, not sure why. Was there not a template to that effect explaining the additional block terms? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  Apparently he posted a private e-mail from another editor. Looks like that edit was deleted and talk page access removed at that time. Arkon (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • His talk page access was revoked for what I can only assume was soapboxing. He then resorted to socking via ip to avoid the block.   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• I just found out about this topic. Before finding out, on the userpage, I reverted back to Ed's last version with a threat in my edit summary to leave the page alone. When I saw the changes to the talk page, I noticed NE Ent's helpful link in the edit summary to this topic. I haven't touched that page but came here. I don't see any consensus here for restoring any content to the userpage, so I don't see why people are screwing with it. As for the talk page, I agree that it shouldn't redirect to the userpage. The only thing that must be kept are any block notices. As for the rest of the garbage on the page, for those who think we can only remove material if he's banned, that seems to be his desire, anyway: "I am not ever going to apologize for the actions of others. Therefore, this indef block might as well be a community ban." That said, I'll leave the talk page alone pending a consensus as to what to do with it (if ever one is achieved).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason, grounded in policy, that you believe the user page should be blanked? Is there something on that page that is harmful to the community or the project? It seems that there may be a desire to make this block punitive. - MrX 01:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's just the gravedancing argument put in a slightly different way. I agree with the others that there's no evidence of gravedancing or punitive. I also don't see why the fellow's barnstars (including one from you, btw) need to be visible. At the same time, I frankly don't care much as long as the material there isn't being used as an historical platform for the user, but I would defer to the discretion of the blocking admin absent some compelling reason not to. I note that all of the changes to the userpage after Ed made a determination came from non-admins. Why is that? I think this whole discussion is generally a waste of our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly a grave dancing argument. It's a question about why you felt it necessary to blank the page, which you have artfully evaded with a dash of innuendo. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive; they're supposed to be preventative. It seems pretty simple to me: don't blank the page because there is no legitimate reason to do so. - MrX 02:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a misinterpretation re what Still* wrote to say he "seems to desire a ban". He felt the indef block was unjustified and refused to follow the current norm he perceived at WP of fabricating an admission of misdeed in trade for an unblock. (His statement attempted to draw attention to the predicament imposed on him, i.e. the implication of a process-gone-wrong. Nothing more.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The guy was disruptive enough to be indefinitely blocked AND to have his talk page access revoked. Why anyone cares whether his userpage has barnstars (I would think they would be embarrassing to those who placed them there) or whether his talk page has historical discussion is truly beyond me. I don't think any of what Ed did was gravedancing. What I really think is there are editors who for unfathomable reasons want to defend him. IF there is a consensus on what to do, regardless of my views, I will defer to it, but at the moment there is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't particularly see the point of these user page block banners, but if Ed, as the blocking admin, wants to put one there, I'd be willing to defer to his admin discretion on that. It's certainly less obnoxious than some random shmoe slapping a banner on there against the wishes of the blocking admin, which occasionally happens. 28bytes (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Concisely put, and I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got Nick-D, DeCausa, myself, Giant Snowman, Dennis Brown, MrX, and little green rosetta disagreeing with the talk page blanking, and Nouniquenames (possibly) agreeing with it, and no one providing a policy reason for blanking. Bbb23, who has admitted reverting the last edit without grokking the edit summary, is the one acting against consensus. NE Ent 03:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I really shouldn't look at Wikipedia this late at night; all it ever does is rile me up. NE Ent, your little summation is way off the mark. I did not touch the talk page. I reverted the userpage. And your little deal about who is for what is misleading as some of those editors referred to the talk page, and some referred to to both the user and talk pages. But if you say that I acted against consensus, you have to find a consensus for the user page because that's all I did. My reversion occurred before I read this really stupid topic. I'm happy that the Blade locked the article, and I don't give a shit that it is not "my" version because there never was a "my" version. The only reason I reverted - at the time - was because of the ridiculous edit-war among non-admins and the lack of deference to Ed's actions. This is my last comment here, which I'll no doubt regret, because I'm fed up with the whole thing. I'm going off-wiki again, take a break from this drama-infested madhouse, and try to calm down. It really is true that anger sometimes is inversely proportional to the importance of the problem. I need to get upset about something that actually matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely screwed that up, -- confused your edit of user, and user talk page. Facepalm NE Ent 10:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Lack of deference to Ed's actions"? Seriously? When I supported your RfA Bbb23, I really didn't think you were going to be one of the rank-and-file "admins can do no wrong" bunch. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any dispute at this point that this was a troll account? --Malerooster (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Malerooster is almost certainly someone's sockpuppet. That's a conversation for another page; I just wanted to make users here aware of it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the cock is the one trolling, as he has restored the gravedancing. I think I'm at 3RR (not going to count and not going to risk making some child's day); could someone please revert? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to Mr. X for reverting, and kudos to Blade for not reverting to the wrong version before protecting. There may be hope for this place yet! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the 'kid' isn't the one hitting the rollback button. No sir, definitely not.--v/r - TP 04:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record I absolutely don't care one way or another what this guy's userpage contains, I just wanted to put a lid on things before I had to hand out blocks. However this is ultimately resolved is fine by me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I support blanking. What is the point of having Still's thoughts when he is blocked from editing them himself and during his block there is no reason to show anything he posted on his user page. TFD (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason not to show anything he posted on his user page. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is needed

There really needs to be a community consensus on this issue on whether we should or should not blank user pages after permanent blocking. Because, at this point, such things are applied haphazardly and, generally, well-liked users have people that defend them and stop the blanking of the page, while everyone else gets their pages blanked. Either we blank all of them or we blank none of them, but the current unequal treatment is discriminatory, one way or another. Silverseren^C 08:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• We already have consensus, I explained it above. It is based on the actual policy. Blocked isn't the same as banned. There was a banned discussion, and it was opposed so he is not banned. He is still a member of the community. He is not permanently blocked, he is indef blocked and he has the opportunity to get unblocked. Why people are seeking exceptions to the policy in this one case, I have no idea. We don't need a new consensus, we rely on the existing one, ie: policy. Sockpuppets and community banned users generally have their pages blanked, run-of-the-mill blocks do not except in extraordinary circumstances. As no one has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, the talk page was restored, then trimmed of offensive material that we would normally redact. Nothing more to see here, time to move along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• So, page blanking should only be done in the cases of community banned users and sockpuppets? If that's the rule, then i'm fine with it. I just want it to be enforced evenly, because there are still a lot of cases where page blankings are also given when they shouldn't be, if we're following that rule. Silverseren^C 16:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and what about Arbcom blocks? Since most of those are either for a time limit or are indefinite (but subject to a requested return under an appeal to WP:BASC), their pages shouldn't be blanked, correct? This is something that needs to be fixed because, from what i've seen, most of the users that fall under this have their pages blanked (again, unless the user has a lot of wiki friends that revert the blanking). Silverseren^C 16:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are correct, Silver. There is indeed a lot of cases where page-blankings are given when they shouldn't be. Hopefully this will be a good first step toward putting a stop to such foolishness. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Arb cases as well. That Ed blanked it shouldn't be a big deal and wasn't "wrong", just not optimal. I don't think anyone needs to get on his case over it. I'm just saying there generally isn't a need except in these extreme cases, or it should be in the edit summary. My interest is the same, consistency, but we have to acknowledge that the policies are a little cloudy on some of this, so we should be kind and polite when someone does it and we disagree. My main reason for not wanting to blank pages except where needed is due to causing unnecessary drama or discussion. IE: leave well enough alone. But it shouldn't be seen as a big deal either way, and someone could probably just go ahead and archive this up. I think we all have a general idea of what the preferred and usual circumstances for blanking are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012 (Copyright/BLP Issues)

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.

---

• Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Corinne.L.Clark (talk · contribs)

POV piece with original research, poor sourcing. Have nominated this for AfD, and requested intervention at AIV, since article's creator continues to remove maintenance templates, ignores warnings, and won't discuss. Copyright violations and WP:BLP concerns as well. This is a WP:SPA intent on using Wikipedia to make a point. JNW (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed copyright vio and BLP. But someone need to look really close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Also looks like the User is edit warring the BLP and copyvio back in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Blatant disparaging screed against Obama. Kill. It. With. Fire.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the G10 deletion; the article was completely irredeemable thus I've also deleted the userspace copy. I'm somewhat questioning my own judgment in warning instead of blocking the user outright, as I doubt they'll come around given the brazenness of this incident. They should undoubtedly be indeffed if any hint of this POV-pushing behavior returns. Swarm ^X 07:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to those who joined the AfD discussion, and to Xymmax, the closing administrator. JNW (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

99.185.56.156

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 user from the IP address 99.185.56.156 has been a persistent problem in the community. The user insists on insulting other editors (especially with the word "liberal"), vandalizing pages with political propaganda, and refusing to discuss matters civilly. I reverted the user's recent comment on my talk page as vandalism. The user has a history of disrespectful editing and has been warned many times. I respectfully request an administrator's intervention with regards to this user. --Ðrdak (T) 04:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Useless. Nothing but "liberal baiting". Has had 2 blocks and numerous complaints in the last 6 months. Should be blocked for a long stretch and talk page should be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for six months. This user's purpose here is obviously incompatible with the project. Swarm ^X 06:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Violation of topic ban by User:DeknMike

User:DeknMike was banned on 22 May 2012 from all content related to Messianic Judaism and related topics for one year on as per here. With this edit, he clearly violated that ban. It is a comparatively minor matter, admittedly, but it does violate the ban. To my eyes, personally, the fact that he was even watching the pages he has been banned from to make the edit at all is as troubling as the edit itself. I believe a block is called for under the circumstances, but am not sure that, as the person who requested the ban in the first place, I am myself necessarily in a position to determine the appropriate length. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? First asking for a ban and now trying to hammer him for an small layout matter? This looks like harrassing and following around. The Banner _talk 17:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, a block is not called for. The ban was for POV pushing, and the edit was a column tweak. Prudent? No. A technical violation? Yes. A bad faith edit? Don't see how. NE Ent 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this was rather hastily shut down, perhaps because John Carter slightly mis-stated the issue in question. but the issue wasn't dealt with. DeknMike's topic ban was quite clear: "User:DeknMike is topic banned from Messianic Judaism and related pages for one year. He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles". The ban was not for "content related to Messianic Judaism and related topics" - rather it was editing those articles. DeknMike is quite well aware that this applies to any edits he makes; in the past, when he's tried this kind of thing before, he's been notified and reverted himself. He's engaging in breaching experiments: trying to see exactly what he can get away with. The question here is whether to give a final warning, or to sanction. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you reverted my closure, I'll restate what I said there: de minimis non curat praetor. To block someone over such an edit is process wonkery at its finest. Call it IAR, call it commonsense, this thread should be closed now. By the way, if DeknMike (talk · contribs) were to be blocked over that edit, I would immediately unblock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Threatening to start a wheel war? That doesn't seem like prudent administrative behavior. Rather than escalating this, why not step back for a bit and look at the bigger picture: Wikipedia is filled with people who receive topic bans, and a certain percentage of them engage in breaching experiments, trying to see just how far they can break the terms of their ban before people are willing to take action. This, of course, wastes the time of others who then have to wade through these edits, trying to decide exactly how far the person has violated his ban, and whether it is worth pursuing - which is, of course, the whole intent of the breacher. DeknMike has been banned from all edits - not just "good" edits or "harmless" edits, but from all edits, and for good reason. He has been given a protocol for getting "harmless" changes made to the article; he has been explicitly told, in the terms of his ban, to propose such changes on the article's talk page. Instead, he has chosen to thumb his nose at all those who spent (or in reality, wasted) a good deal of time dealing with his inappropriate behavior in the first place. Claiming that these obvious provocations should be ignored could itself be seen as "process wonkery at its finest". Again, the question here is whether he is simply warned not to do this again, or is actually sanctioned, so he realizes this time-wasting isn't appreciated. Which will it be? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, your comment is completely out of line. Topic bans are bright-line situations: they say "don't touch this, or you will be blocked". There's no reason for a topic-banned editor to so much as adjust the width of a space within the scope of his topic ban. Actual editing blocks are the natural progression for someone that doesn't understand that concept.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the edit is a violation of the letter of the topic ban, correct? And the edit clearly can be seen as a breaching experiment. If the edit is allowed to go unremarked, the message being sent is formatting changes in violation of the letter of the topic ban are allowed. The problem is that formatting changes can change the message conveyed by the article. Simple "formatting changes" such as applying a different way of quoting something, or greying something out, or using a larger font, etc. can have a significant change in the emphasis an article gives to certain content, without stepping outside "formatting changes." Besides, the original intent of the topic ban was to have DeknMike gain experience editing in other areas with different editors from the ones he was working with in this topic area. Allowing "formatting changes" is in invitation to allow further, possibly disruptive edits in this topic area, undermining the therapeutic intent of the original topic ban. I don't really have an answer as to whether this is block-able or not, but DeknMike has already made two previous MJ-related article content edits in violation of his topic ban. If those two previous incidents didn't happen, a simple warning here might be sufficient, but I think we're beyond that now. Zad68 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous topic-ban violation problems:

1. List of Messianic Jewish organizations, 22 June, handled by AniMate (original topic-ban closer) here, with a warning and clarifying instructions, "Your topic ban was very specific about what kinds of edits were acceptable. You should not edit the articles, but you may participate in discussion on article talk pages."
2. Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, 17 August, instead of reporting I asked him to self-revert here and he did.

Zad68 20:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked DeknMike until he agrees to follow the terms of his topic ban. Might be a 10 minute block, might be forever ... his choice.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a false dichotomy that anything which is not blocked for is permitted. The ban statement provided by AniMate did not specify a sanction, and WP:BAN does not specify how topic bans are to be enforced. John Carter could have simply reverted the edit, or raised the discussion on the editor's talk and asked them to self revert, or have contacted AniMate. Instead -- speaking of technical policy violations -- they appear to have started an ANI thread (contrary to the discuss with editor first guidance at the top of this page) and canvassed Jayig [33] NE Ent 21:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

They've tried those approaches twice before, and the problem continues. This seems to be a reasonable escalation.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Arguable, as the nature of the edits was different (content vs. format), but not unreasonable. Any comment on the canvassing selection notification of other editors? NE Ent 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Corrected NE Ent 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a few, actually. First, I would very much appreciate a clear explanation of exactly how my comment to Jayjg qualifes as canvassing as per WP:CANVASS. I do not believe telling an individual who had been significantly involved in the matters which had led to the ban being placed who is also one of our most respected editors and an admin that a discussion regarding the matter he had been involved in is canvassing. Otherwise, I myself believe that there might perhaps be a rather prejudicial rush to judgment on the part of one of those commenting here, and I believe that it is not unreasonable to request that others not raise apparently unfounded allegations in prejudicial terms, such as have been rather clearly done above. And I believe it is worth noting that I only did this action after having received more than one e-mail regarding this matter from different parties. Also, I should note that I had myself basically stopped watching the discussion after Salvio closed it earlier until I saw DeknMike had been blocked indefinitely. Although I did not myself say this earlier, for fear of prejudicing the outcome, I myself thought that maybe a sanction of one week might be the longest I myself would support given the nature of the edit, and I wouldn't have objected if it were even shorter than that. I am sorry if I sound irritated, but I honestly thought people who commented here might actually be capable of using loaded language would actually be able to use it in a way which indicated they were familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines. Evidently, I may have been wrong in drawing that conclusion. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, Zad68, ThatPeskyCommoner, In incti occuli, Secretlondon, Malleus Fatorum, A sniper, Avi, Plot Spoiler, Evanh2008, brewcrewer, Wikid77d, and MastCell commented on the ANI discussion and AniMate closed it and placed the ban. Of that group, JohnCarter only notified Jayjg. As ANI has 5628 watchers, it's hard to see a justification for notifying one specific administrator. NE Ent 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Informing individuals who have been involved in issues previously is not WP:CANVASS, by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it is recommended practice. Feel free to notify any others you feel were left out. In any event, this is not relevant to what sanction is appropriate for DeknMike. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) FWIW, I was going to clean up some grammatical problems in earlier comments before others commented further. But it is also worth noting that Jayjg had been involved in the previous discussion on the article talk pages, which the others were not. I think that would have been obvious to anyone who might have made an effort to look that far into the history of the matter, and it is also acceptable as per WP:CANVASS to notify some of those who had been significantly involved in those discussions which led to the postings here. I otherwise agree that this line of discussion is in no way relevant to the topic of this thread, and honestly, think it really only serves to demonstrate the lack of familiarity with policies and guidelines of some individuals who have commented. If they believe that there is a serious reason to raise allegations of canvassing, I believe that it is reasonable to ask them to demonstrate exactly how the actions involved qualify under WP:CANVASS, and probably to raise that discussion in a separate thread. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." NE Ent 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No evidence has been shown that Jayjg was chosen based on his opinions, but rather based on his prior knowledge of the discussion from the article talk pages. The comment above is in no way demonstrably relevant to this discussion. More than one editor has commented above that these accusations, which are as of yet still not clearly founded and seem to border on personal attacks, have any clear relevance to this discussion. If you think you have a basis for a complaint, as has already been said, please start a separate section for it. Otherwise, these dubiously supported which have no direct relevance to the subject of this thread really should stop. If you wish to file a formal complaint, it is pretty much standard practice to start a separate subthread at least. But, really, the above seems to me to be grasping at straws. Should this continue, I think that it would not be unreasonable for me to start a separate subthread regarding the abusive use of this page by the above editor. John Carter (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• An indefinite block for a technical change which had no impact on the content of the article? One which was made on the seventh and where the author hasn't edited since the eighth? And when an uninvolved admin has already reviewed the situation and declined to take action in no uncertain terms? This is definitely one of the poorest blocks I have ever seen and I fully intend to overturn it. While it's true that topic bans do certainly mean "do not edit a given page", we are not bots and we can apply commonsense and don't have to mechanically apply the rules, which is what WP:IAR/WP:NOTBURO are all about. That edit warranted a warning at most, but certainly not a block. Much less an indefinite one. To an uninvolved observer, this looks like a mere show of force. That's why I'll give Kww time to self-revert, but if he chooses not to do so, I will. And, before someone goes around saying I'll be wheel warring: per WP:WHEEL, to undo a fellow administrator's action is not wheel warring. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's only indefinite in time, Salvio. As I said above, it will last precisely as long as DeknMike chooses: all he has to do to get unblocked is agree to abide his topic ban. You are right that it wouldn't be wheel-warring, but it would still be wrong of you to undo a perfectly sound block with such a reasonable unblock condition. If DeknMike won't agree to conform to his topic ban, why should he be permitted to edit?—Kww(talk) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, sorry, but I didn't see you respond to the points being raised. A block requiring DeknMike to agree by writing in his own words that he understands the topic-ban--"He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles." (copied verbatim off of his User Talk page, emphasis mine)--seems a reasonable step, based on

1. DeknMike's previous two topic-ban violations
2. The danger that sending the message that 'technical changes are allowed' could result in changes in the meaning conveyed by an article (as discussed above)
3. The intent of the original topic ban--to get DeknMike to start working collaboratively with editors in other areas so that he better understands WP:V. (Why couldn't he have accomplished his change through an edit request to the article Talk page?)

Could you please address these points? Cheers... Zad68 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread is an overreaction. What should (ideally) have happened was a user talk page message along the lines of What the heck are you doing? You know you're under a topic ban. I know you weren't changing content but just editing the page means someone is going to have to check the diff. You can't make any edits to the article, okay? That said, I think Kww's block, while unnecessary, was well-done: They specifically disavowed "ownership" of it, allowing any admin to unblock, and clearly laid out what DeknMike needs to say in an unblock request to resume editing. As an unblock at this point would not send a clear, consistent message to DeknMike, I think it would be counterproductive. NE Ent 15:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

May I point out:

1. AniMate was the closer of the original topic ban
2. DeknMike's first topic-ban violation (diff) was to the article List of Messianic Jewish organizations
3. AniMate's response to this included "the next time you violate your topic ban will result in a block"
4. This topic-ban violation was at this same article, List of Messianic Jewish organizations: diff

Wouldn't not blocking or undoing the block be undermining AniMate's previous actions on this without discussion? I will invite AniMate to this discussion. Zad68 15:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm away from keyboard for the next 8 hours or so.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the block was justifiably preventative but DeknMike should be unblocked if he agrees to completely stay away from the topic. Unlike the incident from June, this wasn't a major violation. Kww summarized the incident well in his block message. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• I note that BWilkins has declined DeknMike's unblock request. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• With the reasoning "A minor format change to an article that is part of your topic ban is as flagrant as it gets." NE Ent 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• BWilkins? Oh, you mean that guy who said he was going to turn in his tools for 6 months? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Salvio: I'm waiting to see if you have the integrity to follow through on your promise to unblock. Something tells me I'm going to be disappointed but certainly not surprised. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The least possible reaction is the best possible reaction, in this instance. A note on a Talk page of an article or a note on a User page is all that this tempest in a teapot should have amounted to. Sorry but this is way overboard. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as "might be a ten minute block, might be forever", I'd like to point out that this topic-ban expires on 22 May 2013. So if this user chooses to take the high road by refusing to kiss Kww's ass and beg to be unblocked, I don't see how this "indefinite" block can continue past the expiration of the topic-ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it can. You've obviously not been around Wikipeida long enough. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no demand for groveling, or any expectation of it either. All he has to say is "I agree to abide by my topic ban". He's been warned on two previous violations, so there's no particular reason to believe that a third warning would have had any effect. If he posts an unblock request on 23 May 2013, it will be considered. I won't grant it, because I have no use for editors that won't abide by consensus, but others might.—Kww(talk) 04:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, someone surely will. (Salvio, sadly seems to have lost his nerve.) All this required was at most, a talk-page note: "This was a violation of the topic-ban and if you perform such an edit again, you'll be blocked". Instead, you have blocked first, while stating the user can be unblocked once he genuflects before you and promises to be good. Blocking this user was an entirely unnecesary vulgar display of power. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where this was already his third offense, and the warning he received on his second offense said he would be blocked if he did it again? Wouldn't it be pretty pathetic to just keep warning him that he will be blocked the next time, and never actually do it?—Kww(talk) 05:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

He states[34] The latest was not a 'breaching experiment,' but simply added two lines to help a column line up, fixing an error other editors had previously ignored. Such a minor infraction! I have kept away from all discussions regarding doctrine or history, instead taking what little time I now spend on Wikipedia on improving discussions about the historic region of Southeast Virginia, on SEC Regulation D, etc. This indefinite block on all edits is over the top vindictive in that while I vehemently disagreed with the results of the ban, I have honored the spirit, and (except when I forget in those 3 trivial edits) even the letter of the ban for the main topic at hand. Request the block be removed, and the editors involved get back to improving Wikipedia. and is told "A minor format change to an article that is part of your topic ban is as flagrant as it gets'." (emphasis mine). Whatever point, whatever disruption to the encyclopedia is being prevented, has been made. Unblocking him wouldn't be pathetic, it would be humane. It would be honoring the spirit of Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. I can't see how a table formatting edit is hurting Wikipedia. Continuing to enforce the ban because he didn't say the right magic words -- which the blocking statement didn't actually tell him -- is the epitome of what we're not supposed to be bureaucratic. NE Ent 10:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude, did you see how many people voted for the Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse? Admin hands are completely tied these days. Who'd wanna run for RfA under such circumstances? Bots only. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Salvio (an administrator) wisely closed the thread, as no administrative intervention was necessary. No one's hands were tied. No one had to reopen the thread and no one had to block this user. Even now, no one's hands are tied. Any admin could step in and reverse this completely unnecessary block. But these folks consider themselves infallible to the degree that even the admin who had previously vowed to undo any block that was placed is now unwilling to touch it. It is the users whose hands are tied. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio has not contributed since the 12th there's no evidence about what he will or will not do. NE Ent 13:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that "The latest was not a 'breaching experiment'…" because the nature of a "breaching experiment" is that it is easily deniable. Bus stop (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request posted

Mike has just posted a reasonable-looking unblock request. If an admin would process that, it would obviate the need for any further discussion here and we can get back to editing... Zad68 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DeknMike now unblocked. Zad68 14:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, again

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

---

I've been caught in a near-edit war over whether to blank the page and put a {{blocked user}} tag on User:StillStanding-247. Given that he made a death threat and was blocked with a wide consensus, I didn't think this would be contentious... but evidently, it is, and it's considered 'grave dancing'. I'd appreciate constructive comments on my actions here (and not a new battle about StillStanding's actions). Thanks to everyone in advance. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears what's being viewed as contentious is not the placing of the {{blocked user}} tag, but rather the page blanking. Perhaps just place the block tag at the top of the page, and leave it at that? Mojoworker (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What's your reasons for blanking his page? He's not banned. Caden ^cool 08:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Good call, ed. Page should be blanked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Horrible, childish call. As I told Ed, if his need to gravedance is truly that overwhelming, he should seek a formal community ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bad call. But grave dancing over it is just plain wrong, especially by an admin. Caden ^cool 09:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Amen. Especially an admin who claims "it's no big deal", yet will stop at nothing to ensure his precious badge of shame stays in place. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Are you sure you got enough bad faith between the two of you? This sort of nonsense, this terminology, is precisely why I think this should be a page for administrators, like the title suggests--not a page where everyone gets to spew their venom. Childish indeed. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Ed's initial post is quite misleading. While there was wide consensus for the block, there was also wide consensus that there was no credible death-threat. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup Ed's post is very misleading. Unacceptable from an admin. Caden ^cool 09:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed asserts "he made a death threat", and then goes on to say he doesn't want "a new battle about [Still*'s] actions". Then stop making accusations! (Still* made no such threat. He told a joke. His joke became twisted & manufactured into something else by others.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this tag should be controversial. StillStanding-247 was indef blocked for a good reason and has had their talk page locked for abusing it following the block. As far as I'm aware it's a common practice (though not compulsory) to mark the user pages of editors in this situation with this tag. Unless there are some issues with StillStanding-247's talk page I'm not aware of, I'd suggest that it be unblanked as it provides useful evidence of why the block was imposed and then broadened. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Ed17's post. I can't see any reference in the "edit war" to the blocked user tag. Ed17 deleted the whole page with the edit summary "unneeded". His other edit is again to delete the whole page with the edit summary "I've explained my actions, and there is still no compelling reason to restore the page. Please feel free to bring it up on my talk page or request wider input if you disagree." The edit summaries are about page blanking not the blocked user tag, which seems not to be referred to by anybody. I can't see any reason to blank the page - that would be unusual wouldn't it? DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit war is clearly visible in the user page's history [35] (it's also important to stress that Ed didn't 'delete' anything; he replaced the page's content with the tag. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the edit war is clearly visible. I saw it. Ok, he deleted the whole content of the page, not the page. Nice semantic spot there. But his edit summaries are about the page blanking. It's obvious from the edit summaries that the tag is not the issue, it's the page blanking. So why did he open this claiming it's about the tag? DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I took the issues as related, so my opening post was meant as a shortened form of 'blanking the page and putting a blocked user tag'. As this seems to be a point of confusion, I'll add that now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not gravedancing, and I support replacing the page's content with the tag. GiantSnowman 11:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personally, never saw the point in sticking labels on pages -- anyone can add the label, the good information --including the reason for the block -- is in the block log, and I'm not aware of any policy requiring such labels -- it's certainly not in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy, and strikes me as just Scarlet letter gravedancing. With regards to page blanking, a discussion regarding the similar situation of a banned user Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_6#User_pages resulted with the tag being added to the existing material on the page. The {{blocked user}} template instructions themselves suggest While everyone can add this tag, it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't. So I'd say its acceptable for Ed17 to add the template. I really don't understand how that improves Wikipedia, and have yet to read an argument that's doesn't strike me some variant of this editor was bad so we have to punish them. NE Ent 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no policy reason, no is it common practice, for the redirection of the talk page to the user page -- that should be reverted. NE Ent 11:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on that point. GiantSnowman 11:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The user in question egregiously violated Wikipedia policies, and is unlikely to return. Nonetheless, the block notice should remain on the talk page, and the main user page should be blanked (the reverse of the admin action). IIRC, removal of a block notice is against "da rules", and the current state of the user page appears to show that user in good standing with barnstars. IIRC also, a person blocked for threatening violence is an eensy weensy bit unlikely to be welcomed with open arms, so the distinction here bewteen "blocked" and "banned" is not very strong. Meanwhile "gravedancing" is not the issue here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Still* made no such threat. Please exercise better responsibility when comes to accusing others of something so serious. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've struck the text above, as it wasn't a direct threat, but it was the catalyst for his indefinite block. Context and links are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#StillStanding-247_discussing_my_murder. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso: While not a threat, joking about my murder has the exact same chilling effect. If not, I have a whole lot of murders to joke about. Who should I start with?--v/r - TP 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're making the mistake, TParis, of assuming I'm in defence of Still*'s joke, that I approve of his telling it. (I'm not, and I don't.) But it's a whole other thing, to turn it into something it wasn't, as several have tried to do. (That kind of irresponsiblity, I guess, is okay by you? Because it isn't with me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never said it was a threat. In fact, when I created the original ANI thread, I had to think of how to say it because it wasn't a threat. But it was certainly chilling and it bothered me. I shrugged off a lot of things that were said about me that week that I could've taken to ANI. The joking about my murder bothered me. My question is: did StillStanding purposefully portray it as a joke to subvert WP:NPA? He was quite talented at getting around WP:NPOV and WP:EW when it didn't suit him. I'm not sure. But I've said several times it wasn't a threat, as far as threats go. So I'm not sure how I am turning it into something or supporting folks turning it into something. What likely happened is folks diverted to the word threat for the sake of ease of associating a thought with verbiage we already use often here. ie. they misspoke and never went back to correct it. That makes more sense to me. Whether there is a block notice or not doesn't matter to me. But to say that the 'joke' was not a threat and therefore acceptable (which you may or may not have said, but others have) doesn't leave me with the most comforting feeling about folks sensibilities.--v/r - TP 23:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I already said I didn't approve of Still*'s joke. (How does that turn into "to say that the 'joke' was [...] acceptable (which you may or may not have said [...]"? It doesn't.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• The block notice must stay there while he is blocked as does any relevant and directly related discussion about the block (explanation by the blocking admin,etc), any portion that appears to be the death-threat/joke/whateveryouwanttocallit should be hatted or deleted, but the rest of it the page should be able to stay unless there is some other reason to delete. He isn't banned, he is still a member of the community according to our own policies, so he enjoys the right to use his talk page, even if it is limited to Wikipedia related (and not just block related) discussions. If any part of a post need removing (attacks, etc.) then those individual parts can be redacted. If he uses the page for purely soapboxing, then access can be removed. No reason to treat the case any different than any other simple block case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be clarified that blanking a page isn't grave dancing. Adding to it could easily be, but a simple blanking cannot logically be. Based on that, all the silliness can go away. The only other point is the template, which shouldn't be controversial to add, either. Where's the problem? --Nouniquenames 18:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's not really grave dancing, but there's no policy-based reason for blanking a blocked editor's page. Doing so has only stirred up more needless drama. Although I think it was blanked in good faith, it would be wise to leave it intact. I also think that the talk page should be restored, but protected if necessary. Dennis Brown's comments are spot-on. - MrX 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh. Restore the pages, add the blocked templates and be done with it. Since SS is blocked from editing the talk page there is no problem. If this editor's off-wiki activities lead others to use this page inapproriately, then those editors can be dealt with if/when that occurs. The only thing this is doing is feeding the zombies who want to eat your brains and gain your knowledge.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  18:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page to its state and the time of the block and redacted the comments about terminating another human's life. I've also readded the {{blocked user}} template to the user page -- although I personally disagree with I believe current consensusiness tends towards its inclusion if the blocking admin wants to put it there. NE Ent 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider this, nor should anyone else, as supporting or endorsing StillStanding's actions. I just think we should follow a consistent protocol for altering the state of Wikipedia pages designated for reference to banned/likely defacto banned users, and fail to see either how blanking improves Wikipedia or is supported by any documented policy. NE Ent 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I just noticed his talk page access had been taken away, not sure why. Was there not a template to that effect explaining the additional block terms? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  Apparently he posted a private e-mail from another editor. Looks like that edit was deleted and talk page access removed at that time. Arkon (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • His talk page access was revoked for what I can only assume was soapboxing. He then resorted to socking via ip to avoid the block.   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• I just found out about this topic. Before finding out, on the userpage, I reverted back to Ed's last version with a threat in my edit summary to leave the page alone. When I saw the changes to the talk page, I noticed NE Ent's helpful link in the edit summary to this topic. I haven't touched that page but came here. I don't see any consensus here for restoring any content to the userpage, so I don't see why people are screwing with it. As for the talk page, I agree that it shouldn't redirect to the userpage. The only thing that must be kept are any block notices. As for the rest of the garbage on the page, for those who think we can only remove material if he's banned, that seems to be his desire, anyway: "I am not ever going to apologize for the actions of others. Therefore, this indef block might as well be a community ban." That said, I'll leave the talk page alone pending a consensus as to what to do with it (if ever one is achieved).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason, grounded in policy, that you believe the user page should be blanked? Is there something on that page that is harmful to the community or the project? It seems that there may be a desire to make this block punitive. - MrX 01:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's just the gravedancing argument put in a slightly different way. I agree with the others that there's no evidence of gravedancing or punitive. I also don't see why the fellow's barnstars (including one from you, btw) need to be visible. At the same time, I frankly don't care much as long as the material there isn't being used as an historical platform for the user, but I would defer to the discretion of the blocking admin absent some compelling reason not to. I note that all of the changes to the userpage after Ed made a determination came from non-admins. Why is that? I think this whole discussion is generally a waste of our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly a grave dancing argument. It's a question about why you felt it necessary to blank the page, which you have artfully evaded with a dash of innuendo. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive; they're supposed to be preventative. It seems pretty simple to me: don't blank the page because there is no legitimate reason to do so. - MrX 02:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a misinterpretation re what Still* wrote to say he "seems to desire a ban". He felt the indef block was unjustified and refused to follow the current norm he perceived at WP of fabricating an admission of misdeed in trade for an unblock. (His statement attempted to draw attention to the predicament imposed on him, i.e. the implication of a process-gone-wrong. Nothing more.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The guy was disruptive enough to be indefinitely blocked AND to have his talk page access revoked. Why anyone cares whether his userpage has barnstars (I would think they would be embarrassing to those who placed them there) or whether his talk page has historical discussion is truly beyond me. I don't think any of what Ed did was gravedancing. What I really think is there are editors who for unfathomable reasons want to defend him. IF there is a consensus on what to do, regardless of my views, I will defer to it, but at the moment there is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't particularly see the point of these user page block banners, but if Ed, as the blocking admin, wants to put one there, I'd be willing to defer to his admin discretion on that. It's certainly less obnoxious than some random shmoe slapping a banner on there against the wishes of the blocking admin, which occasionally happens. 28bytes (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Concisely put, and I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got Nick-D, DeCausa, myself, Giant Snowman, Dennis Brown, MrX, and little green rosetta disagreeing with the talk page blanking, and Nouniquenames (possibly) agreeing with it, and no one providing a policy reason for blanking. Bbb23, who has admitted reverting the last edit without grokking the edit summary, is the one acting against consensus. NE Ent 03:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I really shouldn't look at Wikipedia this late at night; all it ever does is rile me up. NE Ent, your little summation is way off the mark. I did not touch the talk page. I reverted the userpage. And your little deal about who is for what is misleading as some of those editors referred to the talk page, and some referred to to both the user and talk pages. But if you say that I acted against consensus, you have to find a consensus for the user page because that's all I did. My reversion occurred before I read this really stupid topic. I'm happy that the Blade locked the article, and I don't give a shit that it is not "my" version because there never was a "my" version. The only reason I reverted - at the time - was because of the ridiculous edit-war among non-admins and the lack of deference to Ed's actions. This is my last comment here, which I'll no doubt regret, because I'm fed up with the whole thing. I'm going off-wiki again, take a break from this drama-infested madhouse, and try to calm down. It really is true that anger sometimes is inversely proportional to the importance of the problem. I need to get upset about something that actually matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely screwed that up, -- confused your edit of user, and user talk page. Facepalm NE Ent 10:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Lack of deference to Ed's actions"? Seriously? When I supported your RfA Bbb23, I really didn't think you were going to be one of the rank-and-file "admins can do no wrong" bunch. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any dispute at this point that this was a troll account? --Malerooster (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Malerooster is almost certainly someone's sockpuppet. That's a conversation for another page; I just wanted to make users here aware of it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the cock is the one trolling, as he has restored the gravedancing. I think I'm at 3RR (not going to count and not going to risk making some child's day); could someone please revert? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to Mr. X for reverting, and kudos to Blade for not reverting to the wrong version before protecting. There may be hope for this place yet! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the 'kid' isn't the one hitting the rollback button. No sir, definitely not.--v/r - TP 04:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record I absolutely don't care one way or another what this guy's userpage contains, I just wanted to put a lid on things before I had to hand out blocks. However this is ultimately resolved is fine by me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I support blanking. What is the point of having Still's thoughts when he is blocked from editing them himself and during his block there is no reason to show anything he posted on his user page. TFD (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason not to show anything he posted on his user page. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is needed

There really needs to be a community consensus on this issue on whether we should or should not blank user pages after permanent blocking. Because, at this point, such things are applied haphazardly and, generally, well-liked users have people that defend them and stop the blanking of the page, while everyone else gets their pages blanked. Either we blank all of them or we blank none of them, but the current unequal treatment is discriminatory, one way or another. Silverseren^C 08:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• We already have consensus, I explained it above. It is based on the actual policy. Blocked isn't the same as banned. There was a banned discussion, and it was opposed so he is not banned. He is still a member of the community. He is not permanently blocked, he is indef blocked and he has the opportunity to get unblocked. Why people are seeking exceptions to the policy in this one case, I have no idea. We don't need a new consensus, we rely on the existing one, ie: policy. Sockpuppets and community banned users generally have their pages blanked, run-of-the-mill blocks do not except in extraordinary circumstances. As no one has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, the talk page was restored, then trimmed of offensive material that we would normally redact. Nothing more to see here, time to move along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• So, page blanking should only be done in the cases of community banned users and sockpuppets? If that's the rule, then i'm fine with it. I just want it to be enforced evenly, because there are still a lot of cases where page blankings are also given when they shouldn't be, if we're following that rule. Silverseren^C 16:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and what about Arbcom blocks? Since most of those are either for a time limit or are indefinite (but subject to a requested return under an appeal to WP:BASC), their pages shouldn't be blanked, correct? This is something that needs to be fixed because, from what i've seen, most of the users that fall under this have their pages blanked (again, unless the user has a lot of wiki friends that revert the blanking). Silverseren^C 16:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are correct, Silver. There is indeed a lot of cases where page-blankings are given when they shouldn't be. Hopefully this will be a good first step toward putting a stop to such foolishness. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Arb cases as well. That Ed blanked it shouldn't be a big deal and wasn't "wrong", just not optimal. I don't think anyone needs to get on his case over it. I'm just saying there generally isn't a need except in these extreme cases, or it should be in the edit summary. My interest is the same, consistency, but we have to acknowledge that the policies are a little cloudy on some of this, so we should be kind and polite when someone does it and we disagree. My main reason for not wanting to blank pages except where needed is due to causing unnecessary drama or discussion. IE: leave well enough alone. But it shouldn't be seen as a big deal either way, and someone could probably just go ahead and archive this up. I think we all have a general idea of what the preferred and usual circumstances for blanking are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Juandanikevin2012

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

---

This user has been a headache for quite some time now, for several reasons, but most of all due to the lack of any type of communication. For a year and a half, the user first edited as User:Danrivera (the sock thing is apparently bogus, by the way). As you can tell from the Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Danrivera page, there are zero talk page posts. Looking at the edit history, there are zero edit summaries. The same goes for the new account.

Apart from being non-communicable, the user has a history of adding copyrighted material. Look at the talk page of the first user, and it has been an issue from day one. Look at the talk page of the new user, and I have warned the user 3 times (and removed a couple without leaving a warning, too, so there is more).

All text added by this user is copied elsewhere, either from other articles or off-Wikipedia. It is especially obvious when he/she is used erroneously. I assume not being able to communicate with this user has to do with few to no skills in English, so any temporary blocks or warnings is not going to do any good.

I propose a long and overdue indefinite WP:COMPETENCE block. Nymf _hideliho! 20:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That would not necessarily be a bad idea...an indef block with the proviso for being unblocked as explaining his conduct. I would support this. Go Phightins! 20:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked for 24 hours by Qwyrxian. Go Phightins! 20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, blocked for 24 hours prior to me doing this post. 24 hours will not do it, though. Nymf _hideliho! 20:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I figured that, but thought it was worth mentioning anyway. Go Phightins! 22:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

24h block expired, and the user is immediately back to adding copyvios. Any admin willing to touch this? Nymf _hideliho! 16:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the article - new article whose only content is a copyvio is better off deleted so someone else can make a clean start. I've also blocked the user indefinitely and left a clear note as to what he needs to do to get unblocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Harassment

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

---

I would like Viriditas to stop harassing me. I don't know this person on wiki or off wiki and have never edited an article in common, as far as I know. Yet I am being continually targeted by this individual. She/he has repeatedly deleted my user page, saying "Trolling of users", which is not true. [36] She/he has said on my user talk page "Sally Season is just trolling and should be blocked", when that is not true. [37] This person joined an admin page discussion and said "Recommend a block for trolling", when I have never "trolled". [38] This person has said in a page deletion discussion that I am trying to "troll and antagonize the community", when that is not true. Now this person has followed me to an Admin's talk page to ask "how long this trolling is going to be allowed to continue", when I've never trolled.

I've tried ignoring this person, hoping they would entertain themselves with another target, but they persist. Other editors have noted the harassment, with one even recommending "@Viridtas. I, on the other hand, would recommend a block for you for stalking and provocation." [39] I am not asking for blocks, but people have advised me that I can request that someone stay off my pages, or I can request an interaction ban. I can't find a page to submit that request, so I am requesting it here. If he/she is someone from my campus, I want them to know this isn't funny. Thank you for any help,Sally Season (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your TARDIS is malfunctioning. When was the last time I ever edited your user or talk page? Today is November 14 (UTC). You last edited the encyclopedia on November 1, to revert User:Collect.[40] Remember him? That's the guy who uses the term "silly season" a lot, and he's the guy I've said you're trolling with your user name. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Good point Viriditas. This already went to MfD and NewYorkBrad declined to delete, putting it on hold instead.[41] No one has deleted it since. This stuff is almost one month old, October 24. I don't see a current incident that an admin can intervene in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that the MFD and this complaint don't present a current incident to intervene in, but in reviewing Sally's conduct, I am inclined to issue an indefinite block for disruption. Thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 23:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Diffs? Or dates, I can look it up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
        • For the record, Sally is referring to the current thread over at User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Deletion_of_userspace, which she considers harassment. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm looking at User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Deletion_of_userspace at 22:47 specifically. Seems a pretty clear WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND in light of this user's prior contribution history. MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Agreed, and can we close this either way as quickly as possible, so as not to feed this....person? Arkon (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Yeah Matt, I just found that, which was likely the cause of this report. Honestly, Sally Season has taken a lot of static over the user page at MfD and it doesn't seem to end, so I can understand a degree of frustration by them over the situation. Brad semi-closed the MfD so is somewhat involved, and I voted to keep the page as it not being obviously POLEMIC, so I'm a little involved. I actually understand a degree of the frustration, I would be, too, so the question is "has it passed the reasonable threshold yet?". I will stay neutral on a block because of this, although I would ask that everyone consider the totality of the circumstances and assure themselves that no other option has a reasonable chance of accomplishing the goal before taking such a strong action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
            • The disruption appears to be centered around the notes she keeps in her userspace and that she does not recognize they are disruptive. I believe a measured response would be a indefinite block until she agrees to not keep or discuss notes in her userspace. Regardless of if she has a right under policy to keep notes in her userspace, her conduct related to them has gone beyond what is acceptable. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
              • Ok, thought it was still on hold per the MfD (didn't see the strike through on my monitor) so Brad did close as a delete, with it to be deleted on the 5th or so. At this point, I would have to agree that there seems to be a hearing problem on the part of Sally, so I can completely understand the rationale for a block, and why a definite period can't be determined at this point. It is unfortunate, and I had hoped discussion could fix the problem, but reading more, I can understand why you think it wouldn't help, as it would fall on deaf ears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
                • What? New York Brad says below SS deleted the "problematic" content, didn't he? So why the block?Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • It looks like Sally moved it to a subpage in her userspace. So it still exists and is in use, just not on the "front" page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify the chronology, when I went to close the MfD, I saw that a week had been spent on a largely unproductive discussion about some "notes" that Sally Season was keeping on her userpage, consisting of a list of other editors with terse comments, which were probably no longer necessary and which she was insisting on keeping there partly in order to vindicate her right to do so. I thought the proper result for the MfD was "delete," but in an effort to avoid further waste of time, I suggested that Sally Season might wish to remove the notes voluntarily now that another week had gone by. When she declined, I closed the MfD as delete (blank), but gave her a further grace period in case she actually needed to make any further use of the notes. Even though Sally Season still has a userpage (and is entitled to), the notes are no longer there, so the problematic content has been deleted, consistent with the MfD close. Offering no opinion on any other action that might be proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad. NYB's chronology is mostly correct, but I should clarify a few points. The reason I kept my notepad on my user page is because there was a big MFD template on it demanding that I not delete it, and not "to vindicate her right to do so", as NYB said. I was allowed to edit it however, so I did, and removed the outdated notes with NYB's blessing. I also created a subpage for my notepad, as suggested by several editors, which I was told would help reduce future problems. Several editors also suggested that I replace my shorthand, terse notes with longer, more explanatory notes to stop the wild (and completely wrong) speculation about why editors names appeared in my notes. I did that, too. I see now that NYB has recently removed that template from my user page, so I have just deleted that notepad. If my notepad (in a subpage /Notepad off my user page) is in any way "problematic", it sure would be nice to know why.

Dennis Brown, there are no deaf ears here. I'm doing everything I can to resolve all this stuff, and put it all behind. I realize it looks like the user page mess was resolved a while ago, but there is this one remaining sticking-point I've been discussing with NYB on his page. All the disruption has long since stopped and the disruptors have gone their way, with the one exception noted above who just had to drive by and poke at me again. Sally Season (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts: Viriditas can agree not to make unnecessary posts on SS's page, NYB can manage his own talk page, anyone concerned that SS's username is can file at WP:UAA, and we can close the thread. NE Ent 01:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And let's add, NE Ent can do more article editing and less kibbitzing in Wikipedia space. (10.5% article edits, 41.94% Wikipedia space edits, 24.23% user talk edits) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you add "Viriditas stops with the silly "troll" attacks", I'll sign on the dotted line immediately.Sally Season (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

[42], [43], [44]. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• This filing was frivolous, and Sally Season's statement above was a personal attack. I would recommend Sally Season dropping the stick now, before this returns to hit you on the head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012 (Copyright/BLP Issues)

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.

---

• Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Corinne.L.Clark (talk · contribs)

POV piece with original research, poor sourcing. Have nominated this for AfD, and requested intervention at AIV, since article's creator continues to remove maintenance templates, ignores warnings, and won't discuss. Copyright violations and WP:BLP concerns as well. This is a WP:SPA intent on using Wikipedia to make a point. JNW (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed copyright vio and BLP. But someone need to look really close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Also looks like the User is edit warring the BLP and copyvio back in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Blatant disparaging screed against Obama. Kill. It. With. Fire.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the G10 deletion; the article was completely irredeemable thus I've also deleted the userspace copy. I'm somewhat questioning my own judgment in warning instead of blocking the user outright, as I doubt they'll come around given the brazenness of this incident. They should undoubtedly be indeffed if any hint of this POV-pushing behavior returns. Swarm ^X 07:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to those who joined the AfD discussion, and to Xymmax, the closing administrator. JNW (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Volunteers needed for enforcement of NPOV and ARBPIA sanctions on a current events page

Forgive me if this is polyanna-ish, but the Operation Pillar of Cloud page is about an ongoing Arab–Israeli issue. As we know, this has high potential for edit warring and POV violations. The 1RR restrictions and influx of opinionated editors makes it difficult for non-admins to monitor the page by themselves. So if any admins feel like sorting out a controversial topic with opinionated editors, sign up now! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm going to regret this... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat general question: Is it normal to put an edit-notice referencing ArbCom sanctions over relevant articles? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is (and especially for articles covering recent events) so that editors are aware of the restrictions in place. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you will, Blade! That's what we don't pay you for! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad yet; hopefully it stays that way. When it inevitably doesn't, I'm at the ready to jam the lid back on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

99.185.56.156

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 user from the IP address 99.185.56.156 has been a persistent problem in the community. The user insists on insulting other editors (especially with the word "liberal"), vandalizing pages with political propaganda, and refusing to discuss matters civilly. I reverted the user's recent comment on my talk page as vandalism. The user has a history of disrespectful editing and has been warned many times. I respectfully request an administrator's intervention with regards to this user. --Ðrdak (T) 04:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Useless. Nothing but "liberal baiting". Has had 2 blocks and numerous complaints in the last 6 months. Should be blocked for a long stretch and talk page should be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for six months. This user's purpose here is obviously incompatible with the project. Swarm ^X 06:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Profane sock account maker

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

---

Resolved

 – All accounts now blocked. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Today, User:Sa123321123321 began creating a series of successive socks with profane names. I've reported them all to WP:UAA, but that board is very back logged at the moment. The accounts so far:

• User:My dick is big
• User:My dick, i have been expecting you
• User:To my dick

--Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, the profane socks are blocked. Thoughts on blocking the sock master? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think it was User:Sa123321123321 creating these accounts? Yunshui 雲‍水 14:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's in the logs. He created "To my dick" [45]. To my dick created the other two [46]. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked as vandalism-only account. Fram (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just found those log entries myself. I shall advise him of the community's disapproval with a hefty dose of blockage. (edit conflict) Looks like Fram beat me to it. Let's close this, then. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User IndianBio

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, I want to give information about user IndianBio.He is adding too much ,more info than required to In My City article.His edits are getting worse.His grammar is disaster.His edits lacks continuity.He had created a long article without reliable sources,and only 47 reference for 41,000 bytes.See the article's talk page User:Iknow23 had listed all the unreliable infos which is added by indianbio.

Also,when I gave my suggestion to Priyanka Chopra's article on the talk page,he attacked me saying all sources are false.someone tell him he added the reference from same publisher.He is trying to be good but he's not.please do something.(Pks1142 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

This appears to be a content dispute that is currently being discussed on the article talk page. Why have you brought this issue here? What administrative action do you believe is required? ‑Scottywong| converse _ 15:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You have also not notified IndianBio about this discussion, which is required (see instructions at the top of this page). Please do that now. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 15:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Violation of topic ban by User:DeknMike

User:DeknMike was banned on 22 May 2012 from all content related to Messianic Judaism and related topics for one year on as per here. With this edit, he clearly violated that ban. It is a comparatively minor matter, admittedly, but it does violate the ban. To my eyes, personally, the fact that he was even watching the pages he has been banned from to make the edit at all is as troubling as the edit itself. I believe a block is called for under the circumstances, but am not sure that, as the person who requested the ban in the first place, I am myself necessarily in a position to determine the appropriate length. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? First asking for a ban and now trying to hammer him for an small layout matter? This looks like harrassing and following around. The Banner _talk 17:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, a block is not called for. The ban was for POV pushing, and the edit was a column tweak. Prudent? No. A technical violation? Yes. A bad faith edit? Don't see how. NE Ent 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this was rather hastily shut down, perhaps because John Carter slightly mis-stated the issue in question. but the issue wasn't dealt with. DeknMike's topic ban was quite clear: "User:DeknMike is topic banned from Messianic Judaism and related pages for one year. He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles". The ban was not for "content related to Messianic Judaism and related topics" - rather it was editing those articles. DeknMike is quite well aware that this applies to any edits he makes; in the past, when he's tried this kind of thing before, he's been notified and reverted himself. He's engaging in breaching experiments: trying to see exactly what he can get away with. The question here is whether to give a final warning, or to sanction. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you reverted my closure, I'll restate what I said there: de minimis non curat praetor. To block someone over such an edit is process wonkery at its finest. Call it IAR, call it commonsense, this thread should be closed now. By the way, if DeknMike (talk · contribs) were to be blocked over that edit, I would immediately unblock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Threatening to start a wheel war? That doesn't seem like prudent administrative behavior. Rather than escalating this, why not step back for a bit and look at the bigger picture: Wikipedia is filled with people who receive topic bans, and a certain percentage of them engage in breaching experiments, trying to see just how far they can break the terms of their ban before people are willing to take action. This, of course, wastes the time of others who then have to wade through these edits, trying to decide exactly how far the person has violated his ban, and whether it is worth pursuing - which is, of course, the whole intent of the breacher. DeknMike has been banned from all edits - not just "good" edits or "harmless" edits, but from all edits, and for good reason. He has been given a protocol for getting "harmless" changes made to the article; he has been explicitly told, in the terms of his ban, to propose such changes on the article's talk page. Instead, he has chosen to thumb his nose at all those who spent (or in reality, wasted) a good deal of time dealing with his inappropriate behavior in the first place. Claiming that these obvious provocations should be ignored could itself be seen as "process wonkery at its finest". Again, the question here is whether he is simply warned not to do this again, or is actually sanctioned, so he realizes this time-wasting isn't appreciated. Which will it be? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, your comment is completely out of line. Topic bans are bright-line situations: they say "don't touch this, or you will be blocked". There's no reason for a topic-banned editor to so much as adjust the width of a space within the scope of his topic ban. Actual editing blocks are the natural progression for someone that doesn't understand that concept.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the edit is a violation of the letter of the topic ban, correct? And the edit clearly can be seen as a breaching experiment. If the edit is allowed to go unremarked, the message being sent is formatting changes in violation of the letter of the topic ban are allowed. The problem is that formatting changes can change the message conveyed by the article. Simple "formatting changes" such as applying a different way of quoting something, or greying something out, or using a larger font, etc. can have a significant change in the emphasis an article gives to certain content, without stepping outside "formatting changes." Besides, the original intent of the topic ban was to have DeknMike gain experience editing in other areas with different editors from the ones he was working with in this topic area. Allowing "formatting changes" is in invitation to allow further, possibly disruptive edits in this topic area, undermining the therapeutic intent of the original topic ban. I don't really have an answer as to whether this is block-able or not, but DeknMike has already made two previous MJ-related article content edits in violation of his topic ban. If those two previous incidents didn't happen, a simple warning here might be sufficient, but I think we're beyond that now. Zad68 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous topic-ban violation problems:

1. List of Messianic Jewish organizations, 22 June, handled by AniMate (original topic-ban closer) here, with a warning and clarifying instructions, "Your topic ban was very specific about what kinds of edits were acceptable. You should not edit the articles, but you may participate in discussion on article talk pages."
2. Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, 17 August, instead of reporting I asked him to self-revert here and he did.

Zad68 20:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked DeknMike until he agrees to follow the terms of his topic ban. Might be a 10 minute block, might be forever ... his choice.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a false dichotomy that anything which is not blocked for is permitted. The ban statement provided by AniMate did not specify a sanction, and WP:BAN does not specify how topic bans are to be enforced. John Carter could have simply reverted the edit, or raised the discussion on the editor's talk and asked them to self revert, or have contacted AniMate. Instead -- speaking of technical policy violations -- they appear to have started an ANI thread (contrary to the discuss with editor first guidance at the top of this page) and canvassed Jayig [47] NE Ent 21:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

They've tried those approaches twice before, and the problem continues. This seems to be a reasonable escalation.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Arguable, as the nature of the edits was different (content vs. format), but not unreasonable. Any comment on the canvassing selection notification of other editors? NE Ent 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Corrected NE Ent 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a few, actually. First, I would very much appreciate a clear explanation of exactly how my comment to Jayjg qualifes as canvassing as per WP:CANVASS. I do not believe telling an individual who had been significantly involved in the matters which had led to the ban being placed who is also one of our most respected editors and an admin that a discussion regarding the matter he had been involved in is canvassing. Otherwise, I myself believe that there might perhaps be a rather prejudicial rush to judgment on the part of one of those commenting here, and I believe that it is not unreasonable to request that others not raise apparently unfounded allegations in prejudicial terms, such as have been rather clearly done above. And I believe it is worth noting that I only did this action after having received more than one e-mail regarding this matter from different parties. Also, I should note that I had myself basically stopped watching the discussion after Salvio closed it earlier until I saw DeknMike had been blocked indefinitely. Although I did not myself say this earlier, for fear of prejudicing the outcome, I myself thought that maybe a sanction of one week might be the longest I myself would support given the nature of the edit, and I wouldn't have objected if it were even shorter than that. I am sorry if I sound irritated, but I honestly thought people who commented here might actually be capable of using loaded language would actually be able to use it in a way which indicated they were familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines. Evidently, I may have been wrong in drawing that conclusion. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, Zad68, ThatPeskyCommoner, In incti occuli, Secretlondon, Malleus Fatorum, A sniper, Avi, Plot Spoiler, Evanh2008, brewcrewer, Wikid77d, and MastCell commented on the ANI discussion and AniMate closed it and placed the ban. Of that group, JohnCarter only notified Jayjg. As ANI has 5628 watchers, it's hard to see a justification for notifying one specific administrator. NE Ent 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Informing individuals who have been involved in issues previously is not WP:CANVASS, by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it is recommended practice. Feel free to notify any others you feel were left out. In any event, this is not relevant to what sanction is appropriate for DeknMike. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) FWIW, I was going to clean up some grammatical problems in earlier comments before others commented further. But it is also worth noting that Jayjg had been involved in the previous discussion on the article talk pages, which the others were not. I think that would have been obvious to anyone who might have made an effort to look that far into the history of the matter, and it is also acceptable as per WP:CANVASS to notify some of those who had been significantly involved in those discussions which led to the postings here. I otherwise agree that this line of discussion is in no way relevant to the topic of this thread, and honestly, think it really only serves to demonstrate the lack of familiarity with policies and guidelines of some individuals who have commented. If they believe that there is a serious reason to raise allegations of canvassing, I believe that it is reasonable to ask them to demonstrate exactly how the actions involved qualify under WP:CANVASS, and probably to raise that discussion in a separate thread. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." NE Ent 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No evidence has been shown that Jayjg was chosen based on his opinions, but rather based on his prior knowledge of the discussion from the article talk pages. The comment above is in no way demonstrably relevant to this discussion. More than one editor has commented above that these accusations, which are as of yet still not clearly founded and seem to border on personal attacks, have any clear relevance to this discussion. If you think you have a basis for a complaint, as has already been said, please start a separate section for it. Otherwise, these dubiously supported which have no direct relevance to the subject of this thread really should stop. If you wish to file a formal complaint, it is pretty much standard practice to start a separate subthread at least. But, really, the above seems to me to be grasping at straws. Should this continue, I think that it would not be unreasonable for me to start a separate subthread regarding the abusive use of this page by the above editor. John Carter (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• An indefinite block for a technical change which had no impact on the content of the article? One which was made on the seventh and where the author hasn't edited since the eighth? And when an uninvolved admin has already reviewed the situation and declined to take action in no uncertain terms? This is definitely one of the poorest blocks I have ever seen and I fully intend to overturn it. While it's true that topic bans do certainly mean "do not edit a given page", we are not bots and we can apply commonsense and don't have to mechanically apply the rules, which is what WP:IAR/WP:NOTBURO are all about. That edit warranted a warning at most, but certainly not a block. Much less an indefinite one. To an uninvolved observer, this looks like a mere show of force. That's why I'll give Kww time to self-revert, but if he chooses not to do so, I will. And, before someone goes around saying I'll be wheel warring: per WP:WHEEL, to undo a fellow administrator's action is not wheel warring. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's only indefinite in time, Salvio. As I said above, it will last precisely as long as DeknMike chooses: all he has to do to get unblocked is agree to abide his topic ban. You are right that it wouldn't be wheel-warring, but it would still be wrong of you to undo a perfectly sound block with such a reasonable unblock condition. If DeknMike won't agree to conform to his topic ban, why should he be permitted to edit?—Kww(talk) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, sorry, but I didn't see you respond to the points being raised. A block requiring DeknMike to agree by writing in his own words that he understands the topic-ban--"He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles." (copied verbatim off of his User Talk page, emphasis mine)--seems a reasonable step, based on

1. DeknMike's previous two topic-ban violations
2. The danger that sending the message that 'technical changes are allowed' could result in changes in the meaning conveyed by an article (as discussed above)
3. The intent of the original topic ban--to get DeknMike to start working collaboratively with editors in other areas so that he better understands WP:V. (Why couldn't he have accomplished his change through an edit request to the article Talk page?)

Could you please address these points? Cheers... Zad68 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread is an overreaction. What should (ideally) have happened was a user talk page message along the lines of What the heck are you doing? You know you're under a topic ban. I know you weren't changing content but just editing the page means someone is going to have to check the diff. You can't make any edits to the article, okay? That said, I think Kww's block, while unnecessary, was well-done: They specifically disavowed "ownership" of it, allowing any admin to unblock, and clearly laid out what DeknMike needs to say in an unblock request to resume editing. As an unblock at this point would not send a clear, consistent message to DeknMike, I think it would be counterproductive. NE Ent 15:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

May I point out:

1. AniMate was the closer of the original topic ban
2. DeknMike's first topic-ban violation (diff) was to the article List of Messianic Jewish organizations
3. AniMate's response to this included "the next time you violate your topic ban will result in a block"
4. This topic-ban violation was at this same article, List of Messianic Jewish organizations: diff

Wouldn't not blocking or undoing the block be undermining AniMate's previous actions on this without discussion? I will invite AniMate to this discussion. Zad68 15:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm away from keyboard for the next 8 hours or so.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the block was justifiably preventative but DeknMike should be unblocked if he agrees to completely stay away from the topic. Unlike the incident from June, this wasn't a major violation. Kww summarized the incident well in his block message. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• I note that BWilkins has declined DeknMike's unblock request. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• With the reasoning "A minor format change to an article that is part of your topic ban is as flagrant as it gets." NE Ent 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• BWilkins? Oh, you mean that guy who said he was going to turn in his tools for 6 months? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Salvio: I'm waiting to see if you have the integrity to follow through on your promise to unblock. Something tells me I'm going to be disappointed but certainly not surprised. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The least possible reaction is the best possible reaction, in this instance. A note on a Talk page of an article or a note on a User page is all that this tempest in a teapot should have amounted to. Sorry but this is way overboard. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as "might be a ten minute block, might be forever", I'd like to point out that this topic-ban expires on 22 May 2013. So if this user chooses to take the high road by refusing to kiss Kww's ass and beg to be unblocked, I don't see how this "indefinite" block can continue past the expiration of the topic-ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it can. You've obviously not been around Wikipeida long enough. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no demand for groveling, or any expectation of it either. All he has to say is "I agree to abide by my topic ban". He's been warned on two previous violations, so there's no particular reason to believe that a third warning would have had any effect. If he posts an unblock request on 23 May 2013, it will be considered. I won't grant it, because I have no use for editors that won't abide by consensus, but others might.—Kww(talk) 04:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, someone surely will. (Salvio, sadly seems to have lost his nerve.) All this required was at most, a talk-page note: "This was a violation of the topic-ban and if you perform such an edit again, you'll be blocked". Instead, you have blocked first, while stating the user can be unblocked once he genuflects before you and promises to be good. Blocking this user was an entirely unnecesary vulgar display of power. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where this was already his third offense, and the warning he received on his second offense said he would be blocked if he did it again? Wouldn't it be pretty pathetic to just keep warning him that he will be blocked the next time, and never actually do it?—Kww(talk) 05:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

He states[48] The latest was not a 'breaching experiment,' but simply added two lines to help a column line up, fixing an error other editors had previously ignored. Such a minor infraction! I have kept away from all discussions regarding doctrine or history, instead taking what little time I now spend on Wikipedia on improving discussions about the historic region of Southeast Virginia, on SEC Regulation D, etc. This indefinite block on all edits is over the top vindictive in that while I vehemently disagreed with the results of the ban, I have honored the spirit, and (except when I forget in those 3 trivial edits) even the letter of the ban for the main topic at hand. Request the block be removed, and the editors involved get back to improving Wikipedia. and is told "A minor format change to an article that is part of your topic ban is as flagrant as it gets'." (emphasis mine). Whatever point, whatever disruption to the encyclopedia is being prevented, has been made. Unblocking him wouldn't be pathetic, it would be humane. It would be honoring the spirit of Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. I can't see how a table formatting edit is hurting Wikipedia. Continuing to enforce the ban because he didn't say the right magic words -- which the blocking statement didn't actually tell him -- is the epitome of what we're not supposed to be bureaucratic. NE Ent 10:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude, did you see how many people voted for the Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse? Admin hands are completely tied these days. Who'd wanna run for RfA under such circumstances? Bots only. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Salvio (an administrator) wisely closed the thread, as no administrative intervention was necessary. No one's hands were tied. No one had to reopen the thread and no one had to block this user. Even now, no one's hands are tied. Any admin could step in and reverse this completely unnecessary block. But these folks consider themselves infallible to the degree that even the admin who had previously vowed to undo any block that was placed is now unwilling to touch it. It is the users whose hands are tied. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio has not contributed since the 12th there's no evidence about what he will or will not do. NE Ent 13:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that "The latest was not a 'breaching experiment'…" because the nature of a "breaching experiment" is that it is easily deniable. Bus stop (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request posted

Mike has just posted a reasonable-looking unblock request. If an admin would process that, it would obviate the need for any further discussion here and we can get back to editing... Zad68 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DeknMike now unblocked. Zad68 14:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, again

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

---

I've been caught in a near-edit war over whether to blank the page and put a {{blocked user}} tag on User:StillStanding-247. Given that he made a death threat and was blocked with a wide consensus, I didn't think this would be contentious... but evidently, it is, and it's considered 'grave dancing'. I'd appreciate constructive comments on my actions here (and not a new battle about StillStanding's actions). Thanks to everyone in advance. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears what's being viewed as contentious is not the placing of the {{blocked user}} tag, but rather the page blanking. Perhaps just place the block tag at the top of the page, and leave it at that? Mojoworker (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What's your reasons for blanking his page? He's not banned. Caden ^cool 08:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Good call, ed. Page should be blanked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Horrible, childish call. As I told Ed, if his need to gravedance is truly that overwhelming, he should seek a formal community ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bad call. But grave dancing over it is just plain wrong, especially by an admin. Caden ^cool 09:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Amen. Especially an admin who claims "it's no big deal", yet will stop at nothing to ensure his precious badge of shame stays in place. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Are you sure you got enough bad faith between the two of you? This sort of nonsense, this terminology, is precisely why I think this should be a page for administrators, like the title suggests--not a page where everyone gets to spew their venom. Childish indeed. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Ed's initial post is quite misleading. While there was wide consensus for the block, there was also wide consensus that there was no credible death-threat. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup Ed's post is very misleading. Unacceptable from an admin. Caden ^cool 09:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed asserts "he made a death threat", and then goes on to say he doesn't want "a new battle about [Still*'s] actions". Then stop making accusations! (Still* made no such threat. He told a joke. His joke became twisted & manufactured into something else by others.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this tag should be controversial. StillStanding-247 was indef blocked for a good reason and has had their talk page locked for abusing it following the block. As far as I'm aware it's a common practice (though not compulsory) to mark the user pages of editors in this situation with this tag. Unless there are some issues with StillStanding-247's talk page I'm not aware of, I'd suggest that it be unblanked as it provides useful evidence of why the block was imposed and then broadened. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Ed17's post. I can't see any reference in the "edit war" to the blocked user tag. Ed17 deleted the whole page with the edit summary "unneeded". His other edit is again to delete the whole page with the edit summary "I've explained my actions, and there is still no compelling reason to restore the page. Please feel free to bring it up on my talk page or request wider input if you disagree." The edit summaries are about page blanking not the blocked user tag, which seems not to be referred to by anybody. I can't see any reason to blank the page - that would be unusual wouldn't it? DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit war is clearly visible in the user page's history [49] (it's also important to stress that Ed didn't 'delete' anything; he replaced the page's content with the tag. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the edit war is clearly visible. I saw it. Ok, he deleted the whole content of the page, not the page. Nice semantic spot there. But his edit summaries are about the page blanking. It's obvious from the edit summaries that the tag is not the issue, it's the page blanking. So why did he open this claiming it's about the tag? DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I took the issues as related, so my opening post was meant as a shortened form of 'blanking the page and putting a blocked user tag'. As this seems to be a point of confusion, I'll add that now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not gravedancing, and I support replacing the page's content with the tag. GiantSnowman 11:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personally, never saw the point in sticking labels on pages -- anyone can add the label, the good information --including the reason for the block -- is in the block log, and I'm not aware of any policy requiring such labels -- it's certainly not in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy, and strikes me as just Scarlet letter gravedancing. With regards to page blanking, a discussion regarding the similar situation of a banned user Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_6#User_pages resulted with the tag being added to the existing material on the page. The {{blocked user}} template instructions themselves suggest While everyone can add this tag, it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't. So I'd say its acceptable for Ed17 to add the template. I really don't understand how that improves Wikipedia, and have yet to read an argument that's doesn't strike me some variant of this editor was bad so we have to punish them. NE Ent 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no policy reason, no is it common practice, for the redirection of the talk page to the user page -- that should be reverted. NE Ent 11:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on that point. GiantSnowman 11:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The user in question egregiously violated Wikipedia policies, and is unlikely to return. Nonetheless, the block notice should remain on the talk page, and the main user page should be blanked (the reverse of the admin action). IIRC, removal of a block notice is against "da rules", and the current state of the user page appears to show that user in good standing with barnstars. IIRC also, a person blocked for threatening violence is an eensy weensy bit unlikely to be welcomed with open arms, so the distinction here bewteen "blocked" and "banned" is not very strong. Meanwhile "gravedancing" is not the issue here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Still* made no such threat. Please exercise better responsibility when comes to accusing others of something so serious. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've struck the text above, as it wasn't a direct threat, but it was the catalyst for his indefinite block. Context and links are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#StillStanding-247_discussing_my_murder. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso: While not a threat, joking about my murder has the exact same chilling effect. If not, I have a whole lot of murders to joke about. Who should I start with?--v/r - TP 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're making the mistake, TParis, of assuming I'm in defence of Still*'s joke, that I approve of his telling it. (I'm not, and I don't.) But it's a whole other thing, to turn it into something it wasn't, as several have tried to do. (That kind of irresponsiblity, I guess, is okay by you? Because it isn't with me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never said it was a threat. In fact, when I created the original ANI thread, I had to think of how to say it because it wasn't a threat. But it was certainly chilling and it bothered me. I shrugged off a lot of things that were said about me that week that I could've taken to ANI. The joking about my murder bothered me. My question is: did StillStanding purposefully portray it as a joke to subvert WP:NPA? He was quite talented at getting around WP:NPOV and WP:EW when it didn't suit him. I'm not sure. But I've said several times it wasn't a threat, as far as threats go. So I'm not sure how I am turning it into something or supporting folks turning it into something. What likely happened is folks diverted to the word threat for the sake of ease of associating a thought with verbiage we already use often here. ie. they misspoke and never went back to correct it. That makes more sense to me. Whether there is a block notice or not doesn't matter to me. But to say that the 'joke' was not a threat and therefore acceptable (which you may or may not have said, but others have) doesn't leave me with the most comforting feeling about folks sensibilities.--v/r - TP 23:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I already said I didn't approve of Still*'s joke. (How does that turn into "to say that the 'joke' was [...] acceptable (which you may or may not have said [...]"? It doesn't.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• The block notice must stay there while he is blocked as does any relevant and directly related discussion about the block (explanation by the blocking admin,etc), any portion that appears to be the death-threat/joke/whateveryouwanttocallit should be hatted or deleted, but the rest of it the page should be able to stay unless there is some other reason to delete. He isn't banned, he is still a member of the community according to our own policies, so he enjoys the right to use his talk page, even if it is limited to Wikipedia related (and not just block related) discussions. If any part of a post need removing (attacks, etc.) then those individual parts can be redacted. If he uses the page for purely soapboxing, then access can be removed. No reason to treat the case any different than any other simple block case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be clarified that blanking a page isn't grave dancing. Adding to it could easily be, but a simple blanking cannot logically be. Based on that, all the silliness can go away. The only other point is the template, which shouldn't be controversial to add, either. Where's the problem? --Nouniquenames 18:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's not really grave dancing, but there's no policy-based reason for blanking a blocked editor's page. Doing so has only stirred up more needless drama. Although I think it was blanked in good faith, it would be wise to leave it intact. I also think that the talk page should be restored, but protected if necessary. Dennis Brown's comments are spot-on. - MrX 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh. Restore the pages, add the blocked templates and be done with it. Since SS is blocked from editing the talk page there is no problem. If this editor's off-wiki activities lead others to use this page inapproriately, then those editors can be dealt with if/when that occurs. The only thing this is doing is feeding the zombies who want to eat your brains and gain your knowledge.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  18:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page to its state and the time of the block and redacted the comments about terminating another human's life. I've also readded the {{blocked user}} template to the user page -- although I personally disagree with I believe current consensusiness tends towards its inclusion if the blocking admin wants to put it there. NE Ent 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider this, nor should anyone else, as supporting or endorsing StillStanding's actions. I just think we should follow a consistent protocol for altering the state of Wikipedia pages designated for reference to banned/likely defacto banned users, and fail to see either how blanking improves Wikipedia or is supported by any documented policy. NE Ent 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I just noticed his talk page access had been taken away, not sure why. Was there not a template to that effect explaining the additional block terms? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  Apparently he posted a private e-mail from another editor. Looks like that edit was deleted and talk page access removed at that time. Arkon (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • His talk page access was revoked for what I can only assume was soapboxing. He then resorted to socking via ip to avoid the block.   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• I just found out about this topic. Before finding out, on the userpage, I reverted back to Ed's last version with a threat in my edit summary to leave the page alone. When I saw the changes to the talk page, I noticed NE Ent's helpful link in the edit summary to this topic. I haven't touched that page but came here. I don't see any consensus here for restoring any content to the userpage, so I don't see why people are screwing with it. As for the talk page, I agree that it shouldn't redirect to the userpage. The only thing that must be kept are any block notices. As for the rest of the garbage on the page, for those who think we can only remove material if he's banned, that seems to be his desire, anyway: "I am not ever going to apologize for the actions of others. Therefore, this indef block might as well be a community ban." That said, I'll leave the talk page alone pending a consensus as to what to do with it (if ever one is achieved).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason, grounded in policy, that you believe the user page should be blanked? Is there something on that page that is harmful to the community or the project? It seems that there may be a desire to make this block punitive. - MrX 01:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's just the gravedancing argument put in a slightly different way. I agree with the others that there's no evidence of gravedancing or punitive. I also don't see why the fellow's barnstars (including one from you, btw) need to be visible. At the same time, I frankly don't care much as long as the material there isn't being used as an historical platform for the user, but I would defer to the discretion of the blocking admin absent some compelling reason not to. I note that all of the changes to the userpage after Ed made a determination came from non-admins. Why is that? I think this whole discussion is generally a waste of our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly a grave dancing argument. It's a question about why you felt it necessary to blank the page, which you have artfully evaded with a dash of innuendo. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive; they're supposed to be preventative. It seems pretty simple to me: don't blank the page because there is no legitimate reason to do so. - MrX 02:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a misinterpretation re what Still* wrote to say he "seems to desire a ban". He felt the indef block was unjustified and refused to follow the current norm he perceived at WP of fabricating an admission of misdeed in trade for an unblock. (His statement attempted to draw attention to the predicament imposed on him, i.e. the implication of a process-gone-wrong. Nothing more.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The guy was disruptive enough to be indefinitely blocked AND to have his talk page access revoked. Why anyone cares whether his userpage has barnstars (I would think they would be embarrassing to those who placed them there) or whether his talk page has historical discussion is truly beyond me. I don't think any of what Ed did was gravedancing. What I really think is there are editors who for unfathomable reasons want to defend him. IF there is a consensus on what to do, regardless of my views, I will defer to it, but at the moment there is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't particularly see the point of these user page block banners, but if Ed, as the blocking admin, wants to put one there, I'd be willing to defer to his admin discretion on that. It's certainly less obnoxious than some random shmoe slapping a banner on there against the wishes of the blocking admin, which occasionally happens. 28bytes (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Concisely put, and I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got Nick-D, DeCausa, myself, Giant Snowman, Dennis Brown, MrX, and little green rosetta disagreeing with the talk page blanking, and Nouniquenames (possibly) agreeing with it, and no one providing a policy reason for blanking. Bbb23, who has admitted reverting the last edit without grokking the edit summary, is the one acting against consensus. NE Ent 03:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I really shouldn't look at Wikipedia this late at night; all it ever does is rile me up. NE Ent, your little summation is way off the mark. I did not touch the talk page. I reverted the userpage. And your little deal about who is for what is misleading as some of those editors referred to the talk page, and some referred to to both the user and talk pages. But if you say that I acted against consensus, you have to find a consensus for the user page because that's all I did. My reversion occurred before I read this really stupid topic. I'm happy that the Blade locked the article, and I don't give a shit that it is not "my" version because there never was a "my" version. The only reason I reverted - at the time - was because of the ridiculous edit-war among non-admins and the lack of deference to Ed's actions. This is my last comment here, which I'll no doubt regret, because I'm fed up with the whole thing. I'm going off-wiki again, take a break from this drama-infested madhouse, and try to calm down. It really is true that anger sometimes is inversely proportional to the importance of the problem. I need to get upset about something that actually matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely screwed that up, -- confused your edit of user, and user talk page. Facepalm NE Ent 10:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Lack of deference to Ed's actions"? Seriously? When I supported your RfA Bbb23, I really didn't think you were going to be one of the rank-and-file "admins can do no wrong" bunch. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any dispute at this point that this was a troll account? --Malerooster (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Malerooster is almost certainly someone's sockpuppet. That's a conversation for another page; I just wanted to make users here aware of it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the cock is the one trolling, as he has restored the gravedancing. I think I'm at 3RR (not going to count and not going to risk making some child's day); could someone please revert? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to Mr. X for reverting, and kudos to Blade for not reverting to the wrong version before protecting. There may be hope for this place yet! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the 'kid' isn't the one hitting the rollback button. No sir, definitely not.--v/r - TP 04:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record I absolutely don't care one way or another what this guy's userpage contains, I just wanted to put a lid on things before I had to hand out blocks. However this is ultimately resolved is fine by me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I support blanking. What is the point of having Still's thoughts when he is blocked from editing them himself and during his block there is no reason to show anything he posted on his user page. TFD (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason not to show anything he posted on his user page. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is needed

There really needs to be a community consensus on this issue on whether we should or should not blank user pages after permanent blocking. Because, at this point, such things are applied haphazardly and, generally, well-liked users have people that defend them and stop the blanking of the page, while everyone else gets their pages blanked. Either we blank all of them or we blank none of them, but the current unequal treatment is discriminatory, one way or another. Silverseren^C 08:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• We already have consensus, I explained it above. It is based on the actual policy. Blocked isn't the same as banned. There was a banned discussion, and it was opposed so he is not banned. He is still a member of the community. He is not permanently blocked, he is indef blocked and he has the opportunity to get unblocked. Why people are seeking exceptions to the policy in this one case, I have no idea. We don't need a new consensus, we rely on the existing one, ie: policy. Sockpuppets and community banned users generally have their pages blanked, run-of-the-mill blocks do not except in extraordinary circumstances. As no one has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, the talk page was restored, then trimmed of offensive material that we would normally redact. Nothing more to see here, time to move along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• So, page blanking should only be done in the cases of community banned users and sockpuppets? If that's the rule, then i'm fine with it. I just want it to be enforced evenly, because there are still a lot of cases where page blankings are also given when they shouldn't be, if we're following that rule. Silverseren^C 16:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and what about Arbcom blocks? Since most of those are either for a time limit or are indefinite (but subject to a requested return under an appeal to WP:BASC), their pages shouldn't be blanked, correct? This is something that needs to be fixed because, from what i've seen, most of the users that fall under this have their pages blanked (again, unless the user has a lot of wiki friends that revert the blanking). Silverseren^C 16:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are correct, Silver. There is indeed a lot of cases where page-blankings are given when they shouldn't be. Hopefully this will be a good first step toward putting a stop to such foolishness. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Arb cases as well. That Ed blanked it shouldn't be a big deal and wasn't "wrong", just not optimal. I don't think anyone needs to get on his case over it. I'm just saying there generally isn't a need except in these extreme cases, or it should be in the edit summary. My interest is the same, consistency, but we have to acknowledge that the policies are a little cloudy on some of this, so we should be kind and polite when someone does it and we disagree. My main reason for not wanting to blank pages except where needed is due to causing unnecessary drama or discussion. IE: leave well enough alone. But it shouldn't be seen as a big deal either way, and someone could probably just go ahead and archive this up. I think we all have a general idea of what the preferred and usual circumstances for blanking are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Juandanikevin2012

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

---

This user has been a headache for quite some time now, for several reasons, but most of all due to the lack of any type of communication. For a year and a half, the user first edited as User:Danrivera (the sock thing is apparently bogus, by the way). As you can tell from the Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Danrivera page, there are zero talk page posts. Looking at the edit history, there are zero edit summaries. The same goes for the new account.

Apart from being non-communicable, the user has a history of adding copyrighted material. Look at the talk page of the first user, and it has been an issue from day one. Look at the talk page of the new user, and I have warned the user 3 times (and removed a couple without leaving a warning, too, so there is more).

All text added by this user is copied elsewhere, either from other articles or off-Wikipedia. It is especially obvious when he/she is used erroneously. I assume not being able to communicate with this user has to do with few to no skills in English, so any temporary blocks or warnings is not going to do any good.

I propose a long and overdue indefinite WP:COMPETENCE block. Nymf _hideliho! 20:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That would not necessarily be a bad idea...an indef block with the proviso for being unblocked as explaining his conduct. I would support this. Go Phightins! 20:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked for 24 hours by Qwyrxian. Go Phightins! 20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, blocked for 24 hours prior to me doing this post. 24 hours will not do it, though. Nymf _hideliho! 20:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I figured that, but thought it was worth mentioning anyway. Go Phightins! 22:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

24h block expired, and the user is immediately back to adding copyvios. Any admin willing to touch this? Nymf _hideliho! 16:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the article - new article whose only content is a copyvio is better off deleted so someone else can make a clean start. I've also blocked the user indefinitely and left a clear note as to what he needs to do to get unblocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Harassment

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

---

I would like Viriditas to stop harassing me. I don't know this person on wiki or off wiki and have never edited an article in common, as far as I know. Yet I am being continually targeted by this individual. She/he has repeatedly deleted my user page, saying "Trolling of users", which is not true. [50] She/he has said on my user talk page "Sally Season is just trolling and should be blocked", when that is not true. [51] This person joined an admin page discussion and said "Recommend a block for trolling", when I have never "trolled". [52] This person has said in a page deletion discussion that I am trying to "troll and antagonize the community", when that is not true. Now this person has followed me to an Admin's talk page to ask "how long this trolling is going to be allowed to continue", when I've never trolled.

I've tried ignoring this person, hoping they would entertain themselves with another target, but they persist. Other editors have noted the harassment, with one even recommending "@Viridtas. I, on the other hand, would recommend a block for you for stalking and provocation." [53] I am not asking for blocks, but people have advised me that I can request that someone stay off my pages, or I can request an interaction ban. I can't find a page to submit that request, so I am requesting it here. If he/she is someone from my campus, I want them to know this isn't funny. Thank you for any help,Sally Season (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your TARDIS is malfunctioning. When was the last time I ever edited your user or talk page? Today is November 14 (UTC). You last edited the encyclopedia on November 1, to revert User:Collect.[54] Remember him? That's the guy who uses the term "silly season" a lot, and he's the guy I've said you're trolling with your user name. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Good point Viriditas. This already went to MfD and NewYorkBrad declined to delete, putting it on hold instead.[55] No one has deleted it since. This stuff is almost one month old, October 24. I don't see a current incident that an admin can intervene in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that the MFD and this complaint don't present a current incident to intervene in, but in reviewing Sally's conduct, I am inclined to issue an indefinite block for disruption. Thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 23:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Diffs? Or dates, I can look it up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
        • For the record, Sally is referring to the current thread over at User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Deletion_of_userspace, which she considers harassment. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm looking at User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Deletion_of_userspace at 22:47 specifically. Seems a pretty clear WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND in light of this user's prior contribution history. MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Agreed, and can we close this either way as quickly as possible, so as not to feed this....person? Arkon (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Yeah Matt, I just found that, which was likely the cause of this report. Honestly, Sally Season has taken a lot of static over the user page at MfD and it doesn't seem to end, so I can understand a degree of frustration by them over the situation. Brad semi-closed the MfD so is somewhat involved, and I voted to keep the page as it not being obviously POLEMIC, so I'm a little involved. I actually understand a degree of the frustration, I would be, too, so the question is "has it passed the reasonable threshold yet?". I will stay neutral on a block because of this, although I would ask that everyone consider the totality of the circumstances and assure themselves that no other option has a reasonable chance of accomplishing the goal before taking such a strong action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
            • The disruption appears to be centered around the notes she keeps in her userspace and that she does not recognize they are disruptive. I believe a measured response would be a indefinite block until she agrees to not keep or discuss notes in her userspace. Regardless of if she has a right under policy to keep notes in her userspace, her conduct related to them has gone beyond what is acceptable. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
              • Ok, thought it was still on hold per the MfD (didn't see the strike through on my monitor) so Brad did close as a delete, with it to be deleted on the 5th or so. At this point, I would have to agree that there seems to be a hearing problem on the part of Sally, so I can completely understand the rationale for a block, and why a definite period can't be determined at this point. It is unfortunate, and I had hoped discussion could fix the problem, but reading more, I can understand why you think it wouldn't help, as it would fall on deaf ears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
                • What? New York Brad says below SS deleted the "problematic" content, didn't he? So why the block?Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • It looks like Sally moved it to a subpage in her userspace. So it still exists and is in use, just not on the "front" page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify the chronology, when I went to close the MfD, I saw that a week had been spent on a largely unproductive discussion about some "notes" that Sally Season was keeping on her userpage, consisting of a list of other editors with terse comments, which were probably no longer necessary and which she was insisting on keeping there partly in order to vindicate her right to do so. I thought the proper result for the MfD was "delete," but in an effort to avoid further waste of time, I suggested that Sally Season might wish to remove the notes voluntarily now that another week had gone by. When she declined, I closed the MfD as delete (blank), but gave her a further grace period in case she actually needed to make any further use of the notes. Even though Sally Season still has a userpage (and is entitled to), the notes are no longer there, so the problematic content has been deleted, consistent with the MfD close. Offering no opinion on any other action that might be proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad. NYB's chronology is mostly correct, but I should clarify a few points. The reason I kept my notepad on my user page is because there was a big MFD template on it demanding that I not delete it, and not "to vindicate her right to do so", as NYB said. I was allowed to edit it however, so I did, and removed the outdated notes with NYB's blessing. I also created a subpage for my notepad, as suggested by several editors, which I was told would help reduce future problems. Several editors also suggested that I replace my shorthand, terse notes with longer, more explanatory notes to stop the wild (and completely wrong) speculation about why editors names appeared in my notes. I did that, too. I see now that NYB has recently removed that template from my user page, so I have just deleted that notepad. If my notepad (in a subpage /Notepad off my user page) is in any way "problematic", it sure would be nice to know why.

Dennis Brown, there are no deaf ears here. I'm doing everything I can to resolve all this stuff, and put it all behind. I realize it looks like the user page mess was resolved a while ago, but there is this one remaining sticking-point I've been discussing with NYB on his page. All the disruption has long since stopped and the disruptors have gone their way, with the one exception noted above who just had to drive by and poke at me again. Sally Season (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts: Viriditas can agree not to make unnecessary posts on SS's page, NYB can manage his own talk page, anyone concerned that SS's username is can file at WP:UAA, and we can close the thread. NE Ent 01:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And let's add, NE Ent can do more article editing and less kibbitzing in Wikipedia space. (10.5% article edits, 41.94% Wikipedia space edits, 24.23% user talk edits) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you add "Viriditas stops with the silly "troll" attacks", I'll sign on the dotted line immediately.Sally Season (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

[56], [57], [58]. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• This filing was frivolous, and Sally Season's statement above was a personal attack. I would recommend Sally Season dropping the stick now, before this returns to hit you on the head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012 (Copyright/BLP Issues)

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.

---

• Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Corinne.L.Clark (talk · contribs)

POV piece with original research, poor sourcing. Have nominated this for AfD, and requested intervention at AIV, since article's creator continues to remove maintenance templates, ignores warnings, and won't discuss. Copyright violations and WP:BLP concerns as well. This is a WP:SPA intent on using Wikipedia to make a point. JNW (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed copyright vio and BLP. But someone need to look really close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Also looks like the User is edit warring the BLP and copyvio back in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Blatant disparaging screed against Obama. Kill. It. With. Fire.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the G10 deletion; the article was completely irredeemable thus I've also deleted the userspace copy. I'm somewhat questioning my own judgment in warning instead of blocking the user outright, as I doubt they'll come around given the brazenness of this incident. They should undoubtedly be indeffed if any hint of this POV-pushing behavior returns. Swarm ^X 07:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to those who joined the AfD discussion, and to Xymmax, the closing administrator. JNW (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Volunteers needed for enforcement of NPOV and ARBPIA sanctions on a current events page

Forgive me if this is polyanna-ish, but the Operation Pillar of Cloud page is about an ongoing Arab–Israeli issue. As we know, this has high potential for edit warring and POV violations. The 1RR restrictions and influx of opinionated editors makes it difficult for non-admins to monitor the page by themselves. So if any admins feel like sorting out a controversial topic with opinionated editors, sign up now! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm going to regret this... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat general question: Is it normal to put an edit-notice referencing ArbCom sanctions over relevant articles? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is (and especially for articles covering recent events) so that editors are aware of the restrictions in place. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you will, Blade! That's what we don't pay you for! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad yet; hopefully it stays that way. When it inevitably doesn't, I'm at the ready to jam the lid back on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

99.185.56.156

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 user from the IP address 99.185.56.156 has been a persistent problem in the community. The user insists on insulting other editors (especially with the word "liberal"), vandalizing pages with political propaganda, and refusing to discuss matters civilly. I reverted the user's recent comment on my talk page as vandalism. The user has a history of disrespectful editing and has been warned many times. I respectfully request an administrator's intervention with regards to this user. --Ðrdak (T) 04:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Useless. Nothing but "liberal baiting". Has had 2 blocks and numerous complaints in the last 6 months. Should be blocked for a long stretch and talk page should be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for six months. This user's purpose here is obviously incompatible with the project. Swarm ^X 06:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Profane sock account maker

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

---

Resolved

 – All accounts now blocked. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Today, User:Sa123321123321 began creating a series of successive socks with profane names. I've reported them all to WP:UAA, but that board is very back logged at the moment. The accounts so far:

• User:My dick is big
• User:My dick, i have been expecting you
• User:To my dick

--Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, the profane socks are blocked. Thoughts on blocking the sock master? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think it was User:Sa123321123321 creating these accounts? Yunshui 雲‍水 14:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's in the logs. He created "To my dick" [59]. To my dick created the other two [60]. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked as vandalism-only account. Fram (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just found those log entries myself. I shall advise him of the community's disapproval with a hefty dose of blockage. (edit conflict) Looks like Fram beat me to it. Let's close this, then. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User IndianBio

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, I want to give information about user IndianBio.He is adding too much ,more info than required to In My City article.His edits are getting worse.His grammar is disaster.His edits lacks continuity.He had created a long article without reliable sources,and only 47 reference for 41,000 bytes.See the article's talk page User:Iknow23 had listed all the unreliable infos which is added by indianbio.

Also,when I gave my suggestion to Priyanka Chopra's article on the talk page,he attacked me saying all sources are false.someone tell him he added the reference from same publisher.He is trying to be good but he's not.please do something.(Pks1142 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

This appears to be a content dispute that is currently being discussed on the article talk page. Why have you brought this issue here? What administrative action do you believe is required? ‑Scottywong| converse _ 15:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You have also not notified IndianBio about this discussion, which is required (see instructions at the top of this page). Please do that now. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 15:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

What is going on?

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

---

I recently requested access to AWB which I had already acquired two months ago and unfortunately wasn't aware of that. So, admin Snowolf informed me of the situation. I am thankful to him for that. But then he - based on a calamitous misunderstanding - revoked my access to the tool I had never even got the chance to use. The sheer misunderstanding was that I don't hold the view that I am responsible for every way I use the tool. When actual reality is quite the contrary.

Now one might ask how can a veteran administrator be so mistaken. Actually it's not his fault, it's partly my own fault too. What happened is, once a novice editor had asked me to modify the "automated response" (automated warning messages that STiki leaves on user talk page, not to be confused with edit summary) in such a way that it mentions that it's automated every time (at least, that's the Idea I got from his comments that day). Note: He wasn't complaining about the fact that I warned him through STiki. Also he, not I, was unsatisfied about the contents of the default warning. In that context I merely responded, "I have not created those messages nor did I build that software, so I am really the wrong person to complain to." I was not using that statement as an excuse; I was simply trying to inform him about the nature of STiki. Just to make it clear, I like the default warning messages, and also like notifying users that I reverted their edit. This gives them a chance to get back to me or improve their edits or re-add the deleted data with sources.

I never said that I do not take responsibility. And to dispel any vestiges of doubt there might be in one's mind, I do hereby solemnly swear to take full responsibility for the tools I use on Wikipedia. And the thing is, I never said or meant that I do not take responsibility. However, if someone asks me to change/modify the coding of the tool itself, then that I cannot do as I don't know how. The correct procedure to modify the tools (e.g. STiki, Twinkle, Huggle, etc) themselves is just not within the purview of my knowledge. Hence I wrote that I am not the guy one should be complaining to about the automated/default wording of the warning messages. Again, I didn't say "go complain to him". I repeat, he didn't complain about the fact that I warned him. He, instead, asked me to change the automated warning itself. Had that editor clearly asked me to simply change that particular message on his talk page, I would have gladly helped. Please see that thread and note that I stated that I "take full responsibility" twice, even within that very thread.

One might say that I misread/misinterpreted his comments or that I had spoken out of turn. Yes, there is a slim possibility of these things being true and I regret it. But that is not really the problem we're dealing with here. The the heart of the issue is my views on the responsibility of the tools I use here, which I think I have clarified already. I, as a matter of fact, don't have any problems whatsoever with any tool I use. OTOH, if somebody else has problems with my editing they are invited to inform me (with diffs) and if that discussion fails they can report me. Please restore the access. Thank you all for your time. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not responsible for granting access to AWB. This appears more to be a discussion you should be having with those who handle AWB requests. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I had talked to Snowolf on his talk page about this previously at MrT's request, and Snowolf's reply was firm enough that I chose to not override his decision. Permissions are not something I work with regularly, so I deferred to Snowolf's greater experience but have no prejudice either way. I agree with Bwilkins here that it should be handled at request for permissions since it really isn't an "incident", it is a disagreement about permissions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dennis please don't attribute your actions to me when I didn't ask you to do it. I never asked you to go and talk to anybody this time.

"Snowolf's reply was firm enough that I chose to not override his decision." - I never asked you to override anything. You brought it up. Furthermore, you ultimately admitted on your talk that you ″trust and believe″ me that ″this isn't the way it should be taken...″. You don't know how to assign permissions for AWB since you don't use it. Also, a disagreement can be seen as an incident when it involves divesting others of their legitimate access to tools. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not an incident ... just as a long drawn-out disagreement about content is not an incident and also would not belong here. You disagreed with the reason for a removal of a permission. Fine. Permissions are removed all the time. There are a dozen people who monitor the request for permission for AWB page. Go there; make a polite, well-reasoned re-request with links proving that you have not done wrong. Do not in any way attack someone for doing what they felt was right. If you're successful in doing the above, it may be reinstated by someone else. If not, then wait a few months and retry. There's no immediate need for using AWB, and Wikipedia isn't going anywhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Bwilkins. I will follow your instructions. But my previous request is still there, is it a problem? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Go back there to the same thread: an apology for your over-reaction above (although hard feeling should never influence permissions), include a better description with links as I explained will provide a good "bump" where hopefully someone will respond there. Again, there's no hurry, so stop treating like getting AWB is urgent (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue whether it was a formal request or not, but I did go out on a limb and make it known that I trusted you with the tools. If I misread what I thought you implied by your note on my talk page, I'm sorry, but I did go to bat for you at Snowolf's page and tried to get him to reconsider, including telling him " I would easily trust him with the tools", so not sure why you are upset with me. I did everything I could do in order to get your permissions back, except revert Snowolf's actions, something an admin shouldn't do outside of the proper Request board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Who said I am upset with you Dennis? I am not upset with you. You've been considerate enough so far. I am simply a little bit scared and confounded with all that's going on because of my misconstrued comments. I am trying extra-hard to keep things straight and clear. I never asked you to bat for me. But I sincerely appreciate your doing so. Please don't get me wrong. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Do not in any way attack someone for doing what they felt was right. - this is just the kind of misconstrual/misunderstanding that so depresses me. You are the one, Bwilkins, who pontificates on assuming good faith? Exactly where did I so cogently give away the impression that I am attacking admin Snowolf in anyway? I don't think I have yet attacked anybody personally. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, filing this ANI thread can often been seen as an attack :-) However, the meaning was simply to make sure your request did not come across as accusatory in any way - this thread does come across that way (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Right, wrong or indifferent, it would be best to just let this be for a few days, then follow the advice given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I think the purpose behind posting this thread here has been met and the thread has paid its due. I will be following the instructions and stay out of this thread unless my intervention becomes absolutely necessary. Thank you Bwilkins and Dennis for giving me your advice. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism by 204.126.132.241

Jason_Witten vandalized today. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Witten&diff=523193070&oldid=522588361

I reverted the above and posted a notice on User_talk:204.126.132.241

A review of User_talk:204.126.132.241 indicates persistent vandalism since July of 2011. Gmporr (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This user is apparently an educational institution (According to this diff[61]). They have a long history of vandalism, but nothing special. Please take this to WP:ANV if you feel a block of some kind is warranted. Coppaar (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User check : RobertRosen

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

---

It all started with our differing views on the reliability of a source here. I resorted to WP:RSN to seek expert advice. User:TheBlueCanoe intervened and opined that the source concerned is reliable, wikipedia per se. On reflection, I found that clauses such as WP:SPS too would apply if at all RobertRosen's views were taken seriously and I stated the same to him. RobertRosen kept spouting Wikipedia lingo such as WP:AGF and WP:RS and refused to give in to any of my points. He further went on defacing the article with edits such as this. That worried me and made me look up RobertRosen's history to check his intentions. I found instances such as this, thisand this which smeared my assumed good faith on RobertRosen. Sneakily removing sourced material with misleading edit summaries, removing sourced content falsely stating that it is unsupported : his edit history revealed such tendencies. Further check on Aruna Roy's history brought to light his other edits([62] 2 & 3) which have removed relevant and sourced material such as Aruna's featuring in Time's list of influential people. Maybe a pattern would emerge if all his contributions are scrutinized. The user keeps asking me to take it to his talk page, but I doubt if that would be worth my time and energy. Need administrator intervention. _morelMW^illiam 09:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI please. GiantSnowman 09:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia should be a reliable encyclopedia sourced from authentic and non-POV sources in so far as BLP articles are concerned. So yes, I do "tend" to remove information on BLPs till they are properly sourced and re-written by editors interested in the subject. I am primarily a Wikipedia reader/user and not a Wikipedia editor. The present dispute is about personal biographical information about a living person Aruna Roy. I had repeatedly asked the complainant to take it to the ARTICLE TALK PAGE since there were only 2 editors involved. I also advised him that WP:3 is the place to go if he wanted a third opinion. Instead he has brought a content dispute to WP:ANI within the space of a few hours and without any independent editors being allowed to participate. For instance, User:TheBlueCanoe gave his opinion before I had even properly stated my case. If insisting on strict adherence to WP policies is a crime, then please dub me a SP and throw me out of WP. RobertRosen (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any socks. I had to take it to ANI as the problem is not with this one instance, but many, as supported by the disturbing instances cited in my first post. User:TheBlueCanoe did respond after RobertRosen's reply, which still wasn't a favourable one for RobertRosen. This user has a flawed understanding of WP policies and his editing should be monitored closely to prevent him from defacing further articles. _morelMW^illiam 10:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my bad - your talk of "user check" and "patterns" threw me, I thought you were talking about socking. I'll try and have a proper look if I find time. GiantSnowman 10:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is another instance that makes me question his sound knowledge of WP policies. Controversies should be removed from a BLP article only when they form the main content, if I am not wrong. Or am I wrong? _morelMW^illiam 10:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you (MorelMWilliam) are. You're edit warring, not using the article talk page, not responding to a good faith notice place on your talk page, and running off to noticeboards. You're escalating the situation very quickly, and posting to ANI concurrently with RSN. Digging through an editor's history to find "evidence" of past misdeeds isn't really helpful, especially when at some of the links you provide don't really hold up. For example, RobertRosen made some edits to Arindam Chaudhuri with reasonable edit summaries, which were reverted by another editor; RR did not edit war (a third editor repeated some of the trimming). This discussion should be taken to the talk page. Going to RSN to get additional viewpoints is fine, but it's more helpful to give it time to allow other editors to comment rather than going back and forth with another editor. I don't see any need for admin action here. Nobody Ent 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@MorelMWilliam, Just FYI, what I removed on Salman Khurshid was clearly within the scope of WP:LBL. Let me also say that while I respect CONTRIBUTORS like you who add information ("WP is not a paper encyclopedia"), WP also needs those few remaining EDITORS like me who clean up afterwards. So chill and have mutual respect. RobertRosen (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

@Nobody WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM support the addition of well sourced contentious material against Salman Khurshid as they don't garner undue weight in his article. As regards the Arindham Chaudhuri link, RobertRosen deleted the entire content rather than changing it to the way supported by the source. I chose not to take things on my own hands and took it to notice boards for outsider opinion. Besides, all your concerns are that I took it to ANI and not go by talk page disputes, then a 3rd party intervention and then an another step before I get here. Look at the amount of junk that is there on WP:RSN for addition of simple and non contentious facts in an article! Most of his edits, other than today's, have something to do with people/ organisations involved in India Against Corruption movement, and I see a pattern there. His edits are usually content removal, a lot of them of a not so sound judgement. When contacted, he comes forward with wikipedia rules that don't apply. A rollback of some sort for his edits is what I see necessary, and that needs an administrator! _morelMW^illiam 12:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Roy bio cited is SPS originally from [63] and the rmaf site is simply copying material as a copyright violation of the SPS material <g>. Pretty clear and convincing copyvio in fact, thus unuable for two separate and distinct absolute rules of Wikipedia. I did not check other issues, but that particular one should be laid to rest. Collect (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

All American Speakers website which has her 'bio' cited lists no author. This website sources content that are on public domain. Such as Jesse Jackson's bio copied from here. So it is not an SPS, but rather RMAF's content mirrored by All American Speakers. _morelMW^illiam 12:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In the ongoing WP:RSN discussion, RobertRosen has veered off to conspiracy theorists' territories. His key points include

• Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation is biased to further American Interests as it is administered by Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation.

• Vigil Online, a non notable think tank, authors books that are more reliable than most of the sources here that meet WP:RS.

• He is a self-styled 'door-keeper' who claims that it is because of him "that text from books from "their" side NOR "your" side get through WP's policies and into BLPs".

• He thinks because he knows many books that go "pornographic" when talking about personal details of Aruna Roy, Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation's biography by an experienced filipino journalist Lorna Kalaw-Tirol is unreliable.

• He asks editors to read his Indian conspiracy theorists like Arundhati Roy sending me links to her criticism pieces such as this to become more 'informed'.

• He claims that the personal details of Aruna Roy supported by RMAF is contentious citing a few blogs.

It is now very clear that he subscribes to such ideologues and defaces articles with his wikilawyering. _morelMW^illiam 05:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

MorelMWilliam, if you describe another editor as 'defacing' an article one more time, when what you mean is 'editing it in a way I don't like' I will block you under WP:NPA. This appears to be nothing but a content dispute, and I recommend it be closed before such an outcome occurs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the roads, did you read my entire post? It is not a content dispute; this user uses his personal research and unreliable/ shifty sources to support his wikilawyering. This RobertRosen has taken over Aruna Roy and many other wiki articles related to India Against Corruption and removes well referenced content citing their differences with his own knowledge supported by unreliable sources. Here are a few instances.

• He believes(1 & 2) that Aruna Roy and Sanjit Roy were never married. However, it is supported by multiple sources such as this and this.
• I found that a different version of the text under dispute was added by an administrator Ekabhishek in 2009. The same was removed by RobertRosen in 2011 stating that version to be copied in entirety from the source.

I am tired citing instances showing his bad judgement and I wonder if the above is not defacing, then what is! _morelMW^illiam 19:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't use my personal knowledge, my personal research or dubious sources to add (or delete) material to WP article space. That would be WP:NOR. My Indian BLP niche edits are usually of the "delete immediately without waiting for discussion" variety and strictly in terms of WP:BLP, WP:V etc.

Secondly, in 22.02.2011 I removed (as a COPYVIO) article text [64] from Aruna Roy which stated that she and Sanjit/Bunker Roy "are not separated". Today User:MWilliam tried to rope the editor/admin "Ekabhishek" whose text I deleted into this dispute to support him at WP:ANI. However, 1 of MorelWilliam's own 2 new sources which he relies on to show they were married ALSO says that they "are separated".

Thirdly, I would ask User:MWilliams to understand Sanjit Roy's carefully nuanced statement (in the 2nd reference he provided) "In India I'm always Aruna Roy's husband."

Fourthly MWilliams is not even allowed to post such an ANI because he did not discuss this incident on my talk page and considering that I had immediately posted a courtesy message on his talk page asking him to do so after I (once) reverted his edits for purely technical reasons.

This is a content dispute and nothing else. The complainant is insistent on inserting a poorly sourced, copyrightvio'ed and controversial text into a BLP and is stalking me to achieve it. Can somebody please close this discussion, and/or get User:MWilliams to stop stalking me, repeatedly examining and maligning my editing style (and despite being advised not to do so by 4 neutral admins), calling for a WP:CU for me without any basis, and dismissively bypassing each and every conventional WP dispute resolution process so as to malign me. RobertRosen (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly(sic), this is NOT A CONTENT DISPUTE.
• Secondly(sic), this IS A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOUR EDITING STYLE and nothing else.
• Thirdly(sic), I am NOT STALKING YOU. I am just not that into you, okay? By the way, did you happen to land on Ekabhishek's talk page just like that?
• Sanjit Roy's statement implies that he is relatively unknown in India, other than for the fact that he is Aruna's husband. What did you understand? You have now come to believe that they are separated from your earlier stand that they were never married.
• You should seek advice from WP:RSN before you remove a source from a page. If it is you who regards a source dubious, then it is your personal knowledge / personal research. I didn't come up lived in sin because of their brehman - low life unconventional mixed marriage. Do you have a reliable source for that? _morelMW^illiam 13:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

On reviewing the editing at Aruna Roy for the past 2 years, I find that an anon IP band 117.xxx.xxx.xxx geo-resolving to BSNL in Rajasthan State in India, has been persistently trying to include personal biographic details of her to the article. I am not the only editor to have reverted this text/anon User:Materialscientist(an Admin) also did so on 22.Feb.2012 and so did User:Jargon777 on 25.May.2012. Curiously MWilliams is going to extraordinary lengths to reinsert much of the same (now seemingly self published) material which was removed by Materialscientist and by me (twice) as say on 10.Oct.2011 much after the text was added by MWilliams on 30.Aug.2011. So its not the first time this very text was added by Mwilliams and removed by me about 2 months later. So the sequence goes like this --> On 22.feb.2011 I remove the disputed text which I noticed after removing a patently COPYVIO image from flickr (which image also repeatedly gets reinserted back on this page), MWilliams adds the text back on 30.Aug.2011. I remove it 2 months later, then the anon IP replaces it and MaterialScientist removes it immediately. Then Mwilliams puts it back and I revert it immediately. It may also be relevant that Aruna Roy's organisation the "MKSS" is based in Rajasthan and she was also involved with a "Barefoot University" there. RobertRosen (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What's happening is a slow-moving edit-war, and just because it's 2 months apart doesn't make it any better, or any less of an edit-war...WP:BRD still applies. However, if you're suggesting some form of "undercover" or covert operations going on, then you'd better take a very quick re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and realign your manner of thinking as the hints, suggestions, and almost accusations above are inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Bwilkins, I respectfully beg to state it differently. Somebody is repeatedly attempting to violate WP:NPOV on this WP:BLP by inserting a specific set of controversial text including concerning the subject's marital status and parentage. The article subject herself is a controversial personality much in the news. Several independent and neutral editors (including an Indian WP:Admin and a WP:Rollbacker from Toronto) have stopped him/them on technical grounds. None of us (incl. me) have problems with the content per se, we had always removed/rollbacked it for technical reasons. None of us rollbackers (as far as I can make out) have added any significant material to the article. Because of the glacial pace (and the anon IP), we could not see the pattern earlier.

WP:DR I have not contacted those other 2 editors or involved them. I had put a message on MWilliam's talk page asking him to discuss it, either on my talk page or the article talk page but he unilaterally chose to bring it to WP:RSN without any discussion saying "I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy." and also "This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat". He then came to WP:ANI to escape from the ongoing WP:RSN discussion which later went against him. RobertRosen (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've also just discovered that "MWilliams" has also complained about this/me to the BLP notice board [65] and neglected to inform me or place the "blp-dispute" tag on the article's talk page. RobertRosen (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, I also find that MWilliams has moved all his controversial talk page content to archives, and in the period when this slow "edit-warring" first began ie. Feb-July 2011 he had been indulging in massive copyvios and was "blocked" for disruptive editing. It also seems from his archive he had another user name, ... which I've now discovered resolves to former SockPuppeteer "Manorathan" [66]. [67]. RobertRosen (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In view of the above. I would like to try and resolve this "one-on-one" with User:MonelMWilliams, and see if he promises to reform and be a "good boy" at Wikipedia in future. I'm not a vindictive person and believe there is good in everyone and ultimately we are working towards the same goal. RobertRosen (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap ... and now you'll only resolve it if he "promises to reform and be a 'good boy'"? Can you be any more condescending? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In a perfect world, suggesting that another editor "promise to be a good boy" would result in a quick and lengthy block. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

To another "editor" yes. Not when addressed to an incorrigible sock who has regularly continued to disruptively edit and abuse several editors besides me after being unblocked. RobertRosen (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@RobertRosen : You are delusional and are distorting the facts.

• The WP:RSN didn't turn against me. It was in fact the opposite.
• User MaterialScientist removed ([68]2) unsourced content.
• User Jargon777 removed unsourced text in unrecognised script.
• The anon IP DID NOT replace my text. It was unsourced and possibly of original research.
• How do their edits build the case in your favour? You have forgotten that the sourced text that you removed (first instannce) was added by an administrator Ekabhishek. So the correct sequence : an administrator adds well sourced text, you remove it with a dubious accusation stating that it violates some copyright, I reword it and add it back with the supporting source, then you remove it again which I discover only a year later and then I add it back only to be blanked again by you, which lead us here.
• You claim the well referenced text removed by you to be controversial. Which notable source supports you other than your personal research? You claim the subject to be controversial. What do you mean by that? Where are the sources to support that?
• Don't try to link yourself with those independent and neutral editors. Their technical grounds were different; while yours is a plain abuse of WP:BLP to remove contents without discussion the text that one personally finds poorly sourced, theirs was removing unsourced content. So, stop using us!

And dearie, stop showering this much love on me. You would make my doggie jealous. Stay content with my blown kiss. _morelMW^illiam 04:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is very clear that you are not prepared to reform despite being given a 2nd chance. You have continued to indulge in uncivil disruptive editing such as here [69] with former admin "BoingSaidZebedee, and [70] where you abused another editor in the following terms "You don't get it. What I have been asking from the beginning is to add their claims to be Kshatriyas, for which there are many sources. You should perhaps tune up your ability to comprehend. Go back and read my posts on the article talk page". I'm very sorry to say that you were found to be a socker and you continued to behave in a disruptive fashion thereafter with editors other than me. In the past 5 months the only 2 article pages you have worked on were those on which I had removed CONTROVERSIAL POORLY SOURCED AND COPYRIGHTED BLP material. So you are stalking me. Insofar as WP:REFORMED is concerned, charges of further disruptive behaviour can be leveled on the Admin Notice Boards. RobertRosen (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, they are all in my archives for everyone to see. But where is your homework on what this discussion is about, especially the points raised in my previous post? I don't see anything further about Aruna's marriage or her alleged marriage as you like calling it. _morelMW^illiam 06:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Now why would one reword a threat? _morelMW^illiam 08:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, calling another editor "delusional" should be an immediate NPA block. That's simply uncalled for. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of the post to see why I call him delusional? Distorting the facts and spinning his own version abusing the tendency here to not verify anything, what else is that? Here is an ADMINISTRATOR that finds hidden personal motives behind his disruptive editing. And he uses the word defacing when referring to RobertRosen's contributions. _morelMW^illiam 02:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why you called him that, it's a flat insult. Trying to excuse it doesn't change the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is continuous harassment and trolling. THAT was what Ekabhishek said BEFORE I commented on his talk page, THIS is what he says now [71] RobertRosen (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, this is not harassment/ trolling. This is a genuine concern on your editing style and the motives(such as (this) that are driving you to commit these acts. Are you still over me? Shall we get back to what this discussion is about, because that is not helping you in any way. For starters, what do you think now about Aruna Roy's marriage? And about Ekabhishek's diplomatic statement, he didn't reclaim his remark on your acts or personal motives, did he?_morelMW^illiam 05:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Both of you, drop it for now. Arguing back and forth is helping neither of your cases. Either an admin will weigh in or (more likely) this will fall into the archives because no one feels it ecessary to intercede. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm inappropriately interjecting here, but my thoughts are these: this discussion has been plagued by incivility and personal attacks from both persons. Based on the dialogue, I think this issue is just a personal conflict that arose from a content dispute. Each of you is doing your damnedest to demonize the other and point out their flaws while refusing to acknowledge your own. What you need to do (and what you should have done in the first place) is actively try to solve this. First, discuss this in talk. You need some kind of common ground. Forget about what's been said. If you can't be nice, at least be civil, and present your argument based on policy. If your argument is questioned, explain it, and try to understand the other person's rationale, even if you don't agree with it. Ultimately, you're trying to find consensus of some kind. It might not work out, and that's when you go to WP:DRN. There, you repeat the process with the help of more editors. If no consensus can be reached among this larger constituency, then you can come to AN/I for administrator input. You've jumped the gun here and avoided communication in favor of a quick resolution based on the assumption that you're right and the other guy's wrong. For any kind of solution to be reached, you're going to have to go through the proper steps and make a concerted effort to resolve this on your own. I hope you can make that happen. Coppaar (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion in the Article's talk page. Hope the discussion proceeds in a mature way. _morelMW^illiam 05:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that I am NOW going to discuss Aruna Roy with this user. From the very beginning I asked him to discuss it on the article's talk page and go through all the standard hierarchial DRs if necessary. Now after his vexatious litigation and considering he forced me to winkle out his past track record as a disruptive sock it is impossible for me to discuss anything with him in GOOD FAITH. Unlike MWilliams I have no "ownership" issues with any page. It makes no difference to me if vandals screw the encyclopedia because all the good editors are sleeping. I am already an Admin (and a super-Admin) at far superior information resources which only have properly verified editors (we don't let in riff-raff) and I don't give a f*** what happens here anymore. RobertRosen (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by several users

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

---

Hello, since the case is about two users with similar behaviour edit warring over the Bulgaria article, I'll post a notification on both of them.

• User:Ceco31 has made dozens of reverts for the past two weeks. The edits consist of replacement of existing images without prior discussion and adding tendentious statements; my explanation to the user why this shouldn't be done (citing recommendations of the previous FA nomination and MoS on images) has been ignored. The majority of the statements in question are almost exclusively wikipuffery of this kind, although recent ones have been on a larger scale and also consist of poorly formatted sources and text. I have asked the user to cease this sort of behaviour on his talk page, only to receive a negative response.

• User:PPMit, a single-purpose account, for deleting sourced content without explanation. [72][73] The user tends to explain his viewpoint with long and opinionated argumentation and involves other users in time-consuming, lengthy disputes.

All this comes after a 140-kb content dispute involving a tag team of single-purpose accounts demonstrating similar behaviour. Me and several other users (including an admin) - User:Chipmunkdavis, User:WilliamThweatt, User:Jingiby and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - went as far as dispute resolution and arbitration in an attempt to resolve the issue, but this only resulted in a 3-month block for one of the SPAs, while the rest continued to unleash endless rants, engage other contributors in edit wars and generally waste the time of those who can be productive. The article was in the works for an FA nomination, but the behaviour of Ceco31 and PPMit - who have remained the most active of those disrupting - has been more unproductive at the very least. I believe appropriate measures should be taken here, since the two dispute resolution attempts have failed (due to lack of participation by all users) and the arbitration only sanctioned the most vocal user of this group. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Based on a report at WP:ANEW, I blocked User:Ceco31 for 72 hours for edit-warring ([74]).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Useddenim

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.

---

Useddenim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accuse me of vandalism. Who had given him such right?

I removed the superfluous information because already there are all icons and other are unnecessary, and i explained page editing. --Туча (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, party I agree with the opinion of Useddenim about this edit. It is a bit strange to remove one American train because American trains do not require special icon or two special icons! This is the usual train. On the other hand, you leave the trams and rapid transport, not clearly American, untouched...

But, I must admit, Useddenims reply looks rather harsh and possesive to me! The Banner _talk 00:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've left a message telling them to not use the phrase "vandalism" unless it fit the description under WP:VANDAL. As whether or not Туча's edit was a good one or not, that is not up to us admin, that is to be decided by the editors themselves. I don't see a need for any other action at this point since it was a one off issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Accusations of POV-pushing and racism at Tipperary Hill

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 posted on this matter less than a week ago, but received only one response. As this has flared up again, I am hoping someone will intervene before this escalates.

Once again, I see no NPOV issues here. The section is factual and referenced, and it does not push a pro-Irish position. It simply states what happened. The anon. offers no actual evidence of POV, and I cannot make sense of most of his long-winded rants. He is clearly not understanding my comments, or he is intentionally misrepresenting them, because I never said "'cause I say so". I am hoping some other editors and/or admins can step in and sort this out. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You would receive more responses had you examined the rules of posting and attempted to discuss the matter with me on my talk page rather than blanking out my additions to the articles talk page.

Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.

An administrator may need to step in. It is not normal behavior to censor users and report them to administrators as you did in the first instance (when you blanked my entry on the talk page telling me to take my 'ignorant rants elsewhere') purely because they have raised concerns with article quality, weasel wording, and racism on an article. It is not normal behavior to constantly remove an NPOV flag regardless of you saying 'there is no NPOV'--which appears to be your reasoning--you stating your point of view does not mean the dispute is resolved. In fact the NPOV boiler plate itself states quite clearly not to remove the NPOV tag until the dispute is resolved and to discuss it on the talk page (note, discuss, not talk and refuse to read anything anywhere!)

Your talk page whilst protected and censored has a history. In it's history, and your 'alternate' heavily censored talk page (which you basically warn anything you disagree with will be deleted) show many instances where you have been warned about your conduct and poor behavior. To be honest, I have absolutely no idea how given the behavior and conduct issues I can see in your history from a brief examination that you have not been banned for your hostile behavior towards other Wikipedians. :/

You have made no attempt to discuss your apparent grievances with me besides reporting me multiple times on this board, again not what it is here for given that you haven't read the fun exciting stuff at the top of the page.

To deal with the issues on the article in question a 3rd opinion is a good first port of call followed perhaps by dispute resolution. But merely yelling loudly and edit warring is not going to get anything done, let alone improve the article quality.

Whilst I understand your comprehension of my 'long winded rants' may be lacking, I do understand that everything Irish is clearly a very strong passion of yours. I do fear however that in this instance it has become a problem. Given that I have absolutely no vested interest (and barely an interest besides a reddit link) with the article in question my issues of racism and article quality are specifically from a neutral agenda and for the purpose of improving the article and ditching the overt 'boys will be boys' re-working systematic vandalism and bullying of the council in question has been mitigated down to. 60.225.69.174 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC) (User:BaSH PR0MPT (can't recover my pass, on holidays, will be back home Saturday))

• The issue is resolved. The tag is removed. Someone please look this over and close it. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• That article needs help from someone with some pruning shears. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

English language proficiency of User:B767-500

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:B767-500 has a long history of warnings about their english language proficiency. I am not sure if there are any other serious issues with this editor. is there a way to politely let them know that contributing to WP requires a language proficiency that matches the tasks selected? i have edited foreign language WP's, but usually adding images, or links, but no sentences, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look over their talk page, it's apparent that their language proficiency is well below the par that we expect for editing of any level on this 'pedia. I'm sure they're trying hard to contribute but unfortunately their competence is seriously lacking and it's been a bone of contention over the last several years. Blackmane (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify the other party when you post at ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at messages to this user, it appears that they have been sufficiently informed about their limited proficiency in English but have done nothing to address or even acknowledge the need. A sample of their edits shows a lack of English skill that significantly diminishes any possible benefit to their contributions. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This indicates that the problem isn't just their ability to speak English (they dumped a load of printers pie onto the talkpage). Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that was joke after too many of beverages and I already removing the junk text. --B767-500 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any clue, and I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive, where the editor is from/what their native language is? I agree, this is an issue; directing them to the appropriate language encyclopedia, I think, is going to be the best solution. Go Phightins! 03:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On their talk page, it was suggested that Thai may have been their first language but a reply implied that Thai may be a second language. At at guess, their first language could be south asian or I could be completely way off. Blackmane (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible for a CU to find the underlying IP used, then Geolocate the IP, find out the location/language - and then we know where to begin. GiantSnowman 10:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I already living in U.S. (California) due to asylum. --B767-500 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Where are you originally from? Go Phightins! 03:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We have some bad government which they going to mess up my family, so identity of country cannot be talk about it. My people got no home country. --B767-500 (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

GS, horrible idea, we don't use CU to reveal private information about editors (even if done in good faith). NE Ent 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit. I had to reread that several times just to make sure he actually suggested that. Unbelievable. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The political situation, or anything else other than his issue of language ability, is moot. No matter how badly he may want to (and that is still in question) contribute to the encyclopedia, his lack of skills with English keep him from doing that. No matter how much a man may want to work at Deja Vu, he lacks the basic qualification. The same goes for this editor. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Even as a bouncer? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I working part time as ID check guy, so I can involved those kinds of jobs ;-). --B767-500 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but at this point I would recommend a WP:COMPETENCE block. Go Phightins! 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. Unfortunate, but endorsed. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:ENGVAR edit-warring

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.

---

Merritttttt (talk · contribs) is edit-warring at color blindness over the spelling of the word "color", changing all instances of the word to comply with Commonwealth English spelling. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Every edit seems to be for teh lulz. contribs --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked a few minutes before your post :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully all future contributions will be less opposite of this . Doc talk 10:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Westeros7 acts like paid public relations agent

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.

---

All of User: Westeros7's edits form a pattern making it highly probable he/she is a paid public relations agent hired to create puff pieces for companies. The two articles created are GitHub and SignNow. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is their talk page a red link? --Onorem♠Dil 14:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Because I can't start a thread here and issue the notice on the user's talk page in the same instant. It should be there now. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. I was asking why it's at AN/I before a single attempt to discuss it with them was made. --Onorem♠Dil 14:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I just left them a welcome message explaining our policies on COI. Legoktm (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

When I see a polished piece on a highly controversial company appear that has nothing but nice stuff to say, I cannot bring myself to believe the user is unaware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. What do I mean by highly controversial? Well, the California Secretary of State saw fit to issue a Customer Alert for the practice carried out by SignNow, although SignNow is not mentioned by name. Of course the revised alert issued 18 October 2012 mentions that online notarizations are now legal in Virginia. I leave it to those interested to look into the Virginia requirements and compare them to SignNow's procedures. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Their edits to GitHub look just fine to me. Haven't checked the other articles though. Legoktm (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Being a paid editor is not against policy, nor is editing with a conflict of interest. There have been a number of discussions and an RfC on the issue and the community has been very loud in saying they do not want editors blocked solely for being paid. Spamming is against policy, but the proper response at this stage would be to either CSD or AFD the articles and first let the editors at AFD determine if their contributions are really not worthwhile. Since we can't block solely for being paid or having a COI, this ANI is premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

English language proficiency of User:B767-500

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:B767-500 has a long history of warnings about their english language proficiency. I am not sure if there are any other serious issues with this editor. is there a way to politely let them know that contributing to WP requires a language proficiency that matches the tasks selected? i have edited foreign language WP's, but usually adding images, or links, but no sentences, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look over their talk page, it's apparent that their language proficiency is well below the par that we expect for editing of any level on this 'pedia. I'm sure they're trying hard to contribute but unfortunately their competence is seriously lacking and it's been a bone of contention over the last several years. Blackmane (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify the other party when you post at ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at messages to this user, it appears that they have been sufficiently informed about their limited proficiency in English but have done nothing to address or even acknowledge the need. A sample of their edits shows a lack of English skill that significantly diminishes any possible benefit to their contributions. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This indicates that the problem isn't just their ability to speak English (they dumped a load of printers pie onto the talkpage). Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that was joke after too many of beverages and I already removing the junk text. --B767-500 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any clue, and I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive, where the editor is from/what their native language is? I agree, this is an issue; directing them to the appropriate language encyclopedia, I think, is going to be the best solution. Go Phightins! 03:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On their talk page, it was suggested that Thai may have been their first language but a reply implied that Thai may be a second language. At at guess, their first language could be south asian or I could be completely way off. Blackmane (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible for a CU to find the underlying IP used, then Geolocate the IP, find out the location/language - and then we know where to begin. GiantSnowman 10:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I already living in U.S. (California) due to asylum. --B767-500 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Where are you originally from? Go Phightins! 03:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We have some bad government which they going to mess up my family, so identity of country cannot be talk about it. My people got no home country. --B767-500 (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

GS, horrible idea, we don't use CU to reveal private information about editors (even if done in good faith). NE Ent 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit. I had to reread that several times just to make sure he actually suggested that. Unbelievable. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The political situation, or anything else other than his issue of language ability, is moot. No matter how badly he may want to (and that is still in question) contribute to the encyclopedia, his lack of skills with English keep him from doing that. No matter how much a man may want to work at Deja Vu, he lacks the basic qualification. The same goes for this editor. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Even as a bouncer? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I working part time as ID check guy, so I can involved those kinds of jobs ;-). --B767-500 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but at this point I would recommend a WP:COMPETENCE block. Go Phightins! 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. Unfortunate, but endorsed. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:ENGVAR edit-warring

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.

---

Merritttttt (talk · contribs) is edit-warring at color blindness over the spelling of the word "color", changing all instances of the word to comply with Commonwealth English spelling. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Every edit seems to be for teh lulz. contribs --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked a few minutes before your post :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully all future contributions will be less opposite of this . Doc talk 10:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Westeros7 acts like paid public relations agent

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.

---

All of User: Westeros7's edits form a pattern making it highly probable he/she is a paid public relations agent hired to create puff pieces for companies. The two articles created are GitHub and SignNow. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is their talk page a red link? --Onorem♠Dil 14:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Because I can't start a thread here and issue the notice on the user's talk page in the same instant. It should be there now. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. I was asking why it's at AN/I before a single attempt to discuss it with them was made. --Onorem♠Dil 14:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I just left them a welcome message explaining our policies on COI. Legoktm (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

When I see a polished piece on a highly controversial company appear that has nothing but nice stuff to say, I cannot bring myself to believe the user is unaware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. What do I mean by highly controversial? Well, the California Secretary of State saw fit to issue a Customer Alert for the practice carried out by SignNow, although SignNow is not mentioned by name. Of course the revised alert issued 18 October 2012 mentions that online notarizations are now legal in Virginia. I leave it to those interested to look into the Virginia requirements and compare them to SignNow's procedures. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Their edits to GitHub look just fine to me. Haven't checked the other articles though. Legoktm (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Being a paid editor is not against policy, nor is editing with a conflict of interest. There have been a number of discussions and an RfC on the issue and the community has been very loud in saying they do not want editors blocked solely for being paid. Spamming is against policy, but the proper response at this stage would be to either CSD or AFD the articles and first let the editors at AFD determine if their contributions are really not worthwhile. Since we can't block solely for being paid or having a COI, this ANI is premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

No attention to dispute resolution

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

---

I am here to report User:Pks1142. I know a thread was just closed yesterday I think regarding this but I'm at straws end regarding what to do with this user. First removed a whole chunk of information from the article "In My City", without any consensus on the talk page. I reverted and asked to comment and discuss on the talk page. The user started canvassing other writers while bad mouthing me, instead of trying to discuss. Also, raised another ANI thread falsely accusing me of attacking him, when I haven't done no such thing, and on top of that asked another user, who had given me a barnstar for developing the "In My City" article, why he did so since he was deserving? I overlooked all these actions as childlish and immature when the user confessed that he was disturbed. The next day, the addition of unverifiable content continued. I specifically pointed out this behavior and that I was only willing to have a rational discussion, provided Wikipedia rules are kept in mind. The user again started removing while discussion was going on in the talk page. I'm going to lose control some day. I don't want to break 3RR and I'm aware of it. But this is getting ridiculous! He just now removed a whole section based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Coupled with the fact that again raised another ANI thread, which was closed by admin Yun, and continuing to accuse me falsely of attacking him, this is pure harassment! I'm really sorry to bring this to you guys here but my pleas on discussing content and then achieving consensus is falling on deaf ears. I don't know what else to do. This is a serious block on a collaborative environment to write and this sucks! Sucks for me, sucks for you gus too. I did not go to DRC, thinking what's the point? The user is anyways not paying attention to policies, or consensus, and that will cause more upheavel and mess. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And I think this 3RR needs to stop. [75], [76], [77]. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok,but you should see your mistakes,when I asked you to discuss you refused.And your globalpost source says everything that what your edits all about.

First,video counts has nothing to do with commerce,you added views count in commerce.

secondly,Proomotions doesn't include who thought what,who said what,who planned what,who predicted what.History behind promotion doesn't make sense.

I has given explanation with every edit.

You refused to discuss.

(Pks1142 (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

Again, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for removal. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Take a look ,first it make sense

Seeing that many pop artists use music and reality-based videos to create awareness around their upcoming releases, Chopra's team planned to create different promotional contents, like interviews of the artist, and behind-the-scenes footage with long-and-short documentaries, that would be released to the internet. The videos and interviews would focus on Chopra's journey in becoming a pop artist. Since most of the top ten hits in India are mainly songs from Bollywood films—where the actors lip-synch to the song—Chopra's label wanted to promote her as the first Bollywood actress who can also sing. According to Lee Hawkins from The Wall Street Journal, "If Chopra is able to convincingly establish herself as a respected singer, she will be a pioneer in South Asia. Throughout 2011, Anthony Saleh, one of Carter's partners at Atom Factory Inc., worked closely with Chopra for several weeks. Beyond selling music, the team planned to use Chopra's popularity and tap into ancillary revenue streams such as corporate sponsorships, high-fashion modeling, film and television, concert touring, and music publishing. Saleh added that they also "plan on developing [Chopra] as a songwriter

So where is promotion here.Does it say Chopra performed somewhere.(Pks1142 (talk) 11

43, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

Please stop trying to discuss content issues on this page. ANI is not a venue for dispute resolution or content discussions. IndianBio, please can you clarify what administrative action you are seeking - are you asking that we block Pks1142, warn him, enact a topic/article ban or what? You do not seem to have attempted any form of heightened DR, such as requesting a third opinion or filing at DRN. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok so even Administrators are taking his side.Sir,I would ask you to see my edits,and above phrase does it say anything about promotion.If you see We Found Love article ,it doesn't. Say that Rihanna's team plaannes" " It directly say she performed at various venues.So that's what I'm trying to say.(Pks1142 (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

I really apologize Yunshui for bringing this here, but as I said before, I'm clueless as to what to do with someone who keeps on removing content without discussing them, then tries to harass me by raising ANI threads instead. This is the sole reason I did not ask DR to intervene. Let's face it what's the point? Pks1142 will go on removing content like this even iff the members intervene and that would lead to a bigger chaos and lead to his block. I don't want that. What I want is Pks1142 to work under someone's strict guidance because I believe he has no clue regarding the content being written, or removed, and no clue about the policies of editing here. The person would review each and every one of his edits before he adds it to mainspace. Because frankly, WP:COMPETENCE is at stake here I feel. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And if this continues even after that, just block him and be done with it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

...and you too. Not even willing to follow the WP:DR processes, you become just as responsible (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to accept a block even if after DR this comes back here. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I closed the last ANI discussion because there was talk going on at the article talk page. There is currently an RFC there now, so the content issues can be settled via the normal editing process and shouldn't be raised here. Being familiar, let me offer a personal observation: Pks1142, you seem to be pretty hardheaded about ignoring others input on the article and letting your emotions get the best of you here. Indianbio, your frustration is obvious and your threshold is likely a lot lower than usual, causing you to overreact a bit. Neither of you is in best form here, and I'm not really concerned about who is "worse" than the other, as it doesn't matter. You both need to take it back to the RfC on the article talk page, perhaps quit addressing each other at all. Maybe go spend some time on other articles that the other person isn't working on as well, as the main issue seems to be you have gotten on each other's nerves and it is turning personal. Otherwise, I'm afraid Bwilkins is correct and the likely result will be two blocks instead of none. At this point, I don't see blocking you guys yet, but I can see it coming if you don't disengage and simply let the dispute resolution system work, then respect the result of it, whether or not you agree with it. And finally, I strongly recommend you both disengage from this ANI report now, because if there is a string of finger pointing after this comment, it is doubtful the next admin to stumble across this thread will be as forgiving as Bwilkins and Yunshui have been. This isn't high school, and we aren't the principals, and this string of reports is rapidly becoming disruptive. Use the RFC, then DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Followup; Pks1142 (talk · contribs) just made a personal attack on that article talk page, referring to another editor as "a mental" (sic) and "idiot". here. I removed it. An admin may wish to warn or block the user. 88.104.4.123 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. Before someone yells "sock!", I have absolutely no involvement with either of the editors, or the article in question; I came across it by reading about the issue right here. 88.104.4.123 (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to start a thread about it, but it seems this is being dealt already. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the person attacked has reverted my removal of the personal attack as 'vandalism' [78]. *shrug* 88.104.4.123 (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

RfC Notice

Given that there are apparently some strong feelings both ways with respect to blanking of talk pages, an RFC has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:User pages#RFC: Concerning banned and indeffed users to establish consensus. --Nouniquenames 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

76.169.235.102

76.169.235.102 (talk · contribs) is edit-warring at Blink-182. I have left multiple warnings on the IP's talk page and explained the problems with the edits in my summaries as well as at User talk:IllaZilla#blink-182 EP (the source link the user keeps inserting is a broken link to a social networking site). In return I get lovely responses like "do some research before being arrogant" and "Man what is your fucking problem you cunt?" The IP has also been warned by Legoktm but simply blanks their talk page whenever warnings are issued. Ordinarily I would simply take this to the edit-warring noticeboard but the addition of incivility via the edit summaries adds another layer to the problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay man I was polite the first couple of times with you but I simply cannot see your logic of why you won't use the official site blink182.com as evidence of an EP? This is such a dumb thing to fight about - I'm simply a dedicated fan trying to update their page with obvious evidence and you are being autocratic with your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.235.102 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Their website is already listed on the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

?, Not talking about that - I have been trying to edit the blink page with information about their new EP and for some reason this guy is fighting it. 76.169.235.102 (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if IllaZilla was wrong to revert citations of random and potentially fake user-uploaded pics on the net as evidence of a new album (instead of actually citing the website), the incivility on the IP's part is wrong. Looking at their website, I don't see anything about a Blink-182 Christmas deal on their website, nor anything about a new album. This is why we take link citations instead of random (and probably fake) screencaps, because links are verifiable. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

... Why would I fake a screencap hahaha. I cited the correct website but it was taken down because I think Tom DeLonge put it up too early in relation to the other band mates, or some other legal reason (modlife.com/blink182 - which is an official site for many bands). Anyways I give up, I'm just trying to be a good fan but this editing business is way too austere. 76.169.235.102 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, I didn't say you necessarily faked a screencap, you could have mistakenly used a screencap someone else faked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a fake, it was up for an hour yesterday and was taken down. 76.169.235.102 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Then leave it out of the article. If it goes back up, revisit this. Also, you should be blocked for disruption and civility, or lack there of. --Malerooster (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Lx 121 - belligerent edit warring

Yesterday I removed an inappropriate addition to Claes Oldenberg. User:Lx 121 is now making a transparent attempt to pay me back for my trouble by being belligerent and edit warring over straightforward edits. I am not bothered by either, but there appear to be obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues. See Talk:Do it yourself/Archives/2013#original research and images and Talk:Claes Oldenburg#intellectual property. Would someone like to point this user in the right direction, because I don't have the patience. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

hi; as i stated @ Talk:Do it yourself/Archives/2013#original research and images i disagreed with the user's edits on their merits; the user has a novel interpretation of wp:or & is using it to justify removing ALL photos from the article; replacing them with nothing. the user has refused to engage in constructive discussion about the images, suggested no replacement images, & has re-used the "or" arguement (without providing adequate clarification of their reasoning) each time they removed all the images, ignoring the actions of myself & another user to 'placate' their concerns by revising the caption text accordingly.

this user is the only person involved in this dispute who is seeking the removal of all photos from this article, & has also now violated the 3r rule to "get their way" in this matter.

i would also note that this user's sole contribution to the DIY article has been to remove material. Conversely, my edits have gone beyond simply restoring the photos (& revising the captions), to include at least minor additions to the content [79]. not that i'm bragging sbout it, this is minor work; but i would like to establish for the record that my interest & actions in the article are separate from my 'interactions' with this user.

tangentially, the user is in the habit of (intermittently) making snide/inappropriate comments in edit histories [80]

& has an ongoing (also intermittent) history of inappropriate behaviour when interacting with other users User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle. i'm not looking to make a big deal about it, but then i'm not the one who initiated a complaint here; &, as above, i'd like to make sure that this is all on the record. feel free to dredge up any skeletons from my wretched past also.

i'm going back to what i was working on, now.

cheers, Lx 121 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delicious carbuncle and snide comments? That'll be the day. Well, the rather blatant original research (the addition was wrong in many ways) has been dealt with by another editor. DC, are you accusing Lx 121 of hounding? Care to give specific diffs? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

with respect, i'm slightly lost here; are you talking about the edits @ claes & co, or @ diy?Lx 121 (talk)

• Never mind. Lx 121, here's the score. Apparently Delicious carbuncle suggested you could get blocked for your efforts on Do it yourself, to which you asked, "on what grounds?" Well, here's the grounds: hounding, edit warring, and making a fool of yourself. This retaliatory editing is obvious enough. It is easily solved, though: stay away, well away, from Delicious carbuncle's edits. That may be hard, since they're somewhat prolific, but if you again give the impression of biting back for a perceived slight (DC was correct on the Oldenberg article) you will most likely be blocked for WP:HOUNDING. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

well, in that case he should be aware that i'm planning to return & do more work on the diy article; & it's not meant to be taken personally Lx 121 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that case you should be aware that if you show any of the same signs of activity that led to this report, you'll either be blocked, topic-banned, or possibly a 1-way interaction ban. It's not meant to be taken personally. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I don't think we are at the topic or interaction ban stage, but perhaps someone could adopt this user before such things are necessary? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Help, template vandalism at Samus Aran

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.

---

Someone has vandalized a template or something at Samus Aran so that clicking anywhere in the page redirects you to an external link at blogspot. Not good. The Garbage Skow (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this is now fixed. Thank you for the report. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like you got him. Took me a minute to figure out where it was transcluded from. The Garbage Skow (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Richard Searby

Hello everyone, can someone take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH ARTICLE NAME#Edit request on 17 November 2012? I see mentions of BLP violations and a legal team being assembled, but I can't deal with it as I am just about to go out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Bloody hell. I blocked the vandal, wrote a long response to the IP, including an explanation of NLT, and told him I wasn't blocking at this time. Meanwhile, Bwilkins blocked. Bwilkins, could you please unblock? There's nothing wrong with someone complains about gross, BLP violating vandalism and couches in legal terms. Those vandals should feel a "chilling effect". Yes, we should educate the person not to use the legal threat, but we don't need to insta-block them. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Couches in legal terms? "..inform me within 7 days of the name, e-mail address and identity of the person in question." Unreal. Doc talk 12:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. There was nothing "couched" - it's a direct statement that legal action is in progress. I indeed left a message on the IP's takpage and blocked the IP for a mere 5 days more than 1 hour before Qwyrxian left a message on the above request for mediation page (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So you blocked the person, but didn't respond to the very legitimate concerns they had, didn't tell them how to fix the problem, and didn't block the vandalism-only account that made the BLP-violating edit the IP was complaining about? This is exactly the point behind WP:Don't overlook legal threats. Remember, the point behind [[WP:NLT}] is that treats have a chilling effect. This is exactly what we want for vandals and BLP-violators. If the vandal felt worried because someone was going to sue him, that seems like a great outcome to me. Apologies for my use of the term "couched"; I didn't mean to imply that it was an indirect legal threat. But I don't know where this idea recently arose that somehow WP:NLT is an exception to our standard policy of warning people before blocking. We don't even block real vandals without warning except in the absolutely most extreme circumstances. Why should we block someone who actually has grounds for complaint (probably not a lawsuit, but certainly a complaint) when they used a means of expressing themselves that is extremely common everywhere other than Wikipedia? To turn a phrase, perhaps we need to remember that WP:NLT is not a suicide pact. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Cutting to the bone of the "cease and desist": whether or not we "give up" the "miscreant" (i.e.: all the personal info leading to their literal door), the "matters alleged" (meaning any future matters, reasonably) are "actionable at law" "howsoever the defamatory action may develop". An incompetent and unambiguous legal threat, and editors that make them get blocked until either their legal issues (real or imagined) are resolved or they retract them. Doc talk 13:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: I disagree. I think "However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels" is pretty clear. NLT isn't only about the chilling effect. It's about the fact that if someone wants to pursue legal action, they need to do it in the court and not here.--v/r - TP 13:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think some regulars forget that while NLT may be well-understood by regulars, it is not at all obvious to outsiders. It is quite common in many venues to make a legal threat to get someone's attention. While I accept our policy, I think the person making the threat deserves a warning, and a chance to withdraw the threat before blocking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not as if they are banned. They can appeal their block, should they choose to. One way that the regulars stick around to become regulars is by not making inane legal threats. Most that make these threats and don't quickly learn NLT won't get very long in the tooth, I'd wager. Doc talk 14:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And one of the reasons visitors do not stick around is because they are treated harshly when they have a legitimate concern.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Qwyrxian on this one. The intention of the NLT policy is to prevent chilling effects on situations that are otherwise potentially legitimate content disputes. BLP vandals are not people we have content disputes with on Wikipedia. The IP's legal posturing in their complaint was (to us insiders) annoying and unconstructive, but it is not actually harmful to the project. The proper response to legal language in such situations is to politely (but firmly) tell the complainant not that it's a block reason but simply that it's unnecessary – because we are perfectly willing and able to take action on justified BLP complaints without being forced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A BLP vandal did this stupid edit. The article's subject and his son want to sue that nitwit, which is a matter for them and doesn't affect Wikipedia in the slightest, we not having any more information about the perpetrator than is publicly available directly to the Searbys themselves. We get all excited about the "legal threat". Bwilkins, you would have blocked Seigenthaler for complaining on-wiki, at this rate. We are absolutely on the side of the subjects in cases like this. Try to imagine yourself as a victim of such things. (Some of us don't need to imagine.) Think of how robotic, bureaucratic, lacking in empathy and simple common sense, and downright bloody stupid you appear, to those victims and to third parties, punishing the victims of subject-is-dead BLP vandalism. If you were in the victim's shoes, you'd now be telling all and sundry "I went to Wikipedia to complain about their hoax WWW page that said my father was dead, asking that the hoaxer be thrown out, and the site administrators were such brainless nincompoops that they threw me out instead.". We're not brainless nincompoops. Please think about how what you do makes you look, and makes the rest of us look by association. The only person that should be coming across to the world at large as a twerp with all of the sense of a six-year-old here is Orangepouridge (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• The BLP in question. It needs some work. I'd rip out all the unsourced garbage, myself. But then what would be left? Doc talk 15:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Quite a lot, if one were to write rather than rip out. Whitton 1987 gives an indication of what one should look for, and there are plenty of books on the history of Rupert Murdoch that also talk about his friend Searby, as well as profiles from the 1980s by Harold Evans and The Spectator. His early life and education can be sourced to his entry at Flanagan 1988, p. 499.
    • Whitton, Evan (1987). "Searby and Murdoch". Amazing Scenes: Adventures of a Reptile of the Press. The Fairfax Library. ISBN 0949054801. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
    • Flanagan, Neil A., ed. (1988). "SEARBY, Richard Henry". Biographical register 1880–1974. Corpus Christi College.
  • Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would not jump to the conclusion that the complainant at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH ARTICLE NAME#Edit request on 17 November 2012 is a lawyer; the approach, the terminology and the claims as to what action is being taken are all somewhat strange and the whole complaint if anything makes it seem that the original idiocy had some real significance. So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that 220.238.59.66 is Patrick Searlby; I could just as easily believe that BWilkins has blocked a troll and wonder if a checkuser would reveal a connection with User:Orangepouridge. NebY (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Evil user MWAHAHAHAHA

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

---

Hello. Could a administrator revoke this user's talk page, this user is using it quite inappropriately, thanks. --Webclient101^talk 18:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits at article Fiscal cliff

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 user User_talk:FurrySings is making disruptive edits at Fiscal cliff. I've reverted his edits twice, following WP:BRD, and pleading with him/her to discuss changes on the talk page, but he will not. I've now tagged his talk page (which has a long history of behavioral issues) with a warning tag. His edits have make the intro of the article a mess, however, I don't want to revert him again for fear of edit warring. Intervention would be appreciated. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see ANY need for intervention here. Take it to the talk page. You're both on the verge of edit-warring, fighting over the organization of the article--that's great. Keep it there: the low blow is running to ANI to get someone to agree with your side. That sort of consensus needs to be found on the talk page, not here. I'm going to close this: an uninvolved editor or admin, or NE Ent of course, may reopen this if I missed something. FWIW, the version you are proposing has a lead that looks like Swiss cheese. Both of you should start duking this out on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable behavior by User:Gratans

Can someone please look into the behavior of Gratans and give him or her the block he or she deserves so the rest of us can stop babysitting Neumont University? Edit warring and unacceptable behavior abound in addition to the obvious sockpuppetry. (I refuse to go through the bureaucracy of an RFCU for an SPI that doesn't appear to really be here to contribute but to antagonize other editors and flout our policies and standards.) Thanks. ElKevbo (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Left 3rr warning, as no one seems to have done that yet. NE Ent 19:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Gratans was given an edit warring warning here. 72Dino (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior by User:ElKevbo

This senior editor, ElKevbo, continues to harass me, spam my User Talk page, and cuss at me as I learn the ropes of Wikipedia. In his most recent edit of Neumont University he told me to "stop wasting our fucking time and go outside to play." His profanity and continued attacks on me personally are quite hurtful and I can't believe they could fall within Wikipedia policies. He accused me of having multiple Wikipedia accounts which is simply not true and which the SPI team have seemingly already confirmed to him. Thank you. Gratans (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately (in my personal opinion) strong language, including profanity is generally not sanctioned, especially when coming from established editors in stressful situations. Gratans seems to have jumped headfirst in editing conflict with multiple editors on Neumont University without developing an understanding of the Wikipedia collaboration process. NE Ent 19:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Will an admin who is not me please look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gratans and take the appropriate action? What needs to be done is clear to me. As for the strong language--it can be very exasperating to have to deal with COI editing where the suspicion of socking and meating is more than just a hunch, besides the continuous edit-warring and the refusal to listen. And never mind the accusations that all editors who revert their improperly sourced and undue criticism are socks of each other. Very frustrating. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Gratans and the sock but I have left the case open and invite review.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also semi'd the article for 1 month for persistent socking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Hunter. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

EleoTager & misuse of twinkle

WP:DENY socks Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For reasons unknown EleoTager [81] removed this talk page comment, I reverted this unwarranted removal and posted to the users talk about refactoring talk page comments. He removed my warning with twinkle calling it vandalism[82] I then posted to his talk to ask how the hell my warning was vandalism and he responded by templating my talk page with a warning about creating hoax articles[83] A clear misuse of twinkle. He alsos reverted a users blanking of their own talk page[84] calling it vandalism and then used twinkle to warn the user for blanking their own talk page.[85] His right to this tool should be revoked. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I added the warning back.EleoTager (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Well, this doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Favonian (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Based on Favonian's diff, which is a bit of icing on the cake, I tend to agree with Darkness Shines that Wikipedia may be best served if we revoke use of Twinkle to EleoTager. Unusual, but still enforceable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Blocked indef by Finlay McWalter following this [86]. The entire edit history from November was trololo so I certainly approve -- Samir 21:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Never mind, I was thinking it would be an unusual alternative to blocking, but User:Finlay McWalter blocked him while I was typing. I can't find fault in the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC) (ec) This edit persuades me EleoTager is deliberately misusing Twinkle for the purpose of disruption. Other recent reverts they've done might simply suggest reckless button mashing, but this last one can't be attributed to carelessness or software error. So I've blocked the account. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC) And I went and revoked talk page access after the obvious troll reply. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Looks like this guy's original account is MatthewCenance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Max Semenik (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC) CheckUser confirms MatthewCenance = EleoTager. --Versageek 22:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC) (ec)This is just too funny[87] Actually reported his own sock Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Properly tagged and block updated to reflect this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Couldn't resist the temptation to add this: Tag360 (talk · contribs). I love this !job. Favonian (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC) You may want to semi the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing, IP-hopping editor

In the past few days I have encountered an editor whose clear agenda is to remove all references to "China" or the "Republic of China" in Taiwan-related matters, often against discussion consensus or inappropriately changing the title field of a template away from its actual name. See this non-exhaustive list of diffs: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98] Where appropriate, range-blocks should be enacted to prevent playing of "pop the weasel". Edit: After a 3-day lull, (s)he's back! GotR ^Talk 20:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• It might be better to request page protection. This is larger than a single IP range, so I don't think a range block is going to work and will have too much collateral damage. I agree that it looks like clear POV editing, however. WP:RFPP can protect pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if this activist moves on to even more pages, the better option would be to seal the ranges rather than mass-protect pages and prevent all non-confirmed from editing those pages. GotR ^Talk 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Republic of China is commonly known as Taiwan. Changing ROC to Taiwan makes it less confusing because readers not familiar with Taiwan strait issues might confuse ROC with the People`s Republic of China. In wikipedia ,the page "Republic of China" has been redirected to "Taiwan". Most pages about the state use the name "Taiwan". In my opinion,the editor`s changes are reasonable as it maintains consistency of the name and reduces confusion. 111.82.204.221 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, the OP here is one who often creates problems for the Taiwan page, and others using that name, with extremely cryptic Edit summaries and a clear agenda to maintain the word China in connection to Taiwan. It's part of a very old political (and initially military) conflict from the first half of last century. This goes against the result of a massive effort at the page some months ago where consensus was reached to rename the article from Republic of China to Taiwan. The IP hopping editor is not really being helpful, but I see his behaviour as at least partly a reaction to out OP's obsession with pushing the POV of the article in the opposite direction, against consensus. Actions to bring our IP hopping editor properly on board, with registration, etc., would be good, but our OP needs to to be watched too. His POV goals to continually fight the consensus recently achieved, and reintroduce confusion over the use of the name China, are not good for Wikipedia. The goals of the IP hopping editor are probably more in line with consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Without touching on the far more numerous problems of HiLo, I have let this particular IP editor some leeway when his (her) changes are not completely unreasonable. For instance, I have chosen to ignore the most recent edits to Keelung River, which I have chosen to ignore, and Template:List of Asian capitals by region, the latter which is more questionable. I am not, as HiLo falsely accuses, a robot that automatically inserts "China" in every usage of ROC/Taiwan; however, this IP editor is the robot that performs the inverse function. I must remind all that the decision reached in March pertained only to the title of the main article, and specifically instructed those in HiLo's faction not to immediately alter other content in favour of their unequivocally nevertheless hidden political motives: to eradicate every last modern reference to the first non-dynastic Chinese state. GotR ^Talk 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, your colours are now fully on display. That you see everyone with an interest in the subject as being part of a "faction" is your main problem. You may be. I have no idea. And I wouldn't accuse. I'll just stick to describing your actions. I just want a better encyclopaedia. Oh, and I DID NOT accuse you of being "a robot that automatically inserts "China" in every usage of ROC/Taiwan". Thank you for proving my point about your style and attitude. GoTR, the IP hopping editor may be a small problem, but you're probably the cause. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the intent of those who wish to (essentially) eradicate usage of "ROC" and whether they support independence, they agree to such eradication; this makes you as much part of a faction as I am. "the OP here is...a clear agenda to maintain the word China in connection to Taiwan."—not explicit, but falls not at all short of accusing me of being a robot. Remember that I have already provided (i.e. debunked) a few counterexamples, A → not B, to your claim of A → B. Your attempts at diverting the focus away from the IP editor have shown to be a ridicule-and-parade-HiLo48-in-a-dunce-hat fun fest. GotR ^Talk 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Your disruptive, accusatory approach is now obvious. I feel no need to say any more here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The IPs edits are making changes from Republic of China to Taiwan. The article of the place-in-question is at Taiwan. I don't understand the problem here. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to the closing remarks of the requested move of Republic of China to Taiwan that stated the move closure decision was only made with respect to that page's title, see remarks made by Jiang in Talk:Taiwan#"Mainland". In particular, many of the changes {{ROC-TW}} or {{ROC}} to {{TWN}}, where all three templates link to the current title. GotR ^Talk 05:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

To emphasise what GotR said (noting that I neither participated in the requested move nor AFAIK have I ever left a particularly comment on this issue), a consensus for one article does not normally equate to a consensus for another article. Only with a wider RFC where what other articles will be called is specifically considered (likely one advertised in all relevent articles) would this generally be the case. And in this particular case, the closing admins explicitly noted the move did not include any other articles Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20. Note that this does not mean that the other articles can't be moved, simply that since it's likely to be disputed and any move should be discussed first and given we rarely require interarticle consistency, what the 'main' article is called is a fairly weak argument. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I mistaken in the belief that AN/I is not for content disputes? I don't think there's any clear evidence that the IP user is being intentionally disruptive, and the diffs don't show obvious POV-pushing to me. They all happened in a relatively short span of time, and apparently no attempt was made to communicate with the user, beyond this diff, as a notification that there was an AN/I discussion taking place. Frankly, this appears to be a bad faith attack on an IP user who disagrees with GotR on content (Whether ROC or Taiwan is appropriate, and when). It's ridiculous that if a user makes an edit or edits (even if they're not constructive) the only message they get is that they're being discussed on AN/I. Next time, follow BRD and don't waste other people's time. Coppaar (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a content issue but rather a behavioural one. It seems like changing references to Taiwan en-masse without discussion is pretty much only things the IP editor is doing. I practically hold the polar opposite of GotR's views on the Taiwan / China issue and I too find it disruptive. And if they are the same person (a reasonable assumption judging from the IPs and the pattern of editing), there have been previous attempts at communication: See this thread on my talk page. wctaiwan (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• GoodDay, the term "Taiwan" can mean either the political entity formally known as Republic of China or the island itself. There has never been a political entity of "Taiwan", and, as such, there are situations where the replacement is not correct. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/Taiwan for the old standards that editors followed, and former RFAR cases referred to. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• To be more specific of what I wrote: When Democratic Progressive Party held the presidency in Republic of China, many political movements were aimed towards "renaming" Republic of China to Taiwan - including, for example, the inclusion of the word "Taiwan" on passports. But there has never been an entity named "Taiwan" in the political sense, so in theory any usage of the term in the political sense would be violating the old convention. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sometime back in January this year, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/Taiwan was split off, but it is no longer linked on the main naming conventions (Chinese) page. We have had multiple RFAR cases involving ROC vs Taiwan (Instantnood 2 and 3]) and I would highly recommend that page being revived up to the normal guidelines (as it went inactive somehow). This really isn't content dispute, as there were RFAR cases regarding these... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a discussion if that is to be done. I'm uncertain but I think the removal of Taiwan-related parts from NC-ZH was done because there was consensus (or at least, significant dissent) that they were no longer suitable. But that's a matter for another discussion... wctaiwan (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is disruptive, but I don't know what can be done. At least one of the IPs used appears to be an IP for a local telco's 3G network, so rangeblocking could be problematic. wctaiwan (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• If the parts were removed due to unsuitable, the editors should have come up with alternatives before moving them. Especially when it's a contentious area... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• 2 things: The IP is apparently right back at it again (see Special:Contributions/111.243.12.43); (2) I have started an RfC here about the lack of guideline due to WP:NC-TW removed from the NC-Chinese and not replaced. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The person has now switched to editing from 61.219.36.66. wctaiwan (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• • I've blocked 61.219.36.0/24 for 2 weeks for obvious disruption. I'm reluctant to block the other range because a /19 or /16 would be needed. Open to a checkuser narrowing down a better block, if that's allowed under policy. --Rschen7754 09:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

ARBMAC enforcement needed

Could an uninvolved administrator with a lot of time on their hands please investigate the latest incarnation of the Yugoslav Wars currently raging on half a dozen article, talk, and project pages? A WP:ARBMAC smackdown is sorely needed, preferably with topic bans liberally applied. (Some of the participants have already racked up ARBMAC warnings.)

To give the briefest possible summary, edit conflicts arose on the articles for Boris Malagurski and his films (The Weight of Chains, Kosovo: Can You Imagine?, etc.). There are two camps of editors involved, one of which has a very favourable opinion of Malagurski's films, and the other a very negative opinion. The anti-Malagurski camp accuses the pro-Malagurski camp of POV-pushing, bad faith, adding unreliable sources, removing reliable sources, copyright violations, conflicts of interest, meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, block and ban evasion, etc. The pro-Malagurski camp accuses the anti-Malagurski camp of POV-pushing, bad faith, adding unreliable sources, removing reliable sources, copyright violations, abuse of process in the form of repeated AfDs, COIN and SPI reports, etc.

Regardless which of these accusations have any merit (and no doubt many of those made by both sides really do), the problem is that the disputes are spilling over everywhere and are spiralling out of control. As soon as any editor, whether or not they were previously involved in the discussion, attempts to separate out one single dispute for investigation by the community on the appropriate noticeboard, members from both camps flock to it and continue slagging it out over all the other accusations. AfD nominations, RSN reports, etc. end up in a mess of accusations of sockpuppetry, bad faith, etc. carried over from elsewhere. It is literally impossible to isolate and contain any one issue for a proper investigation.

Here is a list of currently affected pages, which probably isn't complete but can serve as a starting point:

• Talk:Boris Malagurski
• Talk:The Weight of Chains
• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Boris_Malagurski.2C_Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains
• Wikipedia:COIN#Boris_Malagurski
• Wikipedia:RSN#E-novine_on_Boris_Malagurski
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo: Can You Imagine? (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski
• user talk pages of pretty much everyone participating in the above

Apologies for posting this while logged out, but I really don't want my account to be drawn into this morass. 149.255.57.233 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like an appropriate use of WP:SOCK#LEGIT (*->BWilkins<-*) 10:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - and it is hard to assume good faith for this request as a consequence. GiantSnowman 10:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please try; WP:SOCK#LEGIT isn't an exhaustive list of legitimate uses of anonymity. (Of course, neither is WP:SOCK#ILLEGIT, though I'm not in violation of any of those cases either, and have offered to prove this privately to User:BWilkins.) 149.255.57.233 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If the request were aimed at a specific party I might agree with you. This one is quite general however and is just looking for more eyes on EVERYONE. The benefit of the doubt here should be extended. At least until the articles have been looked at.Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I fail to see the need for anonymous reporting. GiantSnowman 10:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely if they have been involved with it, the returning-stick will hit them hard? Mdann52 (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it would. If I were actually a member of one of these factions it would be rather stupid of me to come here requesting greater scrutiny of my own role in the disruption. So my use of anonymity is either a means of isolating myself from the problem as much as possible, or else some twisted way of committing suicide by boomerang. 149.255.57.233 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Anon, my recommendation to you would be to contact an administrator by private e-mail from your main account, so that we can verify you are not otherwise involved in the situation. Send me a note if you like, privacy ensured. Fut.Perf. SU 12:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted an administrator by e-mail and am awaiting a response. 149.255.57.233 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'm your admin for this evening. I can verify that User:149.255.57.233 is (a) in my view of unimpeachable character, (b) definitely not Boris Malagurski or anyone associated with him (c) is not one of the principals in the dispute here on Wikipedia, (d) has never edited either of the two mainspace pages in question with their primary account (which is known to me), and (e) appears to genuinely concerned about the failure of dispute resolution on this matter, but without wanting to be dragged in to what appears to be a long-running and bitter dispute. This is not trouble-making but genuine concern. Morwen (Talk) 20:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if this person is so concerned why did they not seek to make their concerns known in the course of the various discussions and why do they turn up here directly after Mark Arsten raised the possibility of coming here with UrbanVillager yesterday evening?

"… Sorry if I'm bothering you with all this information, but I don't know what else to do. I tried informing them that Wikipedia is not the place for those kinds of discussions, but this had no effect. Mark, what should I do? Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh hey, sorry that I forgot to respond to this. It totally slipped my mind last week. I only have a minute, but I think you might want to go to WP:DR or WP:ANI depending on how clear the disruption is (ANI will only work for clear disruption). Sorry that I can't be more help, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)" See User_talk:Mark Arsten#Boris Malagurski

Opbeith (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've now been approached at my Talk page by someone using "UrbanVillager"'s user name but clearly a completely different person, offering an oddly framed invitation to work together on the Malagurski-related articles. I regret if I've given the impression here that I was born yesterday. Opbeith (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Coming from the opposite camp to the anonymous reporter I have to say that it is way beyond time for a thorough investigation of matters relating to Malagurski and the promotion of himself and his work in Wikipedia articles possibly involving his ongoing interaction with other editors who expand and defend unbalanced articles to him across a number of different national Wikipedias. While the real-world element is separate from the abuse of Wikipedia procedures, Wikipedia's failure to respond adequately to procedural irregularities when Malagurski's work is politically committed propaganda that denies recent war crimes of the most serious nature does have implications for how people perceive Wikipedia and its reliability. The fact that subject disputes over Balkans issues often seem impenetrable to outsiders is no reason to turn a blind eye when Wikipedia is being used as a vehicle for promoting non-scholarly politically-oriented questioning of legal findings at the highest level of international law. Opbeith (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, lost Edit summary in edit conflict: should have said something like "Thorough investigation overdue". Opbeith (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous posting in this circumstance is fine per not a bureaucracy -- 149's claims are neutral -- consisting mostly of "please review these pages" and can easily be checked by reviewing those pages. NE Ent 12:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ent, WP:ANI is not an "anonymous tip line". It's structured and labelled in a way that the accuser is required to advise the accused. A drive-by anonymous post - as valid as it may be - goes 180 degrees away from that tranparency. (*->BWilkins<-*) 12:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well if you want to be picky about it - you would have to be of the opinion that 'Please review the situation' requires notifying EVERYONE who may possibly be in the topic area to be notified. Which really is bereaucratic overload.... Anyway the notice is 'You have to notify any user who is the subject of a discussion'. Not really applicable in a general plea for 'more eyes'. Need to be reasonable here. Anyway, suggest IP follows Fut.Perf's sensible suggestion above, although I am going to go have a gander anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous 149 did in fact notify me and I believe other people (I know of at least one). Opbeith (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There's been a lot of murky activity revealed in this Malagurski fiasco and this non-transparent report may be an extension of that. What possible repercussions could an uninvolved party possibly fear? This is the third time that UrbanVillager has posted the same exact message and this may have been an attempt to get a bigger audience. [99][100] The numerous and deliberate misrepresentations of editors' actions in his message is hilarious. --* PRODUCER (TALK) 13:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

After being notified that there is a discussion regarding this issue, I feel a little more hopeful that somebody will actually devote some attention to the issue at hand. On one hand, there are more than reasonable rules and regulations on article building, user conduct and dispute resolution, and on the other hand not many people seem to care about any of those things unless if the topic in question is very popular. I've tried following the rules, I made a few mistakes (some because of lack of knowledge, some because I was lazy), apologized for them and did my best to correct them. I've followed advice on how to resolve issues that pop up, and yet, the issues have gotten even more complicated. Regarding Boris Malagurski and his films, I follow information about that via Malagurski's Facebook page (together with 12,000 people who 'liked' the page) and his websites, and I added stuff on Wikipedia I found interesting from time to time (when I found reliable references, of course) and I thought that was the point of Wikipedia - to see what interests you and edit that when you have free time. Of course, other stuff interests me too, I edited a few other articles as well, but I feel like there are a lot of people who already edit most of those other articles, so I did focus on the ones that I thought were neglected to an extent - Malagurski and his work. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that somebody would accuse me of being on Malagurski's payroll or Malagurski himself for doing that and for discussing the topic on the talk page of the Malagurski article and the articles of his films.

I hate arguing, and when I noticed that editors like Opbeith were aggressively demanding the addition of blogs and fishy websites as sources, I assumed that unbiased, independent editors would show up and note that this can't be used on Wikipedia. This never happened. However, Opbeith wasn't alone, and several other editors, who seem to really have issues (personal and ideological) with Malagurski and his films (for example, "Malagurski's work is crap" - Opbeith), quickly organized to subvert every single attempt I made at resolving issues in a civilized manned and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. These editors, User:Opbeith, User:PRODUCER, User:Pincrete and User:Bobrayner, have as their only purpose, regarding the Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and Kosovo: Can You Imagine? articles, to do any or all of the following:

1. Promoting the addition of slander to the article, using as references Internet forums, blogs and fishy websites that, among other things, photoshop a "BIA" badge, trying to prove that Malagurski works for Serbia's Security Information Agency, on an original photo where there is no badge; or call Malagurski an unemployed Vancouver-based amateur "film director", apologist for Serbian Nazi-collaborating Chetniks and a racist genocide denier (this article the most disputed one they tried to push, carried by E-novine); while, at the same time dismissing actual relevant reliable media sources as "tabloids", including Politika, the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans.
2. Clogging the talk pages with discussions on just how much Malagurski's work is crap, how horrible the people he interviewed are [101], how Malagurski is just an outright extremist [102], and much more.
3. Not allowing any good-faith discussion to proceed without personal attacks.
4. Personally attacking anyone who disagrees that Malagurski is exactly who they say he is. Accusing me of not allowing the addition of any sources that don't have a positive outlook on Malagurski, which is not true. I agreed to the addition of a Croatian link that described Malagurski's film as "too pro-Serbian".[103] I've also stated several times that I have no personal interest in there not being any criticism of Malagurski and his work, as I believe (and I think Wikipedia does as well) that well-sourced criticism is very healthy for any article, but only if it's truly - well-sourced.
5. Removing sourced material ([104], etc.), promoting the idea that any source that has a neutral or positive attitude towards the topic is all part of Malagurski's "self-promoting machinery", and adding irrelevant poorly-sourced material ([105], [106], etc.) that constitutes original research and POV pushing.
6. Promoting the deletion of these articles. PRODUCER nominated "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?" for deletion, again claiming that the sources that support the notability of the article are tabloids. When I noted that, for example, Vecernje novosti is a renowned Serbian newspaper and news source which exists for almost 60 years now, also the leading Serbian book publisher, with over 5 million books on diverse cultural topics sold, 159 titles including books by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, Bulgakov, Nabokov, Faulkner, Orwell, Kafka, Sabato, Andric, Crnjanski, Selimovic, etc.[107], PRODUCER went on to change the Vecernje novosti article so that it says it's a "tabloid", without adding a source.

This is a very well-coordinated attack mechanism aimed at slowly destroying the Malagurski article and all articles related to it. I could provide more references to back up these claims, this is just the top of the iceberg. I'd just add that I checked with the sources noticeboard regarding the disputed E-novine source I mentioned before, one editor commented agreeing with me that E-novine was not the kind of source we should use on Wikipedia [108]. Naturally, Producer jumped to defend the source, even calling User:Joy to lend his support. I've tried contacting the film MOS, Dispute resolution, Sources noticeboard regarding the issues in question, but nothing has changed. I believe none of these editors have any good faith when it comes to the articles in question - almost every single edit they made was motivated by any one of the points that I listed. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It was at Cultural Conflicts noticeboard a month ago with no real notice. I will drop Bob a note and see if he has any thoughts since it seems to have got worse since then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• This issue has been raised for discussion in several different places; occasionally UrbanVillager tries explaining their reverts on article talkpages (with selectively quoted policies), occasionally they reply at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or wherever. I tried starting a thread on Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard but that didn't get much response. The nature of the underlying problem is complex - self-promotion, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, misuse of sources, gaming the system, and the more general Balkan Problem which en.wikipedia has always struggled to deal with - so individual noticeboards haven't always coped well with Malaguski-related content in the past. The proliferation is a problem, but then again the underlying issue with articles and editors still isn't getting resolved. The issue is also currently at DRN. If DRN has sufficient teeth to resolve a long-term editing problem which has not been solved by discussion alone, then we should let the DRN thread continue. If DRN is simply a place where people are supposed to discuss until they reach a compromise, the DRN thread will not solve the problem.
• Because Malagurski's films promote a certain nationalist perspective of events in the Balkans, they are guaranteed some opportunistic support from a small number of editors who I might charitably characterise as being on one side or another in enwiki's difficult Balkan editing environment - but a small number is enough to make a big difference on an obscure article. For instance, WhiteWriter (talk · contribs) - who I often disagree with but I'd never deny that they're an intelligent and competent editor - somehow got suckered using sites like this as sources for film-awards supposedly won by one of Malagurski's films. The sources make no mention of Malagurski or his films at all; but, hey, that's how sources and awards work in the Malagurskiverse. WhiteWriter even started a retaliatory SPI against me - claiming that an editor in a different country who I'd reverted and reported to a noticeboard was actually my sock. Usually WhiteWriter has much greater nous and good-faith; but articles connected to Malagurski create a toxic editing environment.
• I would be very appreciative if uninvolved editors could spend some time looking at the editing history, particularly the earliest edits and the timestamps, of any account which appears from nowhere to vote "keep" on any of the AfDs of articles in the Malagurskiverse. Including UrbanVillager. There have been a few AfDs raised by independent editors over the years.
• I respect Uzma Gamal greatly, but am genuinely amazed that Uzma Gamal closed the COIN case with "UrbanVillager does not have a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic" - having had to spend far too much time looking at UrbanVillager's edits I find it very hard to find an alternative explanation - but needless to say this will now be used by UrbanVillager to remove any tags and shut down any future comments on the topic. In particular, UrbanVillager's remarkable ability to find (entirely positive) information about Malagurski which is not readily googled - whether it's uploading own-work photos taken at an event involving Malagurski, or adding information for which there is no documentary evidence at all - has attracted comment from various editors, but that COIN closure is sure to be used to shut down such comments in future.
• I am disappointed by UrbanVillager's continued claims that there is a conspiracy of editors to "slander" this obscure film-maker. I work on a lot of different controversial topics so I'm used to this kind of crap. There is no such conspiracy, of course, but it is a symptom of the problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the Balkan Problem, I'd like to point out these three diffs which illustrate where we're at: [109] [110] [111]. Reliable sources say that Serbia invaded Kosovo, but in the Malagurski-verse Kosovo "re-acceded into Serbia's sovereignty", a TRUTH which must UrbanVillager must maintain - with plenty of reverts - in articles related to this obscure film-maker. I'm happy to provide plenty of other diffs on similar points if necessary. bobrayner (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My response relates only to 'The weight of Chains', I know very little about any of the other pages and have not contributed to them.

OK, I've said this on 3 seperate dispute notice boards in the last few days, and dozens of times on the talk page. Neither Opbeith,Bobrayner nor I have introduced, or attempted to introduce any material from blogs or similair dubious sources into this article, therefore it would be courteous of UrbanVillager if he would stop saying we had.

I apologise for bolding, but I am really tired of repeating this. If I am significantly wrong in this regard, I will unreservedly apologise to UrbanVillager and others repeating this accusation.

One of the examples of supposedly unsourced material given above was sponsorship information, introduced by Producer and the material was in fact from the film's own website. Producer's only crime was to not provide links to that site***. The source of this information was, and is, well known to UrbanVillager (and he also knows that a). I partially supported him in this matter b). a concensus IS being reached on this matter), therefore, either UrbanVillager has a very short memory or he is being knowingly dishonest in citing it as an example of introducing unsourced material.

I really don't want to dispute all the other claims made by UrbanVillager, since I have already done so several times in the last few days and because I believe that a proper examination of the talk page will reveal a sincere wish on my part (and the others I have mentioned), to arrive at a full, fair, balanced account of this film.

Even for the most open minded and fair person, this film does present big problems in knowing HOW to report it. I say this because this film has SO MANY contentious assertions, so often itself relies on (almost universally) discredited evidence, and at times is knowingly intellectually dishonest (I will not cite any of the many emotive/controversial examples of this, but instead cite several times that the voiceover commentary says something SIGNIFICANTLY different - and more contentious - than the document being filmed ACTUALLY says .... when I pointed this out on the talk page, I was accused by UrbanVillager of 'doing original research' (well, yes, I froze the DVD to read the document) and adding 'opinionated comments' to the talk page) .... I believe we MUST be free to discuss the claims/assertions/arguments of the film on the talk page, and also, since this purports to be an account of modern history, be free to discuss INTELLIGENTLY the history which the film claims to be making an account of. Of course, at the end of the day, we need to reach a decision about HOW to describe this film and its claims, but at the moment that is not happening precisely because of these dispute noticeboards.

I have probably already wasted more time than I should have on this anonymous accusation. However I am happy to provide any further information or corroboration should it be needed.Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • CORRECTIONI have just been informed (and checked myself), that Producer DID in fact provide "a link to the official site then I added a web mirror archived link of the official site to go alongside the link to the official site itself". I apologise to PRODUCER for saying otherwise. This makes the accusation that he has been trying to introduce unsourced material even more absurd !Pincrete (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
      

• I closed the COIN1 case and posted a comment in COIN2. The following is the status (as of this post) of noticeboard requests concerning UrbanVillager:

• ANI1 27 February 2012‎ - Outcome: "Old edits, no need for admin action right now. OP advised to carry on editing article and see what happens"
• NPOVN 19 March 2012‎: Outcome: ended without reply
• SPI1 7 August 2012: Outcome: "No clear evidence is given anywhere in this investigation. Therefore, no action can be taken"
• COIN1 6 November 2012 (12:26) - Outcome: "UrbanVillager does not have a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic"
• Dispute resolution noticeboard‎ 6 November 2012 (19:06): Outcome: Ongoing
• Reliable sources Notice board 6 November 2012 (20:37)‎: Outcome: discussion archived without close
• SPI2 13 November 2012‎‎: Outcome: Ongoing
• ANI2 14 November 2012 - Outcome: Ongoing
• COIN2 15 November 2012: Outcome: Ongoing

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A little more evidence

• Over at COIN, I have posted a complete summary of all UrbanVillager's edits to article-space. I think this illuminates the COI concerns; I would be grateful if any uninvolved admin (who has a lot of time on their hands) could read through the list.
• That COIN posting focusses on the COI issue. It took a while to put that package together because it's a complex and partially-hidden problem. It's not a complete package - it's still possible to drill down deeper into some edits which appear to show UrbanVillager having what could charitably be called insider access to information. I'll build a second package focussing on the sock/meatpuppetry issue, so please don't close the SPI prematurely. Personally, I think the tendentious editing, misuse of sources &c is a bigger problem, but the DRN thread can wait. bobrayner (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Uzma does seem to have a somewhat unique view on the scope of COIN investigations. That said, keep in mind that a "ruling" at COIN means little one way or the other, and would have little impact on the ability of UrbanVillager to continue editing in the same way that he has been. That said, I think Uzma did err in his closure. It's clear to me from your behavioral evidence that UrbanVillager at the very minimum has access to insider information on this topic area, which, combined with the biased editing, strongly indicates a COI. One of the reasons this issue isn't getting much outside help is all the walls of text, copious writing, and forum shopping. Gigs (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • IOW, we all know that BM and his "Serbian Youth League" has been gaming the system since 2006, but we're all resigned to it because they're just so good at it. At this point we should probably award them a special barnstar for the effort. :< --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I disagree, Joy, they're not that good at it. Any of us who's had an involvement with any of the articles where they're active has been aware of it from years back. There's been plenty of indication. Nevertheless they get away with it because there's never any sustained Wikipedia effort to get to the bottom of the problem/keep on top of it. The record of their activities should have some sort of institutional archive somewhere at Wikipedia so that it's not a matter of starting all over from scratch each time they show they're getting out of control. Opbeith (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• My COI view is from WP:COI which looks to diffs showing External relationships to establish a COI with a specific topic. WP:COI also notes at biased editing that "beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest. They may lead to biased editing, but biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest." No specific diffs were posted in that COIN1 discussion showing behavioral evidence that UrbanVillager has access to insider information. Psychonaut concluded in COIN1 that, "I therefore submit that, in the absence of further evidence, this is not a COI issue but rather a garden-variety content and sourcing dispute which should be dealt with at the appropriate venues therefor."[112] A "ruling" at COIN does not mean for all time going forward for all purposes. It means that the editor either has or does not have a COI with a specific topic based on the evidence presented in the discussion. The same with a decision at SPI. In the end, it is not reasonable to maintain an editor under a perpetual state of suspicion and use that suspicion as a way to dissuade the editor from participating in Wikipedia. Instead of lamenting that "BM and his "Serbian Youth League" has been gaming the system since 2006, but we're all resigned to it because they're just so good at it," the most obvious place for this issue is WP:NPOVN where you can pursue the bias issue and, if UrbanVillager's edits show bias, the editors at NPOVN will take action to address the bias. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody showed interest in the problem the last time it was raised at NPOVN (and it was difficult getting people at WP:CCN interested in the walls of text). Raising it there again would surely raise more complaints about forum-shopping, proliferation of threads &c. The DRN thread was closed because of "forum shopping" and an apparent lack of content issues - suggesting that there was COI &c instead. Of course, at COI it gets a "not this noticeboard" response too. Even though there is clear evidence of behavioural problems, specific actional content problems, every problem imaginable - each board seems to lean towards "try the other board". I'm not sure how the DRN one was technically forumshopping as it was actually opened by UrbanVillager rather than one of the many opposing editors whom UrbanVillager accuses of conspiring to use multiple pages & processes to slander Malagurski. So, how on earth can we resolve the problem? Any future thread anywhere is likely to be shut down with either "go to a different board", or "forum shopping" or, if it survives long enough, hitherto-inactive editors will suddenly appear out of the woodwork to support UrbanVillager. My original interest was because Malagurski articles are used to push Malagurski's view of recent Balkan history, which is incompatible with what reliable sources say; but take it to ARBMAC and suddenly a couple of editors will pop up to say that these are articles about a filmmaker, nothing to do with the Balkans... bobrayner (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Uzma, if you look at the evidence carefully, there were several diffs that showed access to previously unpublished information. Gigs (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• For heaven's sake, who has sought to dissuade UrbanVillager from participating in Wikipedia? We have been trying to get him to loosen his control over the Malagurski-related articles. Because of the clearly anomalous situation regarding reliable sources, he continues to remain very much in overall control of their imbalanced content, complaining loudly whenever there's any challenge to his control. Go read through the Talk page at The Weight of Chains and you can see what an uphill battle editors who disagree with that control have had in order to secure some reasonable amendments. Uzma Gamal, you're turning the situation on its head. Opbeith (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Help: Is there any way of "watchlisting" only this particular "Incident" on the Noticeboard? I'm getting swamped. Opbeith (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

We could break it out into a subpage, but that would make it even less likely for new editors to come in and help with the dispute resolution. Everyone involved need to try to be more concise. Gigs (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. I know as far as your last point is concerned I'm not much of a help myself. But it's a general problem with Noticeboards - it would be nice to have a section-watch facility. Opbeith (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Report per WP:ARARAT

Per the instructions at WP:ARARAT I am filing a report here. Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have reared up again in the recent case of Frost778 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On User talk:Ian.thomson Frost's admitted IP can be seen admitting to having added the information about Orion to Hayk and vice versa "years ago". Checking at the history of Hayk confirms it was Ararat arev who added this info in 2007, so there's a whole bunch more socks for Ararat who has over 300 already, and an update to be made at WP:ARARAT. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• And speaking of Ararat, a bunch of IPs are coming out of the woodwork to re-insert an image of said mountain in History of Armenia in violation of WP:IMAGELOCATION as well as editorial common sense. The poorly written English and the obvious disregard for our guidelines suggest that these, possibly, are socky IPs as well. I've already reverted this a couple of times--I like for some of you to look at it to see if my reverts were correct (and then you can have the honor this time), if the article needs protection, and if the IPs themselves warrant closer inspection. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Til, it'd be nice if we got more eyes on this. Perhaps you can mount a flying cannonball again. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've put on two months of semiprotection and added the pp-semi-sock tag at History of Armenia. It's unclear whether the person doing the reverts is truly User:Ararat arev but the protection log of this article mentions his name, so he's been here in the past. A recent SPI that mentioned Ararat a rev was WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost778. During the time he was active, Ararat a rev ran a huge number of socks, as you can see at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ararat arev. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel Vandalized

The pade for Israel appears to have been vandalized and is unreadable, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.207.225 (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looks fine now but the servers seem to be on a go slow, so you probably got the page content served without the skin (or vice versa) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• I've been getting a slightly increased number of pages loading with the CSS missing lately. At least a few a day. Of course, the regulars probably load more pages than the average reader, but this does seem to be more common than we would want. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Chauahuasachca and unilaterally moving pages

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

---

A great part of Chauahuasachca (talk · contribs) 's edits are moving pages. All of these moves are unilateral without any proper discussion. Some are uncontroversial and are left to stand, but about half have been since reverted. He's been warned on his page about moving pages (by copy and paste) and about doing controversial moves without obtaining consensus first. He's been informed about the requested move procedure but chooses to ignore it all of the time. And several of his page moves have been reverted quickly.

I ran into him when he moved the Syrian Republic (1930–1958) article to a plainly wrong name Syrian Republic (1930–1963). The state ceased to exist in 1958, as it opted for full union with Egypt, known as the United Arab Republic, that survived until 1961. So it's just factually wrong. I reverted the move as controversial and without consensus. Instead of going to the talk page or request move, the user chose to revert my reversion and to edit the redirect so that the page couldn't be moved again.

I'm not looking for a block or anything of the sorts; it hardly warrants so. But the user's behavioral patten in completely disregarding other people when moving pages and not heeding the advice to use Requested move (in controversial moves, or when he's reverted the first time) certainly warrant a warning from an admin and should be looked into. I would also like the page to be moved to the name that it had for over a year, so that a proper Requested Move process could begin. Thank you. Yazan (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: The user seems to have had an older account (Poarps (talk · contribs)) with the same issues (page moving without consensus, edit warring over it). The account was blocked per this sockpuppet investigation; but he has not indicated it on his current userpage. Yazan (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) as he was asked to as part of not being blocked in the SPI. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I moved Syrian Republic (1930–1958) back. I left them a note: one more move and it's a block. I have not looked (yet) at the other account and the conditions--it's a busy night here, and if anyone wants to step in they are welcome to do so. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Drmies. Hopefully that will be that. Yazan (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:AFD mutual combat

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.

---

Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Qworty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure exactly what is going on but there is an obvious battle underway between the two listed users. They showed up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jay Brown, which I started and which contains a couple of more than usually pointed exchanges between the two. Neither Qworty nor I would be the first to suspect that Rosencomet has some competency issues, but based on the following list of active AFDs it have to believe that Qworty has systematically gone through Rosencomet's contributions in search of targets:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trance Mission
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Corrigan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Macha Nightmare (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brushwood Folklore Center
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaSara FireFox
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Martinie'
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Abelson (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amampondo (speedily kept)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Monaghan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Raúl Cañizares

These articles were all created by Rosencoment, and the discussions were all started by Qworty. I also found a couple of other articles, related to these, where Rosencomet was not the creator but was a major editor, and which were also nominated for deletion by Qworty:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Michael Kraig
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Klein

Qworty has complained of a COI; there is also a cloud of SPAs surrounding these articles who have sometimes edited them and who are responding in some of the AFDs. This isn't the first time, from what I can tell, that Qworty has chased down someone's contributions in this manner. On the other hand, given what I've seen of Rosencomet's responses I'm not sure that a systematic review of his articles is out of the question. I would like some review of this before it gets out of hand. Mangoe (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rosencomet's talk page archive may shed some light. (COI isn't a crime, and we need to judge based on content.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Qworty liberally sprays ad homs into the AfD nominations, describing Rosencomet as an 'arbcommed wikispammer' in an apparent attempt to poison the well. In fact the arbcom case proposes only one, quite mild remedy and no sanctions. On the other hand, Rosencomet's string of articles does include some highly marginal figures and (in the past at least) some very inappropriate canvassing. I don't know which to call as the worst offender here but they could certainly do to leave each other alone. (Declaration of interest: I am one of those flaky weirdos Qworty complains about. However I'm also very English and rather abhor the deification of very minor figures from my chosen path. Less is more don't you know, old chap?) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Recommend hitting Qworty with a massive WP:BOOMERANG for disruptively making multiple bad faith deletion nominations as a form of revenge on Rosencomet, and adding what appears to be false deletion rationales. At this point, Qworty should be permanently banned from AfD and disciplined for harassing Rosencoment. There's enough evidence here showing Qworty outright lied about Trance Mission in the AfD nomination, and refused to perform WP:BEFORE. "Trance Mission", as any music enthusiast knows, is not an "excruciatingly non-notable band that abysmally fails WP:BAND".[113] They are included in every encyclopedic entry about music from this period as the previous link shows, and there are dozens of news sources about the band and its members. Qworty has put his personal disputes with users above and beyond the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

BOOMERANG is for editors who make the original posts here; that would be Mangoe. Your interpretations of what BEFORE covers is extreme and rather peculiar in that you think is "best practice in all areas of Wikipedia", and not just for AfD nominations. [114]. You claimed Qworty lied in his nominations. Retract that or substantiate it with evidence that she/he lied. I will also note that you, in your comments to Rosencomet, appear to believe that there is some cabal of editors and a conspiracy: [115]: "What's going on here is that we have a group of editors who are working together to remove "odd" people and ideas from the encyclopedia". I will note that your version of getting evidence before voting keep appears to be to link to Google searches and not to show actual sources that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources [116], and yet you complain about the Nom. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Qworty AFD ban. Trashing articles on notable subject because of personal grudges? We don't need that. --Cyclopia^talk 10:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Now now! You'll see over the past few days I had some discussions with Qworty on his talkpage and with Rosencomet on mine. You'll see from it that I asked Qworty to tone down the rhetoric because it had descended into personal attack, and advised Rosencomet that I thought quite a few of his articles would fail at AfD due to lack of notability. Qworty has moderated his tone and his latest nomination is unproblematic from that perspective. It would, I feel, be unfair to topic ban Qworty now as he does seem to have got the message. What he needs to do now is make sure he doesn't badger everyone at the AfDs in progress and get into trouble that way - I'd recommend he just says his piece and leaves. The admins who work in that area can usually tell what's a primary and what's a secondary source. What Rosencomet needs to do is find some secondary sources that evidence notability, and use inline citations - his articles were written in 2006 when it was still comment to list references without inline citations, a practice that has almost gone out of use, particularly for BLPs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is it possible to have an AN/I discussion where people think, and write, beyond one boldfaced word? Administrators can read, you know. We don't need to be treated as if we don't read beyond the first word of anything. Or indeed, be told with boldface the blindingly obvious fact that a comment is a comment in a discussion that isn't a poll. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• I have been frankly shocked at the scope and vitriol of this recent attack by Qworty. Nearly fifty articles have been affected, often with uncivil statements accompanying the edits. Whole reference sections, notes, categories, even bibliographies and discographies with ISBN numbers have been deleted as “unsourced”. Over a dozen articles I created were nominated for deletion; not once was I sent a notice. The reasons for the deletion nomination usually began with an insult to me, misquoting a 5-6 year old arbcom as if I had been banned and as if it happened yesterday and no change in editing had occurred. There were also simply false statements, repeatedly accusing me of furthering financial gain, and creating only articles with a COI. False statements about the subjects were made as well; in one case a religious insult was included [117]. In several cases, some or all the references and citations that supported notability were deleted, then the text chopped out, then the article’s notability challenged or even nominated for deletion. In one case, as IMO a back-door way to delete an article without community discussion, an article with 20 references and 10 footnotes was simply redirected to another, itself cut in half. (This has since been reverted by another editor, I believe an administrator. [118])

I would not describe this as “Mutual Combat”, BTW. IMO, this has all the earmarks of revenge by an editor who was somehow involved in the arbcom six years ago and did not like the outcome. For my part, I never went to favorite articles of Qworty’s to edit, and I immediately sought advice from two administrators who had been involved in the arbcom. Qworty, IMO, tried to sucker me into an edit war; in one case, when I deleted a fact tag about Jay Stevens’s co-authorship of a book, pointing out the data was right there in the bibliography, I was accused of edit warring.

I am in the process of trying to repair the articles, but it will take time, and there are a dozen nominated for deletion. Certainly, there are some that can use some work on additional citations, and some who’s notability are open to debate. But this was a wholesale campaign with incivility and untruths involved. I thank those editors and administrators that have taken notice of this issue, and the help I’ve had so far putting things to right; I can certainly use it, as I do not have as much time for Wiki editing as I used to.

Here is a list of affected articles that I know of; the status of some may have changed due to the efforts of other editors. [119] I will not comment on the proposed block, just present the facts as I see them.Rosencomet (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand Viriditas' reason for suggesting a boomerang, since Qworty didn't originate this thread. Barring that, I'm tending to agree with Rosencomet; as I said at the David Jay Brown AFD, the reason we restrict COI editing is that non-neutral articles are often the result, and Brown's article has turned out neutrally, so we need not worry about COI in that case. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• No action needed as Elen of the Roads has highlighted. I will note that there has been a certain amount of admin shopping going on by Rosencomet, such as User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Massive deletions and tagging. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As a curiosity, why was this NACed as speedy keep after only 2 comments: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amampondo before some people had a chance to look through the presented sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Depopulation of English boy band category

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.

---

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:East_17&diff=523571661&oldid=523560790
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Robson_&_Jerome&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Brother_Beyond&diff=prev&oldid=523571472
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:The_Wanted&diff=prev&oldid=523543442

ChemTerm (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to pursue this. The unnamed user who made these edits (and who was not notified) is very active in band articles and doesn't appear in my judgement to be carrying out any program of systematic deletions. Please go to his talk page and engage him first. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've notified User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, who should have been both named and notified, ChemTerm. You can't just drop links without a name to avoid notification. Read the top of this page for instructions and please don't make this mistake again. Additionally, I don't see anything that requires administrative interference. We aren't here to settle content disputes (WP:DRN can do that, but it isn't admin only and decided by editors). And Mangoe is correct, even if you thought it was a behavioral issue, you are obligated to attempt to discuss with him first, and I don't see any link demonstrating that you have. I would recommend closing the thread without any further action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User made Antisemitic comment in edit summary

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.

---

Incnis Mrsi made an antisemitic comment in the edit summary whille editing Russian alphabet. Not sure what the Wikipedian Guideline is but some form of action should be undertaken. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• PS I did notify Incnis Mrsi about this discussion; but he removed this notice himself. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure if this is definitely an anti-semitic comment. It could be interpreted a number of ways. Not every statement that includes the word "Jews" is anti-semitic. Claiming that Jews aren't masters of the Russian language would be a bit of a stretch if someone was trying to insult the Jews. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 19:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was thinking he same thing as SW here. Seems more like a comment on the reliability of the source at http://www.jewishgen.org. While it was a little snide and uncalled for, this is more troutworthy than blockworthy, as there is no clear indication of reinforcing any negative stereotype nor anything particularly hateful in the comment, just some run of the mill insensitivity. If this is the only example, I wouldn't want to take any action stronger than reminding him to not do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I've dropped a note on their talk page to this effect. Not sure about their user page, which says they aren't talking to anyone. Of course this doesn't stop any admin who feels that more is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Perhaps the action undertaken should be a bit of close reading of the diff, to see that Incnis Mrsi is questioning the reliability of the source that you're citing, JewishGen, on the subject of Russian linguistics, which indeed one might not consider to be the primary field of expertise of a genealogy WWW site.

  The fact is that what you're giving the encyclopaedia is amateurish and misleading. The sound is /h/, the voiceless glottal fricative, which we have an article for. You're mixing that up with the letter H in the Latin alphabet. This is the difference between phonetics and orthography, and you're conflating the twain, citing a slideshow written by computer engineer Warren Blatt, rather than an expert linguist, and writing about Russian phonology in the articles on the Russian alphabet and the Latin letter H, neither of which is actually the right place even if you had got the text correct. (The angle brackets don't denote a phonetic transcription.)

  That is why two editors have objected to what you are writing as simplistic and off-topic.

  Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I do know that I am an amateur When It Comes to This or that language and I do not mind getting corrected... But I tried to enforce Wikipedia:Civility when I created this section (on this Administrators' noticeboard). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Putting aside the question about whether the statement removed is correct or not, and whether the source cited for the statement is reliable or not, the form of the comment in the edit summary is, superficially, anti-Semitic, it that it refers to this source as "the Jews". Such broad generalizing -- "The Jews this" or "The Jews that" -- is a hallmark of anti-Semitic thinking, but it could also be the result of a certain lack of competency in English. Unless there is other evidence, WP:AGF should probably apply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at the editor's response to Dennis's note, I would say English-competency in a non-native English speaker is almost certainly an issue, but it's also a bit disconcerting that the editor is not taking the point under consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not an anti-Semetic comment at all. Just as the Jews don't know everything about the Russian language/alphabet, neither do the Christians know everything about the Spanish language :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that has to be numbered among the more generally clueless remarks I've ever come across on Wikipedia. Really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Some people aren't into communicating, and this problem was thrown into Incnis Mrsi's lap, while they had a post on their user page saying they didn't want have interactions with other editors until December. While we can debate the wisdom of that, they did communicate when needed, so I say just cut a little slack and move on, calling this a simple misunderstanding. I don't see any bad faith, and likely just a good faith misunderstanding by the reporting party. We all have bad days, nothing got broken here, the blue marble keeps spinning... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

North Wales child abuse scandal

I'm anxious about edits being made by User:Trident13 at that article. I've removed the blog-sourced information they have been adding, but we now have issues being raised about whether a list of people convicted of criminal offences in the past should be added to the article. Given the legal issues recently over reporting false allegations, I think it would be useful to have some extra pairs of BLP-experienced eyes over there. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is the place for that. Uncle G (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Heironymous Rowe and Dougweller

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.

---

Dougweller and Heironymous has constantly been attacking users who edit the melungeon page and this has been going on for around 2 years or more. The latest attack came from Dougweller as he falsely stated sockpuppetry and used this to put a block from editing the Melungeon page. They have used false editwar warnings to people after only 1 or 2 edits. Here is the latest from Dougweller "(Protected Melungeon: Persistent sock puppetry (‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC))))" And as you can see from the melungeon page's edits there was no sockpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melungeon&action=history

Then his friend who is also some type of admin here decided to publically use profanity toward me for trying to show my sources and talk this out. "Please take this to the section I started at the article talkpage. And the source you just used above rootsweb.ancestry, STILL ISNT A FU(%ING RELIABLE SOURCE. Heiro 07:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)"

The source I used was actually " 1870 census of johnson county, KY"

I'm not sure what your polciy is on admins using profanity to editors but flat out publically using profanity to editors ( who by the way donate their own money to keep wikipedia running) is not acceptable behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Heironymous_Rowe#Melungeon_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.167.38 (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is what Rowe had left me a message of before I tried to show him my sources in his talk page "But you are someone who has yet to take their disputed sourcing to WP:RSN, who has yet to abide by WP:BRD, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RELIABLE and WP:EDITWAR. Continuing to insert unreliably sourced material into this article will result in this matter being taken to the WP:3rr board. Please come up with reliable sourcing or stop inserting this information into the article. Thank you, Heiro 00:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.167.38 (talk)

The 1870 Federal Census is being cited but does it actually state that "David Collins is a proven Vardy Collins descendant"?Shearonink (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not an admin, nor have I ever claimed to be. I did make the edit above, on my own talkpage in frustration after their repeated refusal to take this to the article talkpage section I had started, and then thinking better of it immediately removed it, once again pointing them to the article talk page. Anyone who wishes to can go look at the recent article history and weigh in at the article talkpage. I could actually use a voice of reason there. Heiro 08:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a bad thread. It should be resolved quickly, as it is not a legitimate thread for this board. IP socking is obvious here. Just saying. Doc talk 08:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No there was not any repeated refusal, people can see this on your talk page. You started that AFTER I LEFT YOU MESSAGES...and it was NOT repeated. This can bee seen all in your talk page edits. And yes you have told people you are a admin and you have threatened to have people banned numerous times to...you and your friend Doug. But now you have resorted to using profanity to users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.167.38 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, you haven't exactly stuck to one IP address, see these User_talk:76.8.172.103, 76.8.174.113, as wells as num erous edit summaries in the article history. Heiro 08:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Heironymous Rowe is not an admin.[120] If he has claimed to be one, as you assert, you need to show those diffs. Doc talk 08:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been here since 2008ish, and have never once claimed to be an admin. Period. Anyone can feel free to scroll through my contribs. Heiro 08:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You use a whois to find sock puppets....Nothing I have done constitutes sock puppet. You and your friend have for over 2 years harassed and threatened other editors who do not agree with you. You and your friend does what ever it takes to keep people from editing numerous wikipedia pages that deal with indian or black race. And yes you have on numerous occasions told people you are a admin and threatened to ban or block them from pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.167.38 (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay - I call incompetence and/or trolling. The very idea that this editor and their "friend"(s)? keep people from editing "numerous wikipedia pages that deal with indian or black race". Buh-bye. Seriously, now. Doc talk 08:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really either, just POV pushing and WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. They insist on using sources that do not pass WP:RELIABLE for genetics on a page about an ethnic group. Several editors, of which I am one, have asked them to please provide sources for their claims. They continue to use blogs, forums, WP:SYNTH, etc. If you look at my contribs, I edit mostly archaeological sites related to Native Americans, Dougweller is an admin who concentrates on archaeological sites and on keeping WP:FRINGE material and badly sourced material out of artic les dealing with these subjects. Heiro 08:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

again back to the profanity, here is your reply simple from me informing you about me putting you on this talk page (which I'm required to do), Harassment? No, requesting adequate sourcing is not harassment, it is part of policy. Profanity? Not against the rules here. Also, Wikipedia users do not pay to edit here. Now, take this to the damn article talkpage and see the list of reasons why your sources are inadequate. :-) Heiro 08:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.167.38 (talk) Actually as I have stated before out of ALL the sources, only 1 was from a blog, only 1, and that is the blog of the co founder of the melungeon dna project and that blog was full of sources right there when you go to it. So it was only 1 blog. You have also removed family tree dna sources that state against what the melungeon page stated yet you had that removed and said it was not a wikipedia used source even though the Melungeon DNA was done thru Family tree DNA and family tree DNA is who tested the dana and is who runs the melungeon dna project.

Obvious block-evading sock is obviously blocked. The end. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this in the ARBMAC realm? Fringe stuff? Oh, boy... Doc talk 08:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Who's he a sock of? Swarm ^X 08:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Not to quibble with the block, but to be fair and honest I'm not sure they are a block evading sock or I would have asked for a block sooner in this saga. They do occasionally switch IPs, but I don't think that is their fault, more their ISP. Another editor who is a block evading sock (User:Marburg72)(IPs usually begin with 166.147.) is a WP:FRINGE pushing editor who likes to follow me around and be disruptive, and has hit this article several times. I have no reason to believe these are the same two people. A case for a block of 76.8.167.38 could be made on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:EDITWAR could be made, but since they're blocked now I guess it doesn't matter. Heiro 08:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's possible he's telling the truth that he's not a sockpuppet or evading any blocks. I still would have blocked him for a week for edit warring and general disruptive behavior. It's apparent from looking at the edits under his current and former IP addresses that he is presently incapable of working in a collaborative manner. Either he learns to use dispute resolution or he'll keep getting blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I don't think its ARBMAC. Perhaps Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence is a little closer, but not quite there either, imho. bobrayner (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well the first link is about info that certainly falls under 'race' (DNA testing and racial grouping). So I would say it squarely hits R&I. Unless R&I is to be taken literally in that it must be both race AND intelligence... But I dont think it is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are we going by titles of cases? The decision itself says the area of conflict, where discretions sanctions maybe handed out is 'the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed'. While I see a lot of stuff relating to race here, I don't see anything related to abilities or behaviour so I don't see how this falls under R&I. However at the very least it looks like there are BLP issues and really anyone who thinks nonsense about the maritial status of the founder of some random DNA testing company and what awards the company has won belongs in an article about a people needs to step away from editing until they familiarise themselves with how to write an encylopaedia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks to me as if race and intelligence really is about topics that are both race and intelligence; it would be absurd to sanction someone on it for things that are race only. I've not looked at the facts here, so I can't support or disagree with Nil Einne, but of course we can sanction disruptive people on other grounds. But it's definitely not Macedonia :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Shouldn't this have archived by now? No one has edited it in 4 or 5 days and the problem was long ago resolved, I hope. Just wondering. Heiro 07:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Politically Motivated Editor in BLP Violation

TawsifSalam (talk · contribs)

This editor from a highly charged developing country in turbulence have been editing posts and inserting grossly inaccurate comments about a living individual in BLP violation. Previously, the Wikipedia page on Bangladeshi Political Families (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshi_Political_Families) was deleted after many months of debate and serious BLP violations by this same politically motivated individual from the same country. The page where the BLP violation is now occuring is about a living individual who was an entry in the page that was deleted. This person is using Wikipedia as a political weapon in a hostile country, just as they did to encourage riots in Bengazi that took the life of the US Ambassador there. It is therefore recommended to ban this editor or delete these page. We do not want to see riots on the street and the dwindling credibility of Wikipedia for encouraging political violence through serious BLP violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.44.205 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious charge. You're the one removing sourced information. Do the sources not support the content given? If they don't, explain so here. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply # 1: There is a difference between a serious BLP violation and a "serious charge". The term "charge" that you use is a vague, defensive and negative rationalization of the actual BLP violation whose magnitude you are neither able to fathom nor imagine based on the fact that you are not a subject associated with the incident who is perfectly informed about the magnitude of the BLP violation. Therefore my initial objection is about kinu's (talk · contribs)blissful and defensive trivialization of a serious misconduct that is only possible in Wikipedia at the cost of Wikipedia's reputation and credibility by BLP violators. The edits by M. Tawsif Salam are not sourced as per Wikipedia guidelines as he uses unreliable Bangladeshi tabloids as a weapon of character assasination of a living individual in serious BLP violation. This explains my reverts and I am requesting semi-protection of that page. Thank you.83.81.44.205 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply # 2:The link cited byTawsifSalam (talk · contribs) does not exist. Using an inactive link for purposes of defamation is a crime in itself. Wikipedia is only allowing the erosion of its credibility by inviting BLP violators to engage in defamation with non-existent or inactive links. Secondly, the unsubstantiated piece of defamation is about a subject who is writing this reply and would prefer to remain anonymous for all Wikipedia purposes. TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) writes "In March 2009, Tanbir Siddiky went to meet BNP chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia with his son Irad Ahmed Siddiky allegedly to secure the party mayoral ticket for the latter to contest in Dhaka city elections." Mr. Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky is a founder of a political party and the senior most politician of the country in question who is normally visited by Begum Khaleda Zia, the current party chief, to whom Mr. Tanbir Siddiky is both senior in age, social status and seniority in politics. Mr. Siddiky founded the Bangladesh Nationalist Party as its founding treasurer along with the slained military dictator turned President of that country, late General Ziaur Rahman, who was the husband of Khaleda Zia. Khaleda Zia.

TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) writes unsubstantiatedly,"Failing to convince the party chair, the pair came out and threw a press conference where an enraged Irad Siddiky accused Begum Khaleda Zia to have demanded 50 million Bangladesh taka in exchange of giving him the party ticket for mayoral polls."

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky was a candidate for the mayor of Dhaka for an election that has been deferred 10 times since 2007 when the tenure of the last mayor expired. Elections are never held on time in Bangladesh, a politically unstable country where all franchise is kept hostage to the whims of the political party in power. Local governments are managed by puppets of the regime in power by deferring indefinitely local elections. When Mr. Irad Siddiky, a Bangladeshi economist and the son of Mr. Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky declared his candidature, a group of hostile journalists attacked him and misrepresented the facts by coloring his candidature as a renegade of the party who is challenging the party chief Khaleda Zia. A simple declaration of mayoral candidature of an individual in a local election was misrepresented by popular tabloids and some yellow journalists as Mr. Irad Siddiky's challenging of the dynastic political authority of the Military dictator's wife turned dynastic politician on sympathy vote, Khaleda Zia. In Bangladesh, characterized by Henry Kissinger as the world's most unstable "bottomless basket" the vindictive culture of character assassination and defamation is very fluid and ungovernable. Individuals from that country are known throughout the world to commit crimes of both international terrorism and information terrorism and identity theft is a widely practiced social norm where anyone with access to information as an editor whether it is digital or analog or manual format, is bound to fraudulent and misinformation generating activities. As a matter of fact, half of all citizens of Bangladesh have false passports and are routinely deported by airports all over the world. Therefore when Wikipedia is allowing users like TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) to edit without any bar, Wikipedia is only committing itself to a misinformational campaign of defamation and hate speech that is fully punishable in any court of law in the real world. I am really surprised that Wikipedia is still surviving without any major legal challenges of the scale faced by Facebook and Google. This will very soon change when Wikipedia continues to invite with open arms users like TawsifSalam (talk · contribs). Perhaps it would be better if you call this Wiki-Defamation instead of Wikipedia so that the public online know exactly what Wikipedia is doing. Thanks.83.81.44.205 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, please notify the editor whom you are accusing of this thread. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, the user in question is TawsifSalam (talk · contribs). You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion here. I've notified them for you. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply: I have gone through the accusations made in this part and find them thoroughly offending, untrue and personally motivated.

The author of the accusation who is detected to have come from the IP 83.81.44.205, I confronted him for the first and the last time in the biographical article of a politician- Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky. The politician three years ago was expelled from the party which he belonged to throughout his political career. Such expulsion is very usually assumed to be a significant part of a living politician’s biography, which is why I simply added that information to the article.

The first edit I made was on 1 July, 2012, where inserted information was supported with a number of news articles. But all changes made were abruptly reverted on 8 August, 2012 by 83.81.44.205 with just saying 'citation correction'. I revisited the article on 18 November, 2012, found out the abrupt removal, undid it and left a message at 83.81.44.205’s talk page to familiarize with more information on New contributors' help page, Citing sources and Vandalism in Wikipedia. Since then 83.81.44.205 twice undid my final edits in the article and later both the actions have been reverted by Kinu. The two even held an exchange of talks in the talk page of 83.81.44.205 where the latter was challenged for his edits. There 83.81.44.205 accused me of citing from 'unreliable tabloid', which maybe at the user's surprise is the ranked 2 among all Bangladeshi websites according to Alexa. Moreover, 83.81.44.205 failed to provide a single piece of external source to support any of his actions those brought the issue to here.

I am also surprised by the mention of the Benghazi terrorist attack killing the US Ambassador and find it as a desperate stunt attempted by 83.81.44.205. The case is pretty simple in here- I did add information with citations to the article that 83.81.44.205 frequents, 83.81.44.205 removed it hastily, I undid the removal and now 83.81.44.205 wants me banned from Wikipedia! I am not used to insert words in Wikipedia based on my assumption, but I will not be surprised if 83.81.44.205's accusation and demand regarding my edits potentially seem to be motivated by personal causes to anyone. I have made 1,146 successful edits in 388 articles and created 7 new articles since April 2009 in Wikipedia. I also contribute in Bengali Wikipedia where I made 348 successful edits in 114 articles and created 20 new articles. I have studies to deal with and works to do in my life that I have to live. I work harder in this case just to spare time for Wikipedia and I indeed feel good in spending as much as possible of that time behind this noble project. The commotions created by the actions of 83.81.44.205 are definitely a sort of hazard that I accept as usual to belong to places like Wikipedia those are open to all kinds of people.

I want to finish my explanation with a humble request to everyone coming by this to have a look into the talk page of 83.81.44.205, just to understand the manner of this user's journey in Wikipedia and responses of other fellow users and administrators to that interesting manner.

• I just want to say that I appreciate the level of decorum adopted in this particular thread. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply # 3:The link cited byTawsifSalam (talk · contribs) does not exist. Using an inactive link for purposes of defamation is a crime in itself. Wikipedia is only allowing the erosion of its credibility by inviting BLP violators to engage in defamation with non-existent or inactive links. Secondly, the unsubstantiated piece of defamation is about a subject who is writing this reply and would prefer to remain anonymous for all Wikipedia purposes. TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) writes "In March 2009, Tanbir Siddiky went to meet BNP chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia with his son Irad Ahmed Siddiky allegedly to secure the party mayoral ticket for the latter to contest in Dhaka city elections." Mr. Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky is a founder of a political party and the senior most politician of the country in question who is normally visited by Begum Khaleda Zia, the current party chief, to whom Mr. Tanbir Siddiky is both senior in age, social status and seniority in politics. Mr. Siddiky founded the Bangladesh Nationalist Party as its founding treasurer along with the slained military dictator turned President of that country, late General Ziaur Rahman, who was the husband of Khaleda Zia. Khaleda Zia.

TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) writes unsubstantiatedly,"Failing to convince the party chair, the pair came out and threw a press conference where an enraged Irad Siddiky accused Begum Khaleda Zia to have demanded 50 million Bangladesh taka in exchange of giving him the party ticket for mayoral polls."

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky was a candidate for the mayor of Dhaka for an election that has been deferred 10 times since 2007 when the tenure of the last mayor expired. Elections are never held on time in Bangladesh, a politically unstable country where all franchise is kept hostage to the whims of the political party in power. Local governments are managed by puppets of the regime in power by deferring indefinitely local elections. When Mr. Irad Siddiky, a Bangladeshi economist and the son of Mr. Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky declared his candidature, a group of hostile journalists attacked him and misrepresented the facts by coloring his candidature as a renegade of the party who is challenging the party chief Khaleda Zia. A simple declaration of mayoral candidature of an individual in a local election was misrepresented by popular tabloids and some yellow journalists as Mr. Irad Siddiky's challenging of the dynastic political authority of the Military dictator's wife turned dynastic politician on sympathy vote, Khaleda Zia. In Bangladesh, characterized by Henry Kissinger as the world's most unstable "bottomless basket" the vindictive culture of character assassination and defamation is very fluid and ungovernable. Individuals from that country are known throughout the world to commit crimes of both international terrorism and information terrorism and identity theft is a widely practiced social norm where anyone with access to information as an editor whether it is digital or analog or manual format, is bound to fraudulent and misinformation generating activities. As a matter of fact, half of all citizens of Bangladesh have false passports and are routinely deported by airports all over the world. Therefore when Wikipedia is allowing users like TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) to edit without any bar, Wikipedia is only committing itself to a misinformational campaign of defamation and hate speech that is fully punishable in any court of law in the real world. I am really surprised that Wikipedia is still surviving without any major legal challenges of the scale faced by Facebook and Google. This will very soon change when Wikipedia continues to invite with open arms users like TawsifSalam (talk · contribs). Perhaps it would be better if you call this Wiki-Defamation instead of Wikipedia so that the public online know exactly what Wikipedia is doing. Thanks.83.81.44.205 (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This link does not exist which TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) used in his misinformational and defamatory contents http://dev.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=127008&cid=3

• I've blocked the IP for 2 weeks for disruptive editing and legal threats - other reasons come to mind, but ... BTW, the link that doesn't exist does exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor/lurker, I would think the best solution to these BLP problems is to require an administrator in good standing who is also uninvolved in the BLP article to sign off on changes like these. Just my two cents. SapiensIngentis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.97.131 (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Admin don't decide content, the community does. Our job is solely to facilitate those changes when needed. We are janitors, not judges. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Though every information 83.81.44.205 presented regarding Bangladesh should be precisely challenged asking the author to cite every of its pieces and should be removed if the user fails to do so, I would refuse to linger the issue because 83.81.44.205 has now been blocked by the administrators for two weeks, on which too I do not want to make any comment. Hoping that this mention might amuse or raise some eyebrows- my LinkedIn profile today was visited by a user called Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. I could not confirm if it was really the person from the centre of all these or has been a result of identity theft.

At conclusion, I was honestly anxious if my behaviour in Wikipedia really gives impression of that of a politically motivated editor as 83.81.44.205 had accused. So I thoroughly went through my list of contributions and what I found out is that most of them to the English Wikipedia so far are about current affairs, places I use to live in or visit and biographies, the latter mostly consisting of trivial information cited from news events rather than detailed information about the persons’ lives. Contributions in Bengali Wikipedia are mostly about translating a wide range of articles and those I work on in the English Wikipedia. I am literally in nowhere thinking about that accusation. Perhaps 83.81.44.205 encountered my activities only in political issues, those I found out to comprise not a significant part of my contributions to Wikipedia. -M. Tawsif Salam 00:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Djfullmoon

User:Djfullmoon has made no contributions other than

• Writing an apparent autobiography Djfullmoon which was deleted under WP:CSD#A7
• Recreating this autobiography at their user page
• Replacing WP:CSD with what appears to be a contact list [121]

and possibly other deleted contributions.

It seems to me that they are still using Wikipedia as their personal webspace. They appear active on youtube, twitter and myspace [122].

What is the best procedure here? Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Page deleted as advert and warning given about using Wikipedia as a social network--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! On reflection I have also added a warning concerning the vandalism of WP:CSD.

I wonder whether the account is already borderline for indefinite blocking, in that while it hasn't been used exclusively for vandalism, it has been used for vandalism and has not shown any intention to contribute. Is creating the two now-speedied pages, one in article space and one in user space, disruption? Maybe...

It probably doesn't fall within the letter of the policy on blocking (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only), but may fall well within its intent. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

edit summary

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

---

could someone take care of this edit summary if appropriate [123]- thanks -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so he's mad. Pissed off indeed. Don't think there's any more to be done here, it's not rev-deletable, it's just expressing his general pissed offness with the project. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Wii U Wikipedia Page Vandelized

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_U

The offending picture in the top right of the page is from old Nickelodeon show, Keenan and Kel, is clearly not jemaine to the page. So is the caption under the page. I don't see any other offending things on the page, but you should probably check thoroughly. This page was clearly vandalized, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.117.29 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed by bot immediately after the edits in question.  7  05:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

'New' User creating inappropriate content

WP:DENY - checkuser has already been run. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Offensive username contest has just created an account, with the sole edit being to create an inappropriate page (already tagged for CSD) with the content "My checkuser block expired and wiki admins have become fatter and grown longer neckbeards lol.". I think another block is probably in order here. Could an admin take a look please? Thanks — sparklism hey! 10:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see someone has indeffed the user in question. Hurrah. — sparklism hey! 10:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Any connection to SmashTheState (talk · contribs) and/or TurtleMelody (talk · contribs)? bobrayner (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Checkuser requested, to look for sleepers. Why do you suspect a connexion to those accounts? Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Autoarbitaster replacing redirects with propaganda

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.

---

Autoarbitaster (talk · contribs) is engaging in political propaganda by replacing the redirects at Grad missile and Qassam missile with a pro-Palestinian blurb (see [124], [125]), edit warring whenever some editor tries to revert the redirect to its normal state (e.g. [126]). She/he also wrote on the talk pages that this is "a form of protest until all erroneous, bad faith references to Qassam missiles, Grad missiles, etc. are removed from the multifariously disproportionate number of articles devoted to the murder of civilians by Palestinians, compared to Israeli terror, apartheid ethnic cleansing and aggression (war crime)." (see Talk:Qassam missile , Talk:Grad missile). I feel some admin intervention is in order. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 10:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Also some edits on IP as User:220.233.78.32 (talk). 99.5%-positivity WP:DUCK case. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just violated 3RR. Four reverts in 8 hours. That's if you count the sock, and don't count the legitimate revert of another editor's non-constructive edit. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 11:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's blocked now, thanks to De728631. --Cyclopia^talk 11:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've blocked Autoarbitaster for one week and the IP for 48 hours. That's a really weird pattern coming out of the blue from an otherwise fairly inactive user. Especially this repeated edit summary showed a combative attitude that is clearly not constructive. De728631 (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Zhonghua Secondary School

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.

---

Zhonghua Secondary School is being vandalised on a daily basis by an IP. The vandalistic edit is always the same, i.e. reversing the boys and girls uniform to make it read that boys have to wear skirts. I keep on reverting this. Each of the edits is from a different IP in the same range block, 218.212.xx.xxx. I have put vandalism warnings on the relevant pages. Is it possible to block that group of IPs or alternatively protect the article? -- Alarics (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

For WP:AIV? DeCausa (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for 10 days. Next time please use WP:RFPP for protection requests or WP:AIV for reporting vandalism. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

CSS vandalism on today's featured article

Resolved

 – Everything that can be done has been done. Graham87 10:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I appear to have found some CSS vandalism by 220.163.44.188 to Luke P. Blackburn, today's featured article. I copyedited it then checked its page history for any monkey business and found the edits (in the contribs linked above). Because I use a screen reader, I didn't notice anything untoward on the page when I opened it. I've undid the edits and blocked the IP for a week; does anything else need to be done? Graham87 02:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• That is a proxy server behind the Great Wall, but it isn't an open proxy. I've revdel'ed the edits, as even looking through the history redirected you via the malicious code. Unless someone wants to oversight them, that is all we can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• By the way, I thought we semi-protected articles while they are on the front page? Maybe not.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've revdel'ed the remaining revisions and blacklisted the URL since the link was to a malicious website. I may write a bot to detect and remove future attempts to do this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, not unless there are unusually large spouts of vandalism on Today's Featured Article; otherwise, we normally don't. That is mainly so that we can demonstrate, at least to the best of our ability, the "anyone can edit" mantra. Though that mantra is a double-edged sword, as it also implies that anyone can vandalize. --MuZemike 07:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I considered RevDel on the edits but I didn't want to remove my copyediting edit ... in hindsight the fact that the edit summaries are still visible makes it clear what happened. @Dennis: I suppose the link only gets triggered when you are *viewing* the history when you're using popups. Also, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. I'll check the history of TFA's *before* copyediting them rather than afterwards from now on! Graham87 10:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why mediawiki allows unrestricted CSS editing on wiki. We have a "house style" that shouldn't in general be changed (except by user javascript if the user desires), and we have formatting magic like wikitables to do stuff that was historically done with handwritten HTML. We should not have to take this vandalism and clean it up after the fact, whether with a bot or anything else. Can someone open a VPT or bugzilla item to not allow CSS in edits, except possibly by admins? It wouldn't surprise me if other sorts of exploits would also be stopped by this. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional question

I often use popups to check history, for example to ensure that rollback won't miss vandalism. Is there a serious risk of non-TFA articles being vandalized with this code?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Commonly the vandalism is done to templates so that many, many pages are affected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, there was a template like this earlier today, on this very page, I closed it ie: "Clever spam" above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive, aggressive and insufficient English

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

---

An editor who was recently blocked from the German wikipedia Widescreen (WSC) [127] has started to edit here more frequently. The editor has an insufficient level of English to directly edit articles (see any of his contributions where he adds content or adds talk page material). When he does make edits it is to insert very controversial material: [128]. The editor is very aggressive and appears to have made personal attacks in a number of locations. Some aggression here: [129][130]. Talk:Psychoanalysis#To_help_update.2Frevise_Evaluation_of_effectiveness_etc_per_WP:MEDRS[131][132][[133]] Attacks whilst ignoring the arguments that were made (WP:IDHT of [134]): [135][136]. This unblock thread is also illuminating: [137] IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on the totality of the user's edits (113 article edits out of a total of 697 edits), I would favor indeffing based on incompetence, inability to express themself sufficiently well in English, and poor interaction with other editors. I see little if anything on the positive side to warrant permitting them to continue editing here. The user admits to having called admins Nazis on the German wikipedia, and my guess is it's only a matter of time before they cross the line into gross incivility here rather than oblique, often incoherent jabs. Criticizing User:EdJohnston as clueless is as preposterous as criticizing User:Dennis Brown for being mean (the user did the former, not the latter).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

He has an extensive block log on de.wiki, and seems to edit over here when he's blocked over there. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's nice to have a second home. I wonder where they'll go if blocked here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

WSC is a bit hot-headed. But his edits at Hans Eysenck, although they required some copy-editing, were essentially correct and brought up material that, until then, was unduly ignored/excluded from the article by some COI editors who were lording over that page since forever (ok, since 2006 or so). I don't know enough about the other issue (psychotherapies controversy) to comment. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

He knows his subject, but is not so good on how to do things on Wikipedia. Agree with Tijfo098 on the COI article, where s/he was vindicated. I think an admin jumped into a ban too quickly there by the way without checking up on the long term provocative behaviour of the other party. I'd suggest a mentor as the best way forward if WSC was prepared to accept as a condition of being allowed back. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that the editor has been on wiki projects for 6 years. I'm a little doubtful about how well mentorship would work. Do you think they are suddenly going to change now? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think they should monitor themselves, and how things go from here will possibly decide their future here. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• They were accused of incivility on Talk:Psychoanalysis--I don't see anything there that warrants blocking. I do see an editor who enjoys vigorous debate, probably to a fault, and who doesn't seem to enjoy collaboration--but I don't see anyone who needs to be blocked yet. I also see MistyMorn thrown around accusations of incivility without cause, which often indicates a person is on the losing side of the argument--very irritating, such accusations. Widescreen, if you're reading this, it's probably time to adjust behavior: you may not care that people are upset with how you interact with them, but if you wish to stay here you're going to have to start caring. Now, I don't see much need for us admins to get involved with this at this moment, unless this is about to get out of hand. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

...insufficient English... --WSC ^® 06:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo is spot-on in relation to Hans Eysenck. Widescreen drives me up the wall but just might respond to mentoring. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I could help out if some translating/commenting in German is needed here. Lectonar (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is more than Eysenck article. It wasn't what was happening at the Eysenck article (which I wasn't involved in) that has led to this ANI thread but his aggressiveness in several places, which makes this editor impossible to work with. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems like my "insufficient English" last out for violating WP:CIVIL and personal attacks. But I argee that my article-edits should reviewed. --WSC ^® 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"It seems like my "insufficient English" last out for violating WP:CIVIL and personal attacks" What does that even mean? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, what do you make of comments like of "Ok, I think I understand your point now. (1) You ain't joking when you say (2) only three journals are relevant for psychotherapie research. You ment this really serious. Sorry. I thought such a nonsense couln't ment serious. Sorry for that. But you are see the problem in your own argumentation. Scientiffic Literatur is scientiffic literature. You can't discuss a high quality journal of psychology away. Sorry. This is wat I called sophistery. Your agressive revert-procedre makes me think I got some sceptics here. I know this kind of users. " If someone wants to mentor this editor fire ahead, but currently he's disruptive; it's impossible to discuss things with him due to a language barrier and the incivility. On his description of german wiki admins: "Not only nazi. I'm really creative to describe their behaviour. ;o)". What do you make of [138]? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, after MistyMorny reverted my last changes in the article, twice [139] [140] and trys to tell me, that excellent scientiffic psychological journals like American Psychologist (in this case) arn't a reliable source, my first thaught was, hes kidding me. Thats AGF at it's best. You know, I don't thaught, MistyMorny is a POV-Pusher, trys to argue excellent sources away or he is one of these sceptic mythbusters trys to fight against pseudoscientiffic psychoanalysis, or something like that. No, I tought: This guy has humor. Do you want to allege me this AGF? --WSC ^® 16:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, that's not flawless English by a long shot, but I can understand the argument they're making. This is certainly not poor enough to warrant blocking, in my opinion. Flawed English combined with an occasionally brusque manner seems like a serious enough offense if one is involved in an argument, but viewed from my (outsider's) perspective it's not blockable. Widescreen, between you and me--it's worth your while copyediting your responses; I don't get everything you say in this last comment.

Now, I think we should move on. Let's all try to be nice and more patient, on all sides. Civility blocks suck and whether something in these discussions is uncivil or not is a matter of dispute (it's cultural manners as well that are at stake), and Widescreen's language is nowhere near bad enough for them to qualify as incompetent. Referring to admins as nazis is of course never a good thing and, Widescreen, I suggest that you don't use your talk page to gossip about anyone, especially not in German since there is no doubt that that will piss other people off. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent administration. --WSC ^® 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Deonis 2012

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

---

This user has consistently made POV edits in Syria related articles for a while now. Multiple editors have tried to warn him many times. He doesn't seem to listen. I think a temporary block may be necessary here. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be warning enough, he came only this summer and what bothers me probably most is amount of general discussion he produces on talk pages. It made loading talk page to battle of Aleppo 5 minutes affair. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I would also like for someone to checkuser scan him to see if he is ChronicalUsual. He's probably not but it should be checked just in case. Sopher99 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual.--Shirt58 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:oops, my mistake--Shirt58 (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Already happened, it was discussed on ChronicalUsual report page. Silvio found no match. Though I admit when I first saw him this exact though popped into my mind. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

C/U and Deonis have literally nothing in common behaviourally. C/U actually understood how to Wikipedia fairly damn well, whereas Deonis seems slow to gain any understanding of anything. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

C/U and DanielUmel were one and the same and Daniel understanding of wiki was about as big as my understanding of rise of shitty music popularity in recent years. I mean he broke 3RR about dozen times or so. Reported every second week. The only difference between him and Deonius is that Denius does not go to whiny mode about how everyone is against him and biased when opposed. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Deonis does not seem to understand how edit summaries work, how talk pages work, how user talk pages work, or really anything like that. He's also uploaded a picture of himself to Commons, a very un-C/U thing to do. Additionally, Deonis is from Russia. C/U was almost certainly not Russian—French more likely. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't remember ever checkusering Deonis 2012 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So far, the user in question haven't responded to this yet, despite the notification added on his talk page. He has continued to engage in edit-warring with multiple editors. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to understand copyright either. Boud (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive/Bullying editor

I am an occasional editor, and not sure what to do about this issue. User:Anupam‎ made mass edits to the article United Methodist Church by copying an old version of the article over the new version. He made no attempt to discuss his changes. In making the mass edit he removed valued and well thought out edits by many users, including himself. He does not have a collegial approach, but rather an approach which suggests he owns the pages he edits. When I read his Talk page, it is clear that this is a problem throughout his editing history. He has been warned by many users and has been blocked previously by wikipedia administrators. I am open to discussing edits, but he places his own point of view in his edits without any discussion. Can you advise me how to proceed?--Revmqo (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I see there's been discussion on Anupam's and Revmqo's talk pages, which is good. Seeing as there appear to be two editors who just disagree on content, the best option would be to ask for help at WP:DRN NE Ent 23:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This problem is appropriate for ANI. Anupam's editing restrictions can be viewed at User talk:Anupam#Notice of restrictions. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that. If my finger counting is correct, Anupam's six months 1rr just expired, but if this is a resumption of prior behavior concur that further discussion is appropriate. NE Ent 23:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Dropped an ANI notification on their page for you. Blackmane (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI is one location which can address this matter. Another option is the mandatory editor review option ArbCom has recently instituted in other cases, which requires that an editor subject to those conditions receive consent from other editors on the article talk page for edits before making them. That might be an option which some involved here might wish to consider as well. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither Revmqo nor Anupam has discussed this at the article Talk page, which was stale. I just cleared it by archiving, including old discussions started in 2009 there. Revmqo opened discussion at Anupam's Talk page with suggestion, easily seen as offensive, that Anupam must have been drinking and editing, and Revmqo repeated that suggestion after Anupam objected to it. And, discussion at Revmqo's page has led to Revmqo stating "Now by all means, make the edits you desire, but let's use the talk page if they are major edits." The editors should discuss the article at its Talk page; it would be nice if Revmqo would take care not to be insulting and if both would discuss the article at its Talk page. Great, all done here. --doncram 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Till

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.

---

Till (talk · contribs) committed a deliberate personal attack at me, calling me an "asshole" while removing a comment I left at his talk page. See the diff here: [141] I consider that a sanction should be enacted on this user, who has proven to be very disruptive lately, to me and also fellow users such as Status and Hahc21. Thanks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• If an admin can undelete User:Status/track they can see a series of personal attacks this user has made. This might also be of assistance. Statυs (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Restored.  7  23:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Info contained in User:Status/track

• "do you release that the sentence was not grammatically correct?" --> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And accusing me of sockpuppetry? Oh honey, I really feel bad for you....my IP address begins with a 1.
• WE DON'T USE DISCOGS FOR THE LAST TIME.
• fail vote
• stupid
• And why on earth are you taking note of my edit summaries in your userspace page? I now see why so many people on this project dislike you.
• Honestly I don't think you know how creepy and socially awkward you sound right now.
• ugh
• nope
• Good grief, they should have banned you from Afd altogether.
• removing an asshole's comment
• Removing our comments from his talk archives: Remove junk, Remove unnecessary junk
• WikiLove isn't valid when you're going to be two-faced.)
• WikiLove and being fake are not compatible

• • • Thank you. I will update it with some new diffs. Statυs (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • New diffs included. Statυs (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• This all comes back to WP:OWN because Tomica (talk · contribs) is upset that I Afd'd "his" article. User in question has also used explicits in his edit summary. And quite frankly I'm sick of the user above continually commenting on everything that isn't his business. Till 23:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This all comes back to the fact that you can't help but attack other users. This has nothing to do with an AfD. You called him an asshole right before listing the article for AfD. Statυs (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed, this is something totally different from the AfD. Really we used explicit words? Did you or me used spuke shit on (me of course), called me a pig, asshole and etc. All of that can be seen in the link Status provided in the upper text. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Sigh... this dead horse has been beaten over and over. Your inability to understand colloquialism and other phrases in the English language is frustrating, to say the least. None of these comments are personal attacks to you. If you actually comprehended those statements properly you'd understand. Till 00:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I am not stupid. Also not to mention that you told me (indirectly) to fuck myself. And don't try telling that they are words from a song, yeah they are, but they were forwarded to me. I am not stupid. Meh. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
          • When did I call you stupid??? Till 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

When someone is rude on their talk page, the best thing to do is not post on their talk page when you don't need to (there was no necessity to post [142]). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Really? There was not necessity to post it? "I thought Tomica wrote that". Am I stupid or what? Do you know what he wanted to tell with that? "I re-worded the note so I can bully and degrade Tomica" of course. So should I just shut up until the time he calls me an asshole, pig or tells me to go and fuck myself. Such a disappointment in you. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Many of those diffs aren't particularly problematic, mostly just a little childish like [143], or using all caps [144] etc. Others seem to show edit warring by both Tomica and Till: [145][146][147][148][149]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I know, he is nit-picking to make me look like some bully when the majority of the "uncivil" remarks etc. actually aren't. This was already pointed out in the previous ANI they filed on me. It's quite pathetic actually. Till 00:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • But you are a bully. It's quite pathetic that you feel the need to call others "stupid", "fake", "assholes", "creepy", "socially awkward", etc. and think that's OK. Tomica and Till have also been involved in edit warring, yes, but this isn't what this is about. This is about the attacks that Till puts onto other people. Statυs (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree that "asshole" is pretty uncivil, but seriously if you think all these others that you have listed are, then I really feel sorry for you :/. Till 00:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Status, being uncivil towards an editor you accuse of making personal attacks doesn't help anyone, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We have passed the lines on civility a long time ago. If you check out my userpage, you can see that we all tried to actually make up and put everything behind us. I thought it was over, and then, out of nowhere, Till begins removing all presence of us in his talk page, calling us "fake". I asked him why, what had happened, and he just removed my comments. Statυs (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If someone is being a bit of a jerk on their user talk page, 9 times out of 10 the best thing to do is just ignore his talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the diffs do show issues (just not all). You are still uncivil with comments like "It's quite pathetic actually" and you have also made unwarranted personal attacks. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying it's pathetic isn't uncivil, it's a fact. This dead horse has been repeatedly beaten already. Till 00:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do admins not enforce CIVIL? It's easy. Hint - saying "removing an asshole's comment" is a breach. Stomp on it, so people know it's not acceptable. Block it, to prevent disruption to this project. Then move along merrily, with no malice. Easy enough. Shaz0t (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Things are never that simple. It encourages people to goad others into making uncivil remarks before racing to ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Beats me. I've seen ADMINS attack other users and get away with it. Statυs (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Block them too. Shaz0t (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC

• Can I propose an interaction ban between myself, Tomica (talk · contribs), Hahc21 (talk · contribs) and Status (talk · contribs), please? I am absolutely sick of these editors contantly following me and everything that I do on Wikipedia. Perhaps if they left me alone for once, we wouldn't have these problems. Till 00:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • We wouldn't have these problems if you didn't attack other users. Nobody forced you to write ANYTHING. Last time I checked, we were cool, and then you went all "you fake" on me, with no reason provided. I wanted to be your friend, but you just can't stop yourself. Statυs (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the ANI notifications by Tomica are rather odd: User_talk:Status#ANI User_talk:Hahc21#ANI in that it's not editors who are directly involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Read the text I wrote. They are mentioned! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • How? You're supposed to notify anybody who is mentiond. Statυs (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Shouting things loudly does not make them true Shaz0t (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • These are T's best friends, of course he would notify them. Till 00:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • How about the fact that it is guidelines for this noticeboard? Does that sound logical to you? Statυs (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • No, but canvassing sounds logical to me. Till 00:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• I don't understand why Till asks for an interaction ban including me, when I already ignore him at olympic levels? He was proven not worthy of my attention, or my response, unless he comes as a good user like he was when I met him in May. Otherwise, I am not interested in having any kind of discussion with him, not today, or anytime soon. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I really wish I could be like you Hahc, when people do things that I find to be wrong, I have to do something about it. I'm not the type of person who can just flick something off. Statυs (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's why next time you mind your own business and don't get involved with something that doesn't involve you. Till 00:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • It does involve me. I was mentioned. If you want an interaction ban so much, you can stop talking to us. Statυs (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• @Status, it looks like selectively mentioning people because they are on "your side" so to speak, so you can notify them. No evidence was provided for his assertion. If anyone was to be blocked, there is probably sufficient ground towards a BOOMERANG as well. Till isn't the only one with removals rejecting olive branches: "An aplogoy and being fake are not compatible" [150], "my talk, my shit" [151]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, there isn't anyone else involved in this, if I'm not mistaken? As for those comments, they are clearly responses to things that Till had originally stated. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying. Statυs (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with the first one? He said the same thing to Hahc21 too, look at the history on Till's talk, I was just making a replica of it. What's wrong with the second? Wikipedia:EXPLISM? Did I called him shit, like he called me asshole or pig? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Children, please, be calm. Admins, get a grip, [152] Shaz0t (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Someone, please create an interaction ban. I am begging here. Till 00:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Collect diffs like this in your userspace for the purposes of pouring them out at ANI seems User:Status/track divisive per WP:UP#POLEMIC. I suggest it be speedily deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It was deleted, I asked an admin to restore it so I could get the diffs from it, to show more personal attacks. It's already been CSD'd. Statυs (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If it fits a CSD cat, csd it. If not, take it to MFD if you like. Shaz0t (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I did. Hahc21 removed the CSD IRWolfie- (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the page should bet deleted, but not yet. Well, now that Status CSD'd himself, it doesn't matter... — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not interested in entertaining an interaction ban. History has shown that enforcing them is as disruptive as the behavior that led up to them. I'm more the type to assume the best of faith, then indef block someone when I run out of faith. So obviously, I'm going to oppose any interaction ban here. That leaves us with the question: what is the solution here? Do we walk away? Block some or all? Something in between? Why grown adults act like this is beyond me, we all have bad days, but does the community really need to come here and set some kind of rules or spell out what "good behavior" means, like we are middle school principals? Without equivocating or picking sides, do you really need admin intervention or is this something you can figure out on your own? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I second Dennis here. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not post in the same discussion using two accounts. I shouldn't have to explain what policy that violates, Hahc21. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have changed my signature to avoid confusion... It was by mistake... — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If they could figure it out on their own, they wouldn't be on AN/I. Someone needs sending to the naughty step. Sad, but true. Shaz0t (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • We have tried to figure this out on our own, but we just can't. And just for the record, I'm not an adult. It's quite obvious that Till can't control himself from making personal attacks against other users. I would love to just walk away from all this, I tried to, and then Till started some drama again with no stated reason as to why. Statυs (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it as is, the other party has unclean hands. Either that or a block and a possible BOOMERANG. The editors can avoid each other of their own volition. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

How about, if this issue has to be brought up once again, action must be taken place. Third strike, you're out! For now, everybody just backs away and tries to not get in each other's way. We tried mending fences, but Till didn't like that very much, I guess. For whatever reason that may be. Statυs (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• My gut instinct is to use the "dick solution", which means one of two possible solutions. Blocks for everyone participating, or lots of silence and everyone simply silently agrees to avoid each other like you owe each other money. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry but I don't find this fair, at all. I am sick and tired of being followed every single time I make an edit to an article or discussion page. I am sick and tired of logging on to Wikipedia to find a 'You have new messages' directing me to yet another notification at ANI. I am sick of them leaving 'notes' on someone's talk page or a discussion page about all the flaws that I have made during my edits. And quite frankly I'm sick of having my edits and edit summaries looked at under a microscope and added to their userspace. It is only so much a person can put up with. Till 01:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ec. I don't think it is fair either, but for a quite different reason. I agree with Denis Browne re no interaction ban, but that was beside the stated point of this AnI, which was that you called someone an asshole. Tomica filed the AnI at 23.33 and here we are more than an hour and a half later, and despite making a dozen edits to this thread, you have not said "oh, I was out of line" or even, heaven forbid, an "I'm sorry". And now I see you have the gall to insult Dennis Browne who was trying to smooth troubled waters here. I was about to block you from editing for a short period, but that would mean you couldn't edit this page. You are very lucky.. Moriori (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • And do you think this justifies calling someone an asshole or other rude summaries? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • When did I say that it does? I have already acknowledged above that 'asshole' was uncivil, so build a bridge and get over it. Quite frankly, no one cares what you have to say in this thread. Till 01:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetically, would saying "aah, diddums" here be a personal attack? Shaz0t (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest not antagonizing the situation, or involving yourself if you are not already involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken; but I'm no more-or-less involved than you, but you're commenting. Shaz0t (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • • The only reason anybody "follows you around" is because you are involving yourself in other's edits. Of course, anybody can edit freely, but I mean things like this. You didn't even notify Tomica you nominated his GA for reassessment. You've made yourself known as a user who attacks others, so users will look over your edits with a microscope. Statυs (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • That, and the 3 CD Collector's Set AfD are examples of this. You've had issues with Tomica, but you insist on making yourself present in his work. You may have a legit concern, but your reasoning behind is underhanded. Statυs (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Rather than make generalizations, do you have other diffs that politely demonstrate your concern? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Here's another example. Till says he wants to not be involved with any of us, but yet he turns to our GA and FA/FL nominations and leaves his oppose. On that particular example, he opposes due to prose in the lead, I fix all the issues that he pointed out, and copyedit the whole article, and his oppose remains there. Statυs (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
              • • Is it just the two, or can you demonstrate a pattern? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • There is 1) The FA of Tomica 2) The GAR of an article Tomica got to GA 2) The AfD of an article Tomica (and I) got to GA. I will go fishing for a few more, these are just a few on the top of my head. Statυs (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                    • 4) Hahc and I's FLC, in which his issues were resolved, apart from the use of the word "atop". His oppose still remains there as well. Statυs (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                      • This is why I'm asking for diffs, I can't just accept someone else's interpretation, I need to look at the actual situation, and I'm willing, but it must be supplied in the form of diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                        • I'm not sure you are asking specifically for diffs, when I am proving you the entire discussions. You can come to your own interpretation of the whole discussion. Statυs (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                          • I did, I was expecting there be even more diffs. I will admit there is a very antagonistic tone in all the diffs you provided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                            • He nominated Rihanna's discography for FLR, also. In which he stated: "The article looks like it has been written by an over-zealous fan". Tomica being one of the main contributors to the article. Also in an AfD for Personal (album), which I expanded to prove notability, several non-album closures were made, in which Till reverted both of them. I proved the theory of the album being non-notable as being wrong, but he going on strong about it, instead of just quietly withdrawing. He then got into an argument with the closing admin about the closure of the AfD. It appeared, to me, as if he was upset that I had expanded the article and it was kept. But that's just my opinion. Then came the "two-faced" comments and removal of our existence on his talk. Statυs (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                              • I remember him reverting the AfD, which was improper, and arguing about it with Bwilkins. Completely improper, and quite tolerant of Bwilkins, I might add. I almost left him a sharp message the other day because of that, but since Bwilkins was involved, I stayed out of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• BYE! I have had enough of wikipedia. Statυs (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • So Till left? Sigh. I don't see a retired banner, so I am not inclined to request a close simply because I don't know if he is venting or really leaving. Because of that, nothing has changed except I can't ask him to provide diffs, making my job that much harder, but I would say to continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • He'll be back. He left from the other ANI report filed against, and came back a few days later. It really annoys me when users just leave when they are so involved in something, such as this. Statυs (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I'm now combing through a great deal of diffs, the hard way. This means I haven't ruled out a block on anyone, and at ANI, everyone's behavior is examined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Cole Sprouse-related vandalism on multiple pages

I've been noticing vandalism related to Cole Sprouse from multiple IPs and new users on the following pages:

• The Suite Life of Zack & Cody
• Cole Sprouse
• Deception
• Betrayal

From what I can tell, it's because he used Tumblr as a sociology experiment, or something like that. Could somebody look into this? Lugia2453 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Gimmetrow has semi-protected Dylan and Cole Sprouse (to which Cole Sprouse redirects); I have semi-protected Cole Sprouse and the other three for a week, let's see if it dies down by then. JohnCD (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • … and I've just hidden a whole load of similar vandalism in Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Dylan and Cole Sprouse. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Uncle, what a pleasure it is to see you here in the cloaca of en:Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • No, no, no. This is what comes of sitting at the back of the room and mucking about with your field rations during the orientation briefing. You mis-heard. This is the cloakroom of Wikipedia, where people are often handed their hats. If you are looking for the cloaca of Wikipedia, where what has been all of the way through a lengthy process is finally pushed out to the world as an ultimate product of the system, that is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fake Armenian population statistics, again

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

---

Hello all,
I lately stumbled across Sevomaritsa20 (talk · contribs), who had changed some population numbers in Armenian-diaspora articles; typically the old number matched what an inline ref said and Sevomaritsa20's new number did not. Examples: [153] [154] [155]. They've had some warnings for related but not identical problems (adding unsourced content, removing maintenance tags). However, looking at the pattern of articles edited, I suspect this is the same editor as 46.19.99.6 (talk · contribs) who got blocked (by Richwales) for the same mischief in May 2012, following this ANI thread. Not much point in opening an SPI (and sockpuppetry is not actually the issue here) but if an editor's main purpose here is to insert false information, and if they've had prior warnings, perhaps we should stop it... bobrayner (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree. Go Phightins! 20:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. I have indef-blocked Sevomaritsa20 and left a (hopefully) clear explanation of the problem on their talk page. — Richwales 07:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Shocking article ownership behaviour and inappropriate GA fail

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.

---

Moments ago, I nominated Diamonds (Rihanna song) for GA, having made around 40 edits to the article including major expansions and copyedits. I was later reverted by Tomica (talk · contribs) with the rationale "Too early to nominate it, the song it's charting still so the chart performance is likely to change, also live performances section." As far as the WP:GAN page is concerned, nowhere does it say that it can be "too early" to nominate an article for GAN (the article is complete and aeppars to meet the criteria by the way). I reverted Tomica's edit, stating that I am in fact entitled to nominate the article for GA. I was soon reverted with a very decisive WP:OWN-style statement, saying "actually i am the major contributor with more than 250 edits and everyone who is experienced with GA's would note that". I reverted him and explained to him that anyone can nominate the article, regardless of how many edits they have made. I expressed my interest in working with him on his talk page with no response. I then received a rather abrupt message declaring "..how can you nominate it without telling me about the plan? Btw, that's not the only reason.It's too early... WE already explained you"— a clear violation of WP:OWN.

Out of nowhere, Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) comes and accuses me of making no significant contributions to the article, and quick fails the article for absolutely no reason. I then receive a shockingly abusive message on my talk page from him, saying: "In case you didn't come to the conclusion, I looked over the edit summaries for the last 2 months. You've done literally nothing. Don't try and pass off crap with me. And no, Tommy and Aaron are friends of mine and I was shocked when I saw the BS you pulled. Lastly, hate to burst your bubble of confusion, but it's kind of a well known fact that you don't nominate or represent an article in GA/FA if you are not a main contributor (which you are far from)." Till 00:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem referred to in your first paragraph is that GANs need to be stable otherwise they are a quick fail. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was stable though, adding a few more sentences and updating chart positions don't affect the article's status, to my knowledge. Till 00:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that an article concerning a charting recording can be considered stable, the very fact that you made umpteen edits to it shortly before nomination amounts to "instability". This really is one to be discussed at the GAN talk page, I think, although I've not looked at the contribution history/relationships etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

One might be interested in seeing #Personal attacks from Till for a related issue. Statυs (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Till, it's usually left to the main writers to nominate articles for GA and FA for the simple reason that they are assumed to be most familiar with the topic, and with the improvements that still need to be made. It's more a question of stewardship than ownership. Perhaps you could start helping to get it to GA standard along with the other editors there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is not stable: lot of IP's are editing it because everyday new information is coming. That's exactly what I wanted to tell to Till, it's way to early, cause new information is coming and its GA status can be later be ruined as a reason of un-controled adding of information. I made 260 edits on the article, that's not WP:OWN, actually he is the one that makes WP:OWN. He totally plagiarized my work as Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) told. And It should be noted that the User:Till was at ANI yesterday, you can see it here, when Till said he is leaving Wikipedia, but in fact he is here again. And SlimVirgin you can go through Diamonds (Rihanna song) history and see what kind of edit summaries he wrote there. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not an issue of ownership, although I understand Till's point: I nominated I Am... Sasha Fierce for GAN without being the main controbutor. Of course, I did it as a co-nom with the main contributor, Jivesh, who was, at that time, on an extended wikibreak. I'd recommend Till to stay out of controversies for some time, even when an admin explicitly showcased his willingness to block him for his actions, and another one did the same hours before because of his behaviour. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and explain this quickly, in hopes of ending this ridiculous thread. User: Till constantly berates, threatens and throws shade at several editors. Let's set that straight. Next, he nominated an article for GA (without having done anything for the article). This just shows a lack of class. Not that this was the only issue, the article in question is still very recent, and several editors had already told Till they thought it was premature (aside from the fact that he's falsely misrepresenting an article he had nothing to do with). Lastly, we have good ole TBradley shoving his nose where it doesn't belong, slapping me with a warning against personal attacks because I wrote "I can't believe some people". Yup, for that. As you can see, we either have some sock-puppetry going on here (because I can't understand how two separate editors can be so mislead), or they are just wasting everyone's time.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not the article was nominated too quickly given how recent the song was released, but there's no question the reviewer's tone was, and still is above, utterly ridiculous. Till's edit summaries in the article are unacceptable as well. Perhaps we should just trout both editors. Wizardman 00:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

More personal attacks on me, I see. Can someone please stop this user from these personal attacks. Third strike. More is listed at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations about nominating and everything. I just said no personal attacks, and it doesn't qualify for quick-fail, I've never read the article, so I wouldn't know if it met the criteria or anything. I was just doing those things. TBrandley 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you've never read the article then how do you know it doesn't qualify for quick fail? Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant I have never read the article in depth, but due to this on my watchlist, looking through it quickly and there were no obvious reasons to fail, as said in the quick-fail in criteria. Regards, TBrandley 00:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please note there is an ANI on this very page that was "suspended" as Till had said he was leaving Wikipedia. If Till is back, then those issues may be relevant here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

My impression of the first thread was that both parties were at fault due to a lack of assuming good faith (and cases where olive branches were thrown back in peoples faces). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Our impressions differ slightly. As usual, there was plenty of blame to go around, but it was in equal shares. It is all quite fresh in my mind. I'm not interested in distributing the blame, however, only in preventing it from happening again. Preferably by the least aggressive means, but not at all costs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Reading all the previous pages, everyone needs to tone it back, this isn't going to turn into a battleground. And I don't care who started it at this point, I care about solutions and moving on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Till, let me be frank: You left in the middle of an ANI, which was suspended while one admin wanted to block you, and I decided to extend a last bit of rope. Your first edits when you come back were directly in the path of Tomica. You aren't a fool, Till. You know how that looks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Having reviewed comments from editors far more familiar with the GA process than I am, it's difficult to see any legitimate reason for Till to have nominated the song article (or open an ANI). Wikipedia is a pretty big place. NE Ent 01:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've waited long enough for an answer, which was asked in multiple places [156] [157]. Till was taken to ANI yesterday, which was suspended because he left Wikipedia, assumably forever.[158] At that time, another admin was recommending a block. Then the first edits he makes when he comes back is to prematurely submit an article that he should have known was not ready for GA, that was primarily edited by the person that brought him to ANI to begin with. Good faith only can be extended so far, and I just can't extend any more good faith here. Your own 24 hour break didn't seem to change much, so I'm forced to block you for a week, and hope when you come back you will simply avoid editors that you are constantly getting in disputes with. I just don't see any other option.

Additionally, Tomica and Status need to avoid Till in the future, and Till needs to avoid them. There is plenty of blame to go around, but Till managed to cross the threshold first demonstrating that the only way to prevent further disruption was to prevent him from editing for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Administrator note: He is saying we should make it an indef, which I will leave to the judgement of another administrator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• User self-request for indef block has been struck/stricken or whatever legalese people prefer. Crossed out, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Why isn't this a personal attack?

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

---

Moved from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

For whatever reason Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to accuse me on his talk page of using sockpuppets (Demiurge10 and Demiurge100) to abuse him, and claimed that I have an admin account that I can "use at will".[159] When I asked him earlier to provide some evidence for these wild allegations he instead chose to delete my request.[160] This is exactly the kind of incivility and personal attack that so often goes unremarked here, but it's time it was stopped. I'm quite happy to discuss the allegations in whatever robust terms suit Demiurge1000, but I'm not prepared to see serious and unsubstantiated allegations of wrong-doing allowed to stand without rebuttal. Isn't that what you folks call a "personal attack"? Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is a violation of NPA and CIVIL. Just don't expect anything to be done about it. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge100 was created a few years before Demiurge1000, although Demiurge10 was created a year afterward. I'd like to see more context for what's going on, but I'm rather surprised by the "delete my request" link. Note that the edit summary refers exclusively to someone else's comments; I'm wondering if perhaps it might be a reversion of the other person's comments and not particularly aimed at you. You failed to notify him, so I'll do it. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to notify him when he deletes anything I post on his talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The normal reply to unsubstantiated accusations of socking is File an WP:SPI with your evidence or shut the fuck up. I would suggest that that is all this accusation deserves. With the number of enemies Mal has I think it is highly unlikely he could be operating a secret admin account. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you that I'm not, and never have. And if anyone thinks differently I'd like to see the proof. Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to see more as well, although the claim that Malleus has a secret admin account is rather bizarre, to say the least. Looking at that one post, it is indeed incivil (in particular the passive-aggressive "coward" comment), but I'm not one to get block happy over a singular incident of incivility. I don't get the indignation over Malleus's comment, and I'm guessing accidental leaving out one of the zeros in his name. And yes, please notify next time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Have you asked Demiurge1000 to notify next time he launches one of his absurd personal attacks? Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I understand the frustration Malleus, but the bureaucracy demands we notify when we file. I don't make the rules, I just try to make sure they are enforced equally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I know, it was just the frustration speaking. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I don't object to being confronted with things that I've actually done, such as calling an arbitrator a "dishonest fucker", but I draw the line at being accused without evidence of things I haven't done. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, User:Demiurge100 was created 5/25/2006 and has never had an edit, deleted or otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If Dem is so certain, then he should've opened an SPI. Merely accusing an editor of sockery, is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Demiurge1000's self-post reads like an attack, occasionally direct, occasionally sly, and nothing to back any of it up except his own beliefs. I can't figure out the edit summary when he deleted Malleus's post. I agree with Dennis about the zero. I agree with Beeblebrox about filing an SPI. This whole thing reads more like "I don't like Malleus and I'm gonna say whatever I please against him".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  The edit summary that Demiurge1000 made when deleting Malleus's post makes much more sense in the context of the thread by PRDISTORTION (talk · contribs), which is immediately below Malleus's. Note that Demiurge is replying to that thread at the same time as deleting Malleus's message. In that thread PRDISTORTION said to Demiurge "I trust you will be fair (you seem to be a reasonable person)", which seems to be the particular thing that Demiurge is replying to in his edit summary. I don't think that Demiurge deleted Malleus's message by accident, however, as there is a gap of more than four hours since the previous edit to the page. I see this as equivalent to Demiurge deleting Malleus's message without any comment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Am I missing somewhere where Demiurge1000 gave a hint of where he's getting these seemingly unfounded accusations. The diff on his talk page seems to have been taken out of context, so unless I'm missing something, this seems like borderline libel. Go Phightins! 02:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Libel, eh? That's an impressive choice of word. If the diff you're thinking of is this one, though, I think you should read it more carefully. (You might legitimately wonder why I would direct someone to that website, but don't worry, I have my reasons.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I see User:Demiurge10 registered 8/5/2011, recreated a now revdel'ed anti-Palistinian rant article and was blocked as a sock of an unnamed editor. Doesn't sound like Malleus to me. I know Malleus's style pretty well, so from a SPI Clerk trainee's perspective, consider this an investigation that shows no linkage to Malleus. Now that this is out of the way, is Demiurge1000 going to voluntarily remove the attack? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Anyone who seriously believes that the Demiurges of whatever number are my sockpuppets is very welcome to ask for whatever investigation they like. They're absolutely nothing to do with me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've already done an informal investigation, not because I thought there was any merit, but to understand why he would have said this. Zero, nada, nothing could possibly even give anyone any impression that either editor was you. I have deleted the personal attack on the talk page as well. I will leave a message on his talk page. He's never been blocked, so I would prefer to at least attempt to resolve this without any further drama. It is inexcusable, and hopefully he will realize that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I don't want Demiurge1000 blocked, or anyone else for that matter. I just want to see a level playing field. Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. I've left a fairly clear message on his talk page after deleting the attack. We all screw up every now and then, hopefully he will realize (and perhaps even admit) that this was his mistake. I strongly prefer to try reasoning and clear notification for one off events, and that is what I have attempted here. Time will tell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus may do/say some things that are not always appreciated by the community, but I am very sure that sockpuppetry and especially masquerading as an admin are not among them. I think Demiurge1000 should calm down a bit - there is enough constant drama surrounding Malleus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

@Kudpung - fancy you showing up here, I was just thinking of you actually. Specifically in that, like Malleus, you're one of three people who've gone to the trouble of barring me from your talk page. (Although in your case you haven't done so and then proceeded to discuss me there.) The other two have been blocked multiple times for personal attacks. You should take the time to re-read WP:BOOMERANG, as your comment suggests that you've misunderstood it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• If I actually had a secret admin account I probably wouldn't get in half the pickles I do, and I wouldn't constantly have to be asking admins to move or delete stuff for me. I really fail to see how anyone could seriously believe that I have access to an admin account. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, but if you used your secret sock admin account to bail you out of problems, it would eventually raise suspicions, so you can't use it for that -- which raises the question of why you would need a secret admin account that you couldn't use to do the most obvious thing you would need an admin account to do? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

  True. But if people keep going on about it for long enough maybe even I'll start to believe that I've got a secret admin account. Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• All right, boys and girls, clap your hands if you believe in Malleus' secret admin account! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken - that is indeed the major problem with secret admin accounts :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Neither allegation -- that Malleus has an admin account or would sock is remotely credible. Dennis beat me to dumping the attack page portion of Demiurge1000's user talk page. Seems like it's time to close the thread. NE Ent 03:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Seems to have been dealt with now I agree. I don't have a secret admin account and I never have nor ever would use sockpuppets. I'm by no means perfect, obviously, but those are things I simply wouldn't do. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In their totally misguided comment (removed by Dennis Brown), Demiurge1000 apparently takes mention of "Demiurge100s" (with a missing 0) as a sign that Malleus was related to Demiurge100 (talk · contribs). That is an absurd conclusion, particularly since it is quite obvious that the missing 0 was just a typo as it is quite easy to omit a trailing character of that nature. Possibly a high level of emotion has clouded Demiurge1000's judgment—that is the AGF interpretation. Whatever the reason, my guess is that the community would have very little tolerance for any further poking of bears, and Demiurge1000 should not comment on Malleus unless at a suitable noticeboard, and any comment should be accompanied with clear evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it's clear Malleus isn't behind any of the accounts suggested and Demiurge1000 has been admonished for making the allegations without any proper evidence, it's probably safe to close this thread to avoid further unnecessary drama. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've re-opened this after boldly deciding that I have a right of reply. ANI reports about me being closed without my even seeing them happens a little too often - this is the second in just a week.

I'm greatly reassured to be informed by no less than a trainee SPI clerk (as Dennis modestly describes himself) that Malleus doesn't, in fact, have access to an administrator account. I was told of that claim by someone with rather greater stature, but I'll not raise it again unless that person wants to comment themselves, or unless any further evidence comes to light.

As for the impersonation account, when I have some time I'll dig out the diff of the threat (assuming no-one has had the foresight to memory hole it), and those interested can decide whether the timing was an interesting coincidence or not. You'll have to drop by my talk page for that, though, as dramah boards bore me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Demiurge1000 for 24 hours for personal attacks. After all the above, his reply/defense is "I know of the secret admin account from "someone with rather greater stature", but I'm not going to tell you who", and "I have the diff for the impersonation claim, but I can't be bothered to post it". Basically, I'll repeat my accusation which everyone else dismisses as out of character and unfounded, but I am not willing or able to provie any evidence for them. That's basically the textbook definition of a personal attack, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Fram (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Issue Involving a University's Name

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.

---

Per this talk page move request, the page for Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (commonly known as "Virginia Tech") is the correct name for the page. This is against all naming convensions. The requested move states "On [the university's] website or on a typical press release, [Virginia Tech] is used everywhere except in the fine print copyright notice." While this is correct, "Virginia Tech" is not the name of the university. Just as "WVU" is not the name of West Virginia University or "Syracuse" is not the name for Syracuse University. The correct name for "Virginia Tech" is Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. "Virginia Tech" was redirected to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University page, so there wasn't an issue.

This move, against naming convensions and the rules of Wikipedia, opens the door for school pages to be moved from their correct name to their nickname. I pity the person who has to decide the fight over FSU.

I am requesting the "Virginia Tech" page be moved back to it's correct title, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and the "Virginia Tech" redirect be restored. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Open up a new WP:RM and make your case there - you didn't have to come to ANI at all. Consensus dictated the move you oppose. GiantSnowman 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec with GS, who's basically saying the same thing) ANI doesn't handle move requests, nor does it make decisions on stuff like what title a page should have. Unless there's something more to this request - some kind of user misconduct or something? - you'll need to use Wikipedia:Requested moves. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Why isn't this a personal attack?

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

---

Moved from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

For whatever reason Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to accuse me on his talk page of using sockpuppets (Demiurge10 and Demiurge100) to abuse him, and claimed that I have an admin account that I can "use at will".[161] When I asked him earlier to provide some evidence for these wild allegations he instead chose to delete my request.[162] This is exactly the kind of incivility and personal attack that so often goes unremarked here, but it's time it was stopped. I'm quite happy to discuss the allegations in whatever robust terms suit Demiurge1000, but I'm not prepared to see serious and unsubstantiated allegations of wrong-doing allowed to stand without rebuttal. Isn't that what you folks call a "personal attack"? Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is a violation of NPA and CIVIL. Just don't expect anything to be done about it. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge100 was created a few years before Demiurge1000, although Demiurge10 was created a year afterward. I'd like to see more context for what's going on, but I'm rather surprised by the "delete my request" link. Note that the edit summary refers exclusively to someone else's comments; I'm wondering if perhaps it might be a reversion of the other person's comments and not particularly aimed at you. You failed to notify him, so I'll do it. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to notify him when he deletes anything I post on his talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The normal reply to unsubstantiated accusations of socking is File an WP:SPI with your evidence or shut the fuck up. I would suggest that that is all this accusation deserves. With the number of enemies Mal has I think it is highly unlikely he could be operating a secret admin account. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you that I'm not, and never have. And if anyone thinks differently I'd like to see the proof. Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to see more as well, although the claim that Malleus has a secret admin account is rather bizarre, to say the least. Looking at that one post, it is indeed incivil (in particular the passive-aggressive "coward" comment), but I'm not one to get block happy over a singular incident of incivility. I don't get the indignation over Malleus's comment, and I'm guessing accidental leaving out one of the zeros in his name. And yes, please notify next time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Have you asked Demiurge1000 to notify next time he launches one of his absurd personal attacks? Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I understand the frustration Malleus, but the bureaucracy demands we notify when we file. I don't make the rules, I just try to make sure they are enforced equally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I know, it was just the frustration speaking. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I don't object to being confronted with things that I've actually done, such as calling an arbitrator a "dishonest fucker", but I draw the line at being accused without evidence of things I haven't done. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, User:Demiurge100 was created 5/25/2006 and has never had an edit, deleted or otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If Dem is so certain, then he should've opened an SPI. Merely accusing an editor of sockery, is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Demiurge1000's self-post reads like an attack, occasionally direct, occasionally sly, and nothing to back any of it up except his own beliefs. I can't figure out the edit summary when he deleted Malleus's post. I agree with Dennis about the zero. I agree with Beeblebrox about filing an SPI. This whole thing reads more like "I don't like Malleus and I'm gonna say whatever I please against him".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  The edit summary that Demiurge1000 made when deleting Malleus's post makes much more sense in the context of the thread by PRDISTORTION (talk · contribs), which is immediately below Malleus's. Note that Demiurge is replying to that thread at the same time as deleting Malleus's message. In that thread PRDISTORTION said to Demiurge "I trust you will be fair (you seem to be a reasonable person)", which seems to be the particular thing that Demiurge is replying to in his edit summary. I don't think that Demiurge deleted Malleus's message by accident, however, as there is a gap of more than four hours since the previous edit to the page. I see this as equivalent to Demiurge deleting Malleus's message without any comment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Am I missing somewhere where Demiurge1000 gave a hint of where he's getting these seemingly unfounded accusations. The diff on his talk page seems to have been taken out of context, so unless I'm missing something, this seems like borderline libel. Go Phightins! 02:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Libel, eh? That's an impressive choice of word. If the diff you're thinking of is this one, though, I think you should read it more carefully. (You might legitimately wonder why I would direct someone to that website, but don't worry, I have my reasons.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I see User:Demiurge10 registered 8/5/2011, recreated a now revdel'ed anti-Palistinian rant article and was blocked as a sock of an unnamed editor. Doesn't sound like Malleus to me. I know Malleus's style pretty well, so from a SPI Clerk trainee's perspective, consider this an investigation that shows no linkage to Malleus. Now that this is out of the way, is Demiurge1000 going to voluntarily remove the attack? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Anyone who seriously believes that the Demiurges of whatever number are my sockpuppets is very welcome to ask for whatever investigation they like. They're absolutely nothing to do with me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've already done an informal investigation, not because I thought there was any merit, but to understand why he would have said this. Zero, nada, nothing could possibly even give anyone any impression that either editor was you. I have deleted the personal attack on the talk page as well. I will leave a message on his talk page. He's never been blocked, so I would prefer to at least attempt to resolve this without any further drama. It is inexcusable, and hopefully he will realize that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I don't want Demiurge1000 blocked, or anyone else for that matter. I just want to see a level playing field. Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. I've left a fairly clear message on his talk page after deleting the attack. We all screw up every now and then, hopefully he will realize (and perhaps even admit) that this was his mistake. I strongly prefer to try reasoning and clear notification for one off events, and that is what I have attempted here. Time will tell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus may do/say some things that are not always appreciated by the community, but I am very sure that sockpuppetry and especially masquerading as an admin are not among them. I think Demiurge1000 should calm down a bit - there is enough constant drama surrounding Malleus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

@Kudpung - fancy you showing up here, I was just thinking of you actually. Specifically in that, like Malleus, you're one of three people who've gone to the trouble of barring me from your talk page. (Although in your case you haven't done so and then proceeded to discuss me there.) The other two have been blocked multiple times for personal attacks. You should take the time to re-read WP:BOOMERANG, as your comment suggests that you've misunderstood it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• If I actually had a secret admin account I probably wouldn't get in half the pickles I do, and I wouldn't constantly have to be asking admins to move or delete stuff for me. I really fail to see how anyone could seriously believe that I have access to an admin account. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, but if you used your secret sock admin account to bail you out of problems, it would eventually raise suspicions, so you can't use it for that -- which raises the question of why you would need a secret admin account that you couldn't use to do the most obvious thing you would need an admin account to do? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

  True. But if people keep going on about it for long enough maybe even I'll start to believe that I've got a secret admin account. Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• All right, boys and girls, clap your hands if you believe in Malleus' secret admin account! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken - that is indeed the major problem with secret admin accounts :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Neither allegation -- that Malleus has an admin account or would sock is remotely credible. Dennis beat me to dumping the attack page portion of Demiurge1000's user talk page. Seems like it's time to close the thread. NE Ent 03:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Seems to have been dealt with now I agree. I don't have a secret admin account and I never have nor ever would use sockpuppets. I'm by no means perfect, obviously, but those are things I simply wouldn't do. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In their totally misguided comment (removed by Dennis Brown), Demiurge1000 apparently takes mention of "Demiurge100s" (with a missing 0) as a sign that Malleus was related to Demiurge100 (talk · contribs). That is an absurd conclusion, particularly since it is quite obvious that the missing 0 was just a typo as it is quite easy to omit a trailing character of that nature. Possibly a high level of emotion has clouded Demiurge1000's judgment—that is the AGF interpretation. Whatever the reason, my guess is that the community would have very little tolerance for any further poking of bears, and Demiurge1000 should not comment on Malleus unless at a suitable noticeboard, and any comment should be accompanied with clear evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it's clear Malleus isn't behind any of the accounts suggested and Demiurge1000 has been admonished for making the allegations without any proper evidence, it's probably safe to close this thread to avoid further unnecessary drama. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've re-opened this after boldly deciding that I have a right of reply. ANI reports about me being closed without my even seeing them happens a little too often - this is the second in just a week.

I'm greatly reassured to be informed by no less than a trainee SPI clerk (as Dennis modestly describes himself) that Malleus doesn't, in fact, have access to an administrator account. I was told of that claim by someone with rather greater stature, but I'll not raise it again unless that person wants to comment themselves, or unless any further evidence comes to light.

As for the impersonation account, when I have some time I'll dig out the diff of the threat (assuming no-one has had the foresight to memory hole it), and those interested can decide whether the timing was an interesting coincidence or not. You'll have to drop by my talk page for that, though, as dramah boards bore me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Demiurge1000 for 24 hours for personal attacks. After all the above, his reply/defense is "I know of the secret admin account from "someone with rather greater stature", but I'm not going to tell you who", and "I have the diff for the impersonation claim, but I can't be bothered to post it". Basically, I'll repeat my accusation which everyone else dismisses as out of character and unfounded, but I am not willing or able to provie any evidence for them. That's basically the textbook definition of a personal attack, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Fram (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Issue Involving a University's Name

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.

---

Per this talk page move request, the page for Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (commonly known as "Virginia Tech") is the correct name for the page. This is against all naming convensions. The requested move states "On [the university's] website or on a typical press release, [Virginia Tech] is used everywhere except in the fine print copyright notice." While this is correct, "Virginia Tech" is not the name of the university. Just as "WVU" is not the name of West Virginia University or "Syracuse" is not the name for Syracuse University. The correct name for "Virginia Tech" is Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. "Virginia Tech" was redirected to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University page, so there wasn't an issue.

This move, against naming convensions and the rules of Wikipedia, opens the door for school pages to be moved from their correct name to their nickname. I pity the person who has to decide the fight over FSU.

I am requesting the "Virginia Tech" page be moved back to it's correct title, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and the "Virginia Tech" redirect be restored. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Open up a new WP:RM and make your case there - you didn't have to come to ANI at all. Consensus dictated the move you oppose. GiantSnowman 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec with GS, who's basically saying the same thing) ANI doesn't handle move requests, nor does it make decisions on stuff like what title a page should have. Unless there's something more to this request - some kind of user misconduct or something? - you'll need to use Wikipedia:Requested moves. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Administrative review of Valkyrie Red

Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valkyrie Red/Archive
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Valkyrie Red

Although his prior ANI reports and block log would appear to be history, this is the kind of editing that he has been doing recently:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

• 5
• 6

Since I have been in conflict with this editor in the past, I'll just leave this here for review and leave it to others to describe the editing that they see and determine the actions (if any) that should be taken.

I will notify the editor of this review.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a long-term pattern of vandalism, any fresh instances? Max Semenik (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All of your diffs are old. Really old. Caden ^cool 07:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A diff from November 9 is not "really old".--Atlan (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I did some digging to see if there was anything else that cropped up and found these which are much older diffs and are pretty much the first acts of vandalism that I could find from when the account was first created in 2009 and are in addition to the ones that Berean Hunter posted above.

• BLP violation
• another BLP violation
• random vandalism

There's not a consistent history of vandalism, so I imagine that the very most anyone can do in this case is a final vandalism warning, although how they couldn't know that this isn't tolerated is beyond me considering they've been here for 3 years.Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

At least 5 cases of vandalism in the last year. I'd suggest he be blocked until he can convince an unblocking admin he won't do it again. He's being disruptive, and there is no possibly legitimate excuse for it. More vandalism, strange edits: [163][164][165]. A large fraction of his edits in the last year that weren't redirects were vandalism or dubious. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How are those last 3 edits vandalism? The first was removing obvious vandalism, the second was establishing a truth since most reviewers negatively received Edge of Time, and the last was also establishing a truth since those 3 actors have not been referred to as King Khan.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake about one, the other is less black and white. And what about the rest of your edits highlighted above? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That last one looks clean too. The articles show no sources that say anything about the removed actors being referred to as King Khan. But yes, Valkyrie Red needs to explain the rest though. Blackmane (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Noting this accusation that I would like to see substantiated by diffs.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle {{TW}} tool

Dear Admin, I would like to draw your immediate attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmal_Baba BLP. This BLP was reviewed by admins and modified and there on all the edits have been made as per BLP guidelines. Please verify my facts.

User Noopur28 has been continuously using Twinkle tool to {{TW}} revert this back to very old version without any valid reason. I have sent Noopur28 a message and requested to initiate talk, however the user has refused and continue to do the same edit again and again. Can you please intervene and see why this is being reverted.

You can also follow the the whole article. All the sources are valid and edits as per consensus.

This user is infact commining Vandalism and acusing me of Vandalizing the page. Can you please take a look urgently into this matter ?

Thanks & Regards Rastongi

• Honestly, upon looking at the article and past revisions I'd have to say that both versions suck in equal measure. One lambasts the man for being a fraud and charlatan, only to be reverted to a version that praises him as the Second Coming. Blow it up, start with a basic article of facts and rebuild from there. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • They're not quite on an equal footing. Only one of the twain is has false titles in its citations, it's worth noting. Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If the page is brings 2 opposite views, can this page be deleted for good ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastongi (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This account, as well as Raj9272 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Rajanbala (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), appear to be making promotional edits to this article. I would not be surprised if there is some sockpuppetry involved here as well given a similarity in editing habits. For instance, Rastongi and Raj9272 refer to Noopur acting "under pretext of vandalism" and, similar to Rajanbala, appear to be trying to sign their edit summaries by adding four tildes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes in the article in some attempt to make it readable and will do some more but there is some interesting POV pushing going on there. I had noticed that two of the sources had odd titles - "Huge Following" and "following" and discovered that the actual titles could be interpreted as less then positive towards the subject. I corrected them and I've had two editors (Rastongi and Geniusgeek2012) revert back to the deceptive titles. I've reverted (but will not revert again) and opened a talk page discussion. Won't disagree that my tone is a bit harsh but I don't really appreciate something like correcting source titles being called destructive (and that claim being repeated on the talk page). I'm also getting a sense of polite POV pushing and resistance from the short time on the article. There are several editors that have appeared suddenly of late that are purely dedicated to this subject. They may or may not be socks, but there is a definite whiff of meatpuppets. An independent review and any needed notes to any/all editors there could prove helpful. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a boomerang struck here. I've indef blocked Raj9272 (talk · contribs), Maverick14620 (talk · contribs), Rajanbala (talk · contribs) and Geniusgeek2012 (talk · contribs) as CU-confirmed socks, and given Rastongi (talk · contribs) a week to rethink his editing strategies. --Versageek 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Feeling a little stalked...

I can't seem to post any information to the page about Al Gordon (Just to be clear, I am Al Gordon) without having a certain Miss Tenebrae "adjust" everything I do. She seems to have a personal interest in me that's devolved into a bit of a vendetta towards me... and she feels it her responsibility to adjust anything I add to the Al Gordon page and even my User page. She's removing factual information I post. This has been an ongoing situation and this User has been following me around for over a year.

Is there a way to have this negotiated? Maybe a Wiki Restraining Order of sorts?

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at our policy on editing with a conflict of interest, which you obviously have about yourself. As far as I can see, Tenebrae's edits have generally been to bring your contributions into accord with our policies and practices, which is a good thing, and is not "stalking". No "restraining order" is necessary. On the other hand, you might want to re-acquaint yourself with the concept that everything you post on Wikipedia is subject to being changed by other editors. If you have problems with those changes, the thing to do is to engage them in dialogue on the article talk page, or on their use talk page, and I see that you did so once, and were told by another editor that you were attempting to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, which is also against our policy. In short, I see much more of a potential problem with your contributions than I see with Tenebrae's.

Finally, you are required to notify any editor you file a report about here, and I don't believe you've done that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Tenebrae about this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi:

No offense, but.... If you're referring to Guerillero's comment - that comment was directed at Tenebrae "throwing around self promotion far too easily..." not me.

Also... I also notified Tenebrae... but you beat me to it.

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I corrected my statement. I still don't see anything wrong with Tenebrae's corrections and adjustments to your edits, and you should still read WP:COI and WP:PROMO, neither of which you seem to have taken onboard, to judge from your edits and the discussion on Talk:Al Gordon (comics). It's good that you have an interest in contributing to our article and improving it, but it's not your article, and your edits are subject to the same requirements as everybody else's, and, indeed, some additional ones because of the potential problems being the subject of the article creates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again... I have indeed read the COI guidelines and have been very very careful to only add factual, cited information. You can look back further and see what's been going on between her and I for over a year. I do however feel stalked by Tenebrae, and again this is only the latest in a string of incidents from this user, who has often been needlessly rude and bullying. I assumed Tenebrae asked for a source proving that I actually wrote the Tarzan book, and when I provided a source she removed it, citing guidelines that don't seem to back up the removal of the source. I'm only asking for some breathing room here.

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 03:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Tenebrae, but I see that he or she has been here for over 7 years, has made over 71K edits, has a visible talk page full of cookies and barnstars, and has only been blocked once, in 2006. It seems somewhat out of character for an editor with that kind of profile to "stalk" someone and to be "rude and bullying". Are you sure that you're not interpreting attempts to bring your edits into alignment with Wikipedia's policies as personal attacks? Is it possible that when you're asking for "breathing room", you're actually asking that your edits be allowed to violate policies? Would the end result be any different if 12 different editors made the changes that Tenebrae did, instead of one person? Would they all, then, be "stalking" you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Beyond My Ken:

Again, no offense… really… but I'm confused that you would equate barnstars and cookies and edit-count as an example of good behavior.

Re: "12 Editors…" Of course not… but that's not the case. I've never had a problem with anyone editing me… ever. Except Tenebrae. But there is a pattern of behavior here of someone constantly picking nits with some very innocent edits by me. You can look at my edits to the Al Gordon page and see the harassment.

And there aren't 12 Editors doing what Tenebrae is doing. I'm not being bullied by "12 Editors." It is, unfortunately, obvious that this Editor is personally and consistently editing me…

I'm willing to post examples if you don't see any.

Her behavior is obvious as you can see from Guerillero's comments about how very eager Tenebrae is to label my edits as "self promotion."

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 05:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I've added Al Gordon (comics) to my watchlist, and if you make edits which violate WP:COI or WP:PROMO or any other policy you can be certain I will delete or adjust them. If Tenebrae make edits which go against policy, I will delete or adjust them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A neutral editor has pointed out that Al Gordon has been indulging in WP:COI edits and that my editing at Al Gordon has been reasonable.

I'd also point out a certain dishonesty in Gordon's own edits on his article's page: Here I removed a link he had added to a page where you could buy his comic, a blatant vio of WP:ELNO and WP:NOTADVERTISING. In my edit summary, I wrote, "Find a review or some other neutral, 3rd-party source unrelated to selling your product."

Well, he did so, here, and indeed found a different and neutral source. Yet he wrote in his edit summary, "Undid revision 522490608 by Tenebrae" even though he did exactly what I'd asked him to do: find a review in a neutral source. So even he seems to be agreeing with my edits.

I think his own behavior and his own statements say more eloquently than I what kind of person we're dealing with. I wish he could take a step back and see that not everyone views Wikipedia the same way that he does.

I would, however, ask that he not make the false accusation that I am Wiki-stalking him. That is a serious, serious allegation, and anyone looking at my edit history can see I'm not following this editor around to whatever page he edits — I'm editing a single page on my watch list, and one to which he should not be adding commercials sales links to his products. So, Al, I'd appreciate your removing "stalk" and its equivalents or this ANI is going to be about you and your defamatory and false accusations. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, I'm a bit disgusted that BMK is apparently defending Tenebrae on the basis of edit count(!!!), which is exactly the kind of insular, clique-ish reasoning that gets Wikipedia admins (quite rightly) criticised. In case you've forgotten, in a dispute the person with the higher edit count is not necessarily right by default. It's especially cute that you did this after trying to claim Guerillero's criticism of Tenebrae was actually a criticism of Gordon. Not your finest hour, here.
• And Tenebrae, you're far from blameless in this. While encouraging sourced edits is admirable and within policy, your edit summaries and other messages to Al are often unreasonably rude and accusatory. Our COI guidelines do not prohibit editors from adding to their own biographies, and you keep incorrectly implying that they do. I also think it's perfectly reasonable to cite a publisher's site as proof that he wrote something, which you removed when you easily could have sourced the same information yourself. I'm also not surprised this BLP subject feels stalked by you, as you seem bent on unnecessarily undoing his work, and despite your claims that "I'm editing a single page on my watch list" you sctually have followed him to other articles, at one point even removing a comment by him in the Frank Miller talk page. Gordon understands that edits need to be sourced, and we have his word that he's read and understands the COI policy, and I'm sure he'll take that to heart without you trying to foil him at every turn. It needs to stop, and there are now more eyeballs on the Al Gordon page so it's no longer necessary either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the "publisher's page" wasn't a background page on the comic — it was an order-form page to buy the book! (with a click-through checkout button labeled "Buy Tarzan: The Once and Future Tarzan (one-shot) Now"). That is not right and that is not permitted per WP:NOTADVERTISING and other guidelines.

Secondly, we are perfectly permitted to remove talk-page comments that are't about improving a given article but are just fannish chit-chat. It says at the top of every article talk page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." So for you to make an "Oh, he removed Al's talk-page comment" remark deliberately out of context to accuse me of "stalking" goes beyond the pale. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not all that is permitted is wise: WP:TALKO notes "and it is generally better to hide this material as described above." While I certainly don't consider Tenebrae's actions anything close to "stalking," I support Starblind's meme that maintaining standards can be done with a gentler tone. Of course, there's nothing in Tenebrae's documented actions that warrant any admin action and suggest we close this out. NE Ent 20:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think BMK was defending Tenebrae's edits by pointing to their service here: BMK was defending their character, which is under a bit of attack here. Andrew, I don't see anything out of line with Tenebrae's commentary or summaries; please correct me with diffs if my cursory review is incorrect. And we don't typically list publishers' sites for anything: if a publication is cited as if it is notable, then secondary sources should be brought to bear on the matter. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

More competence

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 really suspect that Windows.dll (talk · contribs) has major WP:COMPETENCE issues. In their time here, they have:

• Uploaded two unfree images mistagged as free
• Made improper pagemoves such as iPad (4th generation) to iPad with Retina display, (note the stray comma) and Verizon Wireless to Cellco Partnership d.b.a. Verizon Wireless
• Made sockpuppet edits via User:Christy Walton, then created their own sockpuppet category
• Vandalized Bram Stoker via IP, then reverted their own vandalism while logged in
• Crapflooded their user page with a billion userboxes
• Made a WP:PUTEFFORT-failing AFC submission (‪Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/First National Innovation Brokers‬)
• Created the now-speedied article Bluebird (walmart). I strongly suspect the article was nonsense, as the edit to Bluebird (disambiguation) suggests that the article was on a type of car sold at Walmart, and we all know that Walmart doesn't sell cars.

The user has also poked around at a few "in" venues such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist. Between this and the userbox-spamming on their userpage, I strongly suspect that the user is also trying to treat Wikipedia as a social network. The lack of improvement in edits over a 6-month period suggests that the user is perhaps not fit to edit. In particular, the most recent edit with Bluebird (walmart) has me more than convinced that this user just isn't ready for the big time — if you've been here 6 months and are still vandalizing, you're cleraly not cut out for the job. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was going to ask how you knew he was the IP, but looking at this [166] makes it pretty clear, then the SPI archive [167] made it more clear. Looking at all the bizarre stuff, it is either subtle trolling or CIR. I've indef blocked at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• I've been watching this user fumble about for a few weeks now, wondering what to do, and I can't say that I disagree with the indefinite block. Once the unblock request is inevitably declined, I would suggest giving the IP an extended hardblock. – Steel 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Some time back I responded to an unblock request from 65.175.243.48 (talk · contribs), an IP operated by Windows.dll. His behavior was so strange it was hard to know if he was pulling our leg or was just very confused. Agree that at present he does not have the ability to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Bluebird was not nonsense; it was easy to read. Here are the first couple of sentences and the last: "Bluebird is a Checking & Debit Alternative Loaded with features. Not fees...It feels good to Bluebird." Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • … or, in other words, it was a straight copy of the advertisement, written in the first person and "©2012 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. All rights reserved.", on American Express' own WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Ahh, I missed the copyright notice. Yes, definitely spam; I was attempting to exhibit its problems, not to defend it. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
      • We both were. Reply doesn't always indicate disagreement, whatever one might conclude from too much exposure to the sillier parts of Wikipedia. ☺ Copyright Judo applied in spades. Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry; misunderstood where you were going. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• The user also made protection requests with a strange experimenting bent, not just flat-out incompetence. Indef is the right call. --87.78.22.200 (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Problematic editing by IP (182.x.x.x)

IP editor from 182.x.x.x range (two recent IPs are: 182.177.201.170 and 182.177.148.57) is adding/editing Urdu scripts (like adding diacritics, boldening the Urdu script in the lead section) in a number of articles for a couple of days which may not be much disruptive but he/she is also editing inter-wiki links to Urdu and other similar script Wikipedias. The problem is that these links appear broken instead of linking to the corresponding article and mass edits make it difficult to make corrections. Is it possible to rangeblock this IP range? Or is there some other way to stop this? --SMS ^Talk 18:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, 182.177.148.57's talkpage is a redlink. It looks like you approached 182.177.201.170, which is good, but our templated messages aren't always helpful with more subtle problems. 90% of our articles on settlements in Pakistan, India &c are terrible, and at worst these edits are on a par with editors who'd gone before, whilst at best some seem to be constructive and helpful - [168], [169], etc. So it would be a really good idea to have a chat with them and try to encourage them in the right direction, I think... have they edited with another IP address more recently? bobrayner (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually the problem is this user is using dynamic IP, so every time he/she edits with a new IP and is probably gone offline by time I check his edits, that is why I used the templated message (and added issue specific comment to the default message) when I found him online, but he/she went off. Anyways I will try to talk to him in whatever possible way. Thanks --SMS ^Talk 11:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. If you see this editor again on a different IP, then I'd be happy to help with them too (just drop a note on my talkpage before the sighting goes stale). Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, I just hang around this page too much. bobrayner (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken and Shaz0t

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.

---

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)

I removed some unreferenced claims from a blp, and it's been undone (in opposition to WP:BURDEN, WP:BLP and so on).

I warned the user about their insertion of unref'd information, and they responded by alleging I'm a sock-puppet - with no evidence whatsoever; A bullshit warning from a probable sock.

Shaz0t (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of WP:BURDEN

User: Shaz0t is wielding WP:BURDEN as a tool to remove large chunks of non-controversial, non-contentious, easily-verifiable, extremely prosaic material from articles on the grounds that anything which is not referenced can be removed, without regard to the quality of the material. In this fashion, his edits decimate the articles, degrading their quality and harming the encyclopedia. The primary example is Al Gordon (comics) [170], from which he is attempting to remove 12k of utterly non-controversial and easily verifiable material, but see also Bruce Reyes-Chow [171].

Shaz0t is also, quite obviously, not a new editor, and although he avers that his previous identity was not blocked or banned, there is no way to know this unless he reveals what that identity is, which he refuses to do. Shaz0t's behavior is clearly disruptive and tendenitious, which makes it probable that his previous identity was as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(changed above to level-3 heading, 'coz it's all the same thing... Shaz0t (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So you think WP:V is in some way 'optional'?

If it's easily verifiable - great; add refs, please.

And please, stop accusing me of being a 'sock' (or launch an SPI). Thanks. Shaz0t (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(Forgive my mentioning a little content on ANI for context, but it's with good reason).

BYK is reverting and thus adding back claims such as, Bruce is a technophile. He is a prolific blogger and has a large social networking presence.. There is no way that info like that belongs in a blp with no reference. BYK appears unable to read V - which is absolutely clear on this matter. Shaz0t (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Shaz0t is not primarily removing "claims" which might be detrimental to the subject and therefore removable under BLP policy - if that's all he was doing there would be absolutely no issue - he is removing huge chunks of absolutely mundane information. Yes, WP:V is obviously a core value, but if every unreferenced fact in the encyclopedia was removed, we'd be out of business. That is why editorial judgment is called for, and Shaz0t - although an editor with a past - does not seem to possess the necesary judgment to determine what should be removed and what can be left in without harm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's "non-controversial, non-contentious" is it? - try In March 2012, Bruce and other Presbyterian leaders announced that they had begun plans to launch a new Presbyterian Church O_O

Why am I being accused of doing wrong, with absolutely no evidence other than "he knows what he's doing, so clearly he's a sock"? Shaz0t (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You want to go back and remove only the controversial and contentious material which violates WP:BLP, be my guest, you'll get no guff from me. But, tell me, what is contention, controversial or in violation of BLP policy about:

In 1982 Gordon left Marvel for DC Comics to ink writer-penciler-co-creator Scott Shaw and fill-in penciler Stan Goldberg on the funny-animal superhero series Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew. In 1983, Gordon did a year-and-a-half-long run at the independent Eclipse Comics, inking Will Meugniot on Will and Mark Evanier's The DNAgents, as well as inking Rick Hoberg for the company's spin-off series Surge and its anthology Eclipse Monthly.

Afterward, he returned to Marvel to become the regular inker on the company's flagship series Fantastic Four, and on the science-fiction adventure limited series Rocket Raccoon (with Mike Mignola penciling). Other work around this time includes issues of The Eternals and Power Pack, and Marvel's licensed series Thundercats and Transformers.

Freelancing once again for DC, Gordon in 1987 began inking Kevin Maguire while working with plotter/thumbnail artist Keith Giffen on Justice League International. Two years later, Gordon, this time inking Giffen, also began cowriting with Giffen and Tom and Mary Bierbaum for DC's revamped Legion of Super Heroes. Gordon took over the complete writing and scripting chores for issues #21 though 24 (Aug. 1991), while continuing to ink Giffen.

In 1992 he began adapting a childhood creation, WildStar, with Jerry Ordway for creator-owned company Image Comics. WildStar: Sky Zero was the title of the miniseries that was written, inked, edited (with the help of Bud Shakespeare) and produced by Gordon, and penciled by Jerry Ordway. There was also a continuing WildStar series started with penciler Chris Marrinan.

Other late 1980s and 1990s work includes Marvel's The Sensational She-Hulk, The Silver Surfer and a run over penciler Erik Larsen on The Amazing Spider-Man; DC's Valor and Timber Wolf (the latter of which he also wrote and thumbnailed); Hero Comics' Champions; Awesome Entertainment's "Supreme" series and Judgment Day Alpha both written by Alan Moore; Tom Strong written by Alan Moore for DC’s imprint America's Best Comics; Image Comics' Freak Force and others.

He continued his working relationship with Ordway, inking Marvel's The Avengers vol. 2. Other 2000s work for Marvel includss Captain Marvel #25 (Sept. 2004) and Marvel Holiday Special #1 (Jan. 2006).

all of which you removed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You could alleviate all concerns by telling us who your previous user ID was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There should be no necessity for me to do that; none at all. Surely it's a "right" of an editor-in-good-standing to edit? There is no reason to accuse me of any inappropriate actions without evidence (or at least an SPI). Shaz0t (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

^point being...it shouldn't matter (unless you believe I'm banned or blocked). And I'm not. Shaz0t (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Then go to an admin you trust and e-mail them your previous identity. They can then come here and, without revealing what that identity is, tell us that there's no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point.

Nobody except you - with absolutely no evidence - has accused me of any wrong-doing. So let's move back to "why we are on ANI".

I wrote, I removed some unreferenced claims from a blp, and it's been undone (in opposition to WP:BURDEN, WP:BLP and so on). I warned the user about their insertion of unref'd information, and they responded by alleging I'm a sock-puppet

If you want to launch an SPI, launch an SPI.

But will you stop putting unreferenced claims on the BLP? Shaz0t (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No, I'm quite clear on "the point". I have said above, twice now, that if you want to re-do your edits to remove only controversial and contentious BLP-violating material, I have no problem with that. But you have yet to acknowledge that WP:BURDEN is not a license to remove mundane and prosaic uncontroversial and easily verifiable information simply because it lacks referencing. There are other and better solutions than deletion of that sort of material: tagging specific assertions with specific clean-up tag, tagging sections as being unreferenced, or tagging the article itself as being in need of better referencing. (One of those options, not all three.) That is how reasonable editors deal with the sort of non-contentious material you're deleting on the mistaken impression that WP:BURDEN requires it. It does not, and WP:V is not an invitation to decimate the encyclopedia, either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're obviously not a new user. And if you're banned, you're not allowed to edit, regardless of the alleged quality of your edits. So before taking up the content issue, you need to prove, to someone, perhaps via e-mail to your favorite admin, that you're not banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Beyond My Ken: The removed material about Gordon's publishing credits, which make up the vast bulk of the article, is verifiable with the Grand Comics Database link in the EL. Could that go as a few footnotes rather than an EL? Absolutely — which is a lot different from summarily removing material that is referenced in the EL. Cite tags would have been proper process.

And people change identities because they've behaved badly or been sanctioned in the past. Fellow editors have a right to know about patterns of behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not been banned, I have not 'left under a cloud', I am not circumventing a block. Now, can we deal with the actual issue? Shaz0t (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Fellow editors have a right to know"? Where'd you get that from? Shaz0t (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• You don't get to decide what "the issue" is. Considering that you started 2 days ago and almost immediately embroiled yourself in a controversy, why should we believe your claim that you're snow white? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

'coz of AGF perhaps?

Innocent until proven guilty?

Not making accusations without evidence?

Just 'coz I have (clearly) edited enwp before doesn't mean you can flood me with personal attacks, surely? Shaz0t (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about use of Grand Comics Database as an RS. Does it have editorial control, etc? I'm not sure. Anyway, that'd be something to discuss on the talk page, not here. I'm just bothered about this reactionary lynch-mob, removing good-faith edits because "ooh, somebody knows what they're doing, so it's clearly a sock!!!111eleven Shaz0t (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin That user just broke 3rr [172]. Do I need to file a separate 3rr-case, or can you deal with it here? thx. Shaz0t (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, those edits clearly were not vandalism, so it's misuse of rollback too. Shaz0t (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The salient argument concerning your misuse of WP:BURDEN has been made; you've been invited to re-visit your edits that I reverted and remove only material which actually violates WP:BLP; the only issue remaining is that you're clearly not a new editor, you admit to not being one, you claim not to have been banned or blocked but won't follow the recommended action to prove this without revealing anything publicly. Your behavior is disputatious, which makes it probable that you've been disruptive in the past, so the suspicion does not come out of nowhere, it's founded in the evidence of your own activity. Your reponse here is not that of an editor in good standing trying to do the best for the community, but of someone with something to hide. Please clear up this issue, or it's going to hang over your head forever -- Wikipedians have long memories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No...the salient issue is the one at the top.

Regarding the article, I wish you'd stop adding unreferenced claims to a BLP.

But the ANI concern is, that you've repeatedly undone my edits, repeatedly inserted unreferenced claims into a BLP, misused your 'rollback', and made accusations about me being a 'sock' with no evidence at all. Shaz0t (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Convenience break

There's no such thing at misuse of WP:BURDEN, so far as I know. Once unsourced material is challenged, it cannot be restored without an inline citation by anyone. I'll entertain accusations that Shaz0t is a sock once someone can tell me who he is. But Beyond My Ken is completely wrong: he is not permitted to restore the material, he certainly isn't permitted to edit war restoration of the material, and he will find himself blocked if he edit wars it back again. It doesn't have to be controversial. It doesn't have to be BLP threatening. The threshold is challenged or likely to be challenged, and, by removing it, Shaz0t has challenged it.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) That is an extremely restrictive and totally impractical interpretation of the rule, because it allows editors who wish to damage the encyclopedia to do so with impunity. I could (but I won't, or course, because that would be pointy) take any article of some length and remove vast amounts of it on the basis you're describing, and the man-hours necessary to restore it would be considerable.

I'm very interested to here if other admins and experience users share your view of the rule. If so, it really sends shudders up my back that we're so open to inviting disruption like that perpetrated by Shaz0t. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) WP:BLP does not define "contentious" so basically any unreferenced claims can be tagged or removed from any BLP. There is a simple solution - find reliable sources making the claims you wish in the article. If you wish to file an SPI rreport, do so. Otherwise treat all editors with good faith. Collect (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't even have to be a BLP for that to be true. I know most people treat my opposition to misuse of our BLP policies as if I want to turn Wikipedia into a tabloid sheet, but this is an example of its misuse: it wouldn't matter if the discussion was about the conversion rate of rupees to yen in 1893: the exact same principles would apply to the ability of an editor to remove it as unsourced. Our BLP policies are a red herring in this discussion.—Kww(talk) 23:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

^ and ^^, hallelujah, common sense. Shaz0t (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually common sense would be that editors would use good judgement in determining whether material should be removed or not. You have not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Got a ref for that? Shaz0t (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sakes. I have my issues with Al Gordon and his using that page for self-promotion, but the material that the evasive and poorly behaving Shaz0t has an issue with is cited in the ELs by the Grand Comics Database, which does have stringent editing standards and a time-consuming vetting process that can take days per edit; I know from having contributed and I admire its high quality control. The proper thing for Shaz0t to have done was to insert a More footnotes tag. And given his snotty and evasive comments, it's hard to assume good faith if one doesn't show good faith.

In any event, I will add the pertinent GCD cites. Let's be clear: The material was cited in the EL. All I'm doing is it putting it in footnote form. Shaz0t should have used the tag I mentioned. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that WP:V specifically requires the use of inline citations in this case. No wikilinking or omnibus footnotes will suffice. I still wish that someone could suggest who Shaz0t might be: I feel uncomfortable standing up for what I believe to be an important sourcing principle while I have this nagging feeling that I'm being played for a fool.—Kww(talk) 23:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) There is indeed a strong fishy odor coming from Shaz0t, BUT, WP:BURDEN is CLEARLY policy and CLEARLY states that inline cites from reliable sources are required for reinsertion of content. And if it is indeed trivial to source it, then the established editors in good standing should have simply taken that trivial action themselves and we would not be here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable expectation, but unfortunately it falls in the face of the reality of the situation. If each fact by itself is easily reffed, but hundreds of facts are removed in one fell swoop, than the time it takes to source the removed material is considerable, and would have been totally unnecessary if the editor involved had simply exercised some judgment and discretion.

We spend many person-hours (my apologies for using "man-hours" elsewhere in this discussion) undoing vandalism, and, when we can, we block the editors who vandalize. Here we have a case where an editor's poor judgment is also creating a completely unnecessary workload, but because the editor is able to warp himself in the flag of WP:BURDEN, there is apparently nothing that can be done about it. This is a huge loophole that needs to be closed; perhaps as well as Competence is required we should have WP:Good judgment is required? Or is the disruption from one editor's bad judgment enough? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a ref for it.

“ I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. ”

-Wales Shaz0t (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"snotty and evasive comments" ?

Admins, when does this add up to a civilly problem? Shaz0t (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record; I strongly dispute that Grand Comics Database is in any way a reliable source. It's user-generated. Shaz0t (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And, for the record, wholesale removal of the kind you have done today based on that argument would put you clearly on the wrong side of policy. That's what WP:RSN is for.—Kww(talk) 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Admin, apparently Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) still does not understand. Xe continues to accuse me - in the edit summary here, I still wish that someone could suggest who Shaz0t might be [173]. This is clearly personal attacks with no foundation - no diff, no SPI, nothing; just claims that I am some kind of 'sock puppet' - personal attacks. My 'edit history' here - which is short - is already ruined by this person making these accusations about me, and they've provided absolutely no evidence that I have done anything wrong.

I've come to Wikipedia and removed unreferenced claims about a living person; and in return, I've received almost nothing but abuse - claims that I'm being a 'sock puppet'.

Are people really permitted to treat other users in this way? Shaz0t (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that with this edit, Shaz0t removed a comment of mine. I do not think they did it deliberately, but nevertheless they did it, and is why when I restored it, my edit summary said "Restoring comment deleted by Shaz0t". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the comment "I still wish that someone could suggest who Shaz0t might be." was not made by me, as Shaz0t implies above, but by KWW, here. (These things would be more obvious if Shaz0t would use normal indentation.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

KWW re RSN - yes, if they'd used it as a source, it'd be worth discussing. Still, it shouldn't be added back without discussion. Shaz0t (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

KWW what I mean is... RSN serves a purpose, but pending agreement, facts should not remain on articles without refs. Especially BLP's. No? Shaz0t (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

GCD has registered editors who go by their real names and are accountable, and the edits go through a stringent approval process. Nothing gets in there without director overseeing by "mentor" editors who follow your progress. And the content is all immediately verifiable by published credits in the primary sources or cited historical articles. So, no, GCD is not a wikia, and you're the first person I've ever seen here in in my seven-plus years to have a problem with it ... and a problem based on rigid interpretation of a policy that's never been one-size-fits-all. GCD, per the definition I've given, is by all means a reliable source. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's something appropriate for discussion on RSN, or wherever, surely you understand that?

I suppose we're assuming that Albabe (talk · contribs) is the person in question? (As they've given permission for the copyright images) Shaz0t (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about Grand_Comics_Database (as RS) at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Grand_Comics_Database. Shaz0t (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Answering Shaz0t's questions -- yes, people are "permitted" to treat each other poorly. With regards to civility, their snarky "Got a ref for that" after receiving vindication is incivil, as is repeated sock accusations without evidence -- as was stated recently here by an admin [174] "File an WP:SPI with your evidence or " -er- be quiet. That said, if Shaz0t is an experienced editor they should know enough to expect sock accusations -- I recommend they put the {{subst:alternate account}} notification on their user page and be willing to Other Duck sock references. NE Ent 00:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I expect it. Doesn't mean it's right.

Any returning editor showing a clue about wiki machinations might expect it, but it's the continuous accusations that are a problem; the snide comments, that they have something to hide, etc.... That is a personal attack. And despite being cautioned about it, it's continued, and admins have not so far taken action. ""File an WP:SPI with your evidence or " -er- be quiet" is fine; I said that hours ago. That didn't happen; no SPI, yet the accusations continue. Shaz0t (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's significant that the suspicions - which you have characterized as being mine alone - are shared by three four other experienced editors. The reason for this is not any kind of conspiracy between them, but because your behavior points in that direction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

My behavior points at my knowing a lot about Wikipedia; that does not point at my doing anything wrong.

If a 'new editor' adds an appropriate citation template, uses an edit summary, and signs their name - that's it, as far as some are concerned - they're a sock puppet!!11evelen and condemned forever. Really - consider my (short) editing history; imagine if I carried on making superb contribs for the next 3 years; it wouldn't matter; RFA, I'd be considered a sock, because of your unfounded claims.

You've cast enough aspersions on my character that there is little point my using this ID any longer.

What, exactly, did I do that was detrimental to this project?

I've highlighted some poorly-referenced info on a BLP. And that's it.

In the words of a great many before me... meh Shaz0t (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that how it happened before? You started editing and did it badly and with poor judgement, got into disputes with people, then threw up your hands and walked away, only to open a brand new ID? How many times have you done that, anyway?

I wonder if a CU reading this discussion might not see Shaz0t's remarks above as a tacit admission, and a good indication that he is worthy of a closer look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please do something about all these unfounded allegations ^ Please? Shaz0t (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Go to an admin you trust and e-mail them your previous identity or identities, and ask them to come here and tell us that our suspicions are completely unfounded. If that happens, I will gladly issue a public apology to you in the venue of your choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I could, easily.

But that wouldn't stop you - and your kind - from doing same to the next user who comes back. Shaz0t (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if a CU reading this discussion might not see Shaz0t's remarks above as a tacit admission (Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) [175]

And I wonder if admins cannot see the above as continued, baseless personal attacks, despite clear warnings? Shaz0t (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder: if you had ever edited similar articles before, then did a WP:CLEANSTART, you may not go back to editing those same types of articles, or else you are indeed a WP:SOCK. You might also want to stop provoking the other editor in your pithy dispute again and again and again - you're simply escalating it right here in front of us, and making yourself look worse. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Already said, but... no, not 'cleanstart'. Not banned. Not blocked. Not a sock. Just an editor. And thus, my background should be irrelevent. This ANI was about unref'd BLPs...the continuous disingenuous attacks on my character are not helping matters. Shaz0t (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm backing off, which I ashamedly admit I should have done much earlier. It took a break to start making dinner for my family for me to realize that. My apologies to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, backing off, with just one more little personal attack? It is finally clear to me: this editor is most probably fairly young [176] Shaz0t (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

On what planet is that a personal attack? Your behaviour above has been childish ... and you come across as very young. Where's the WP:PA? Or can you simply not stop digging at people? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I'm 45 years old. Calling a 45-year-old 'childish' is pretty offensive. Shaz0t (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

How the hell do we know that? We can only go by behaviour - and yours has indeed been childish - so what assumption would you expect? Your closing statement below is a perfect example (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

How the hell do you not know that? Really, is my behavior that of a child? Where? I don't think it has been; can you please explain what diffs have shown me acting in a childish manner? Shaz0t (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Before this thread is closed, I ask admins to consider the large number of personal attacks made upon me by Beyond_My_Ken (talk · contribs).

Initially, this ANI was about a simple BLP removal for unreferenced info, but since it began, there have been lots of accusations against me.

You probably just want to collapse this, as usual, and archive it; I understand that, and that's fine.

But, the "larger issue" of people being accused of sock-puppetry when they've done no wrong deserves more attention;

I intend to pursue this further - through RFC/U or arb or whatever - so closing admins might want to consider that they might nip this problem in the bud, by doing something about unfounded accusations.

Best, Shaz0t (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Once unsourced material is challenged, it cannot be restored without an inline citation by anyone."

Actually it can. There are several places where such citation is not useful; WP:LEAD is one of them. WP:SCICITE explains quite a few more. Giving a citation on the talk page works too (esp. for cranks who challenge everything, just because they can.) I suspect Kww is going to fail his ArbCom bid this year as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

it can be restored to the lead without a source ONLY if is ALREADY SOURCED in the body of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead is a stylistic exception but TRPoD is correct that the material in the lead can only repeat the material in the body, and, if challenged, that material has to include an inline citation. WP:V is very clear, Tijfo98: All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. That doesn't permit tags on restored material, doesn't permit sources on talk pages for restored material, unsourced restorations, footnotes, general sourcing, Wikilinks, anything: inline citations only. WP:SCICITE is a guideline, and, if it contains exceptions that directly contradict WP:V, it's probably wrong. If I lose an Arbcom bid, I would hope it wouldn't be because I'm able to read and comprehend English. —Kww(talk) 04:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should block BMK asap then for compromising Wikipedia [177]. (Or should I say Jimbopedia?) Tijfo098 (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, just because someone deleted something as "unsourced" doesn't mean it IS unsourced. I am dealing with an editor that has deleted many sections of references, and even bibliographies complete with publishers, publication dates and ISBN numbers. In each case this editor posts the reason as "unsourced".Rosencomet (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, then your restoration would include all of the citations necessary to comply with WP:V, wouldn't it?—Kww(talk) 06:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he's referring to edits like [178]. I've not seen bibliographies, esp. book lists, have inline refs on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Usually ISBNs or OCLCs suffice for verification that books exist. What would you put as an inline citation to prove that a book exits, Kww? Tijfo098 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd use {{ISBN}}, myself. If someone called me on it, a direct link to one of the ISBN catalogs, such as http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn:0971043841 would do. I'll agree that it's hard to see that particular edit was well-done, because it's hard to see what, precisely, is being challenged. Is it the existence of the book that's challenged? That the book was actually used as a source for the article? The problem with that edit sequence isn't that someone is attempting to restore challenged material without a citation, it's that the challenge is so vague no one can really respond to it. Any policy, even a core one like WP:V, has edge cases and limits. The original set of edits to the Al Gordon article that spurred this discussion was well inside them.—Kww(talk) 06:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kww, as much as I respect you as an editor and as an admin, you are wrong here. Please refer to WP:BURDEN, which says: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed by any editor... Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. There was nothing about the state of Al Gordon (comics) that would lead a reasonable and unbiased editor to believe that the vast scope of material deleted by Shatz0t was untrue or unverifiable and in need of deletion. Rather, Shaz0t simply deleted considerable blocks of material using WP:BURDEN as a justification, because he (apparently) wanted them deleted, not because he thought they were untrue or unverifiable. This goes back to my objection, expressed above, to construing WP:BURDEN in an absolutist manner, without consideration for the specific circumstances of the situation. Such an interpretation opens us to significant damage, at will, from antagonists who (for whatever reason), wish to harm the encyclopedia. I respectfully suggest that you need to re-evaluate your opinion in this area, because the consequences to Wikipedia could be dire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken rollback

Inappropriate use of revert;

1. [179]
2. [180]
3. [181]
4. [182]
5. [183]
6. [184]

(Examples only) Shaz0t (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Kww that WP:BURDEN is quite clear on this. Any unreferenced material that is challenged must then be referenced or removed from the article. Any reinsertion of the material without a reference, especially in BLPs, should, in my opinion, be considered vandalism. Silverseren^C 03:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Some admin with a brain please block Shaz0t as a trolling/vandalism account

See [185] [186]. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's my take on the situation. Since I've already reverted the Serbian Canadians edit and warned Shaz0t for it, I'll not take further action at this time, but I have no objections to another admin's doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyofShalott (talk • contribs)

Other than a few small parts in each of those that do have references, I would have removed most of the same information for being completely unreferenced. I hope those unreferenced sections weren't unilaterally returned to the articles, were they? If only the referenced parts were returned, that's fine, but the rest should be referenced or removed. Silverseren^C 04:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That'sThose two diffs are just ridiculous. Instead of going through articles with a meataxe, why not try finding some references? Is the goal to improve the information content of Wikipedia, or to make a point?. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I would personally have referenced the information, but there are plenty of established editors who feel its better to remove the information because of its potentially erroneous nature, being unsourced as it is, and wait for someone to add information in that actually is sourced. Both attitudes are proper, even if I am on the inclusionist side myself. Silverseren^C 04:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

When you're done preaching ex cathedra, you'll realize he removed mostly referenced info from Summer of Love, which is even verified by the sources cited inline, as a spot check showed. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I already said exactly what I reverted (though I forgot to sign - it is my post above). It's late, and I'm going to bed. LadyofShalott 04:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:ILLEGIT. Wherever one may fall on the sourcing questions, it's quite apparent that this account is being used to perform controversial edits without allowing them to be tied to his main account. This clearly comes under "avoiding scrutiny".—Kww(talk) 04:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the Shaz0t account was operated by the banned User:Shalom Yechiel/User:Chutznik who previously targeted Al Gordon's bio with one of his (many) socks, namely User:Placeholder account. I've opened a SPI. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll be very interested to see the results. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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