Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive763

User:Kpdi

The following discussion is closed. 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 account has been inactive since Nov 2010, but today, in 15 minutes finishing just over an hour ago, it made 9 edits: starting with an innocuous addition of unnecessary links, but then 8 lots of sly vandalism, changing words and numbers (one example) to semi-plausible alternatives. (I've reverted them.) Doesn't fit the "persistent" criterion for WP:AIV, but could this vandalism-only account be blocked to protect the encyclopedia? I happened to notice the editor because they hit an item on my watchlist, but any future edits might not be noticed: it looks as if they're using "Random article" as I can't see any link between the articles they've edited! PamD 20:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC):

In an abundance of good faith, I've given him a final warning about inserting deliberate factual errors - if any other admin feels inclined to block immediately - I have no objections. --Versageek 21:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd already blocked indef. They can always ask for an unblock if there's a sensible reason for doing so, but I think we need to ensure that sneaky vandalism is stopped. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 1 August 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:Yankees76

The following discussion is closed. 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 other day Yankees76[1] falsely accused me of sockpuppeting after i made an edit to Closing Time with out login in he was warned by several people including User:Jim1138 that he would be reported if he continued to disrupt Wikipedia. Today he decides to revert one of my edits(which he called vandalism the other day) just to call me out on some of my past edits which I think is Cyber Stalking WP:HOUND. Please can someone stop this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfballz (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a bad idea to insult that person here. Administrators look at the behaviour of all parties involved. Arcandam (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think i insulted btw he called me a retard the other day because i wrote on his talk page[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfballz (talk • contribs)

Calling someone a "Psycho" is a personal attack. Arcandam (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Both parties have been incivil. Arcandam (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• If I can clear a few things up: Yankees76, don't link to WP:DICK, quit inferring people are socks unless you are willing to stick your neck out and file at WP:SPI, do not call things vandalism unless they fit the exact criteria at WP:VANDAL, and pull back the intensity and incivility a notch. I'm not thrilled with how you treat anyone, frankly. And Golfballz, I did check you for socking, very carefully, and I notice that you do edit while logged out, however I didn't see any pattern of abuse at all. Still, please log in, as you just cost me a lot of time. And you need to drop the stick, quit badgering him, calling his actions "trolling" and take a less controversial attitude with your edits. Both of you need to drop the stick and now would be a very good time to do so. A less tolerant admin might think the 'pedia would benefit from both of you being blocked. I'm thinking you need to avoid each other, hopefully voluntarily, and you both need some civility lessons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Golfballz, you are required to notify a person you are reporting to ANI. I've done that for you, but I strongly suggest you remember that next time. Read at the top of the page, it is a simple template to do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SOCK, Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address is sockpuppetry. This user did that on Closing Time (Semisonic song) here [3] after I reverted original research that was previously inserted into the article, which not only changed the genre without providing a source, or working to a consensus in the ongoing discussion on that article's talk page; the editor also left the original reference intact, disrupting Wikipedia and degrading the quality of the article. After looking at the quality of edits originating from the IP, I tagged it as an IP Sock - which is the correct thing to do as one more revert from either account would bring the 3RR rule into play. What happened afterwards is regrettable, however it's clear from edits [4][5]following yesterdays "vandalism" report, and the constant badgering on my talk page that this user has very little interest in improving Wikipedia, and is now using the fact that he was told by Ohnoitsjamie that Allmusic.com is a reliable source to post incomplete genres and absurd/misleading edit summaries on other articles. What makes this particularly disturbing is that prior to the edit to Closing Time, this user had used Allmusic as a "reliable source" in a content dispute with another user![6] I sincerely believe that this user would not benefit from a block, but isntead a WP:MENTOR so that they understand why articles require reliable sources. As for me, if you feel a block is necessary, go ahead. I've only been editing for six years and lost count of the number of articles I've created or the amount of vandalism I've reverted. Are a couple of slip ups with an annoying user worth a block? You tell me. --Yankees76 ^Talk 23:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That was interesting because it has the same time stamp as one of his logged in edits, but that is a single edit, and because it could have been an error (wikipedia does that to me sometimes) I can't confirm it is socking. And the point is, I'm trying to not block people (I'm not a block happy admin, ask anyone), and that doesn't change the fact that everyone here needs to tone it back when dealing with others. Consider it a friendly but serious tip. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up

I've blocked Golfballz for 24 hours for continuing to revert Yankees76. If this continues by either editor, then further blocks are in order.

Given the comments "I'll revert his edits on pages on my Watchlist...Are a couple of slip ups with an annoying user worth a block?" I'll encourage fellow admins to deal with any such behavior by Yankees76 by issuing harsher blocks (or community sanctions) as such behavior by Yankees76 would be clearly an instance of the previous issues aggravated by WP:GAME. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Where did Golfballz continue to revert Yankees76 after the above discussion? Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

[7] They had been edit warring over whether the song (and several others) were Post-grunge or Alternative rock. Golfballz continued the war and threw in a citation. 76.107.249.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be Golfballz edting under an IP. Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You blocked him for adding a citation, which wasn't a revert of any kind? And Yankees76 edited the article after that which actually fixed Golfballz edit by adding the reflist tag! The IP edit was 8 days ago. There isn't any reverting there at all. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any recent contribs. [8] Yankee called [9] the edit [10] a revert, not sure it is. Golf added a cite, then Yankee added the reflist tag so it would show up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Todd might want to verify there, I think the block may have been in error due to Yankee calling the edit "a revert" when it wasn't a direct revert. Maybe it was adding something back from a while back, but not a direct revert. Still wasn't a good idea, but not sure that qualifies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Golfballz (under the IP address which he admitted) changed the genre from Post-grunge to alt-rock on July 23. Yankee76 then changed it back. Golfballz tonight added alt-rock in - with a citation which does indeed state the song is alt-rock and without removing post-grunge. That's normal editing as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I also think that this is normal editing as well without going into an edit war. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I would feel better if they would avoid each other, especially at this moment in time, but that isn't exactly the same as a revert. Again, a good faith block but I tend to think it is an honest error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Golfballz is requesting unblock. I would be tempted to accept it myself but since I'm about to go to bed (it's 2.25am here) I'd rather not unblock and run. Black Kite (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm not far behind, but I will look at it closer if Todd went offline and verify all this again. It does look like a mistake, but I want to make sure, and Todd may be verifying it himself right now anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Todd is on it, he is unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:32, 2 August 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.

Darkness Shines

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

---

Not a long while ago, the article India and state terrorism was created. Exactly ten days after the article's creation, Darkness Shines turned up at the article in a blatant act of WP:HOUNDING to start POV-warring and immediately nominated it, inappropriately, for speedy deletion [11]. This user has been warned for not hounding me before. This article was an orphan at the time, meaning that it was not internally linked on any other articles. The fact that he still got to that article while no one else did needs no explanation, and is a blatant violation. After he was reported to an admin Salvio giuliano, he was warned by Salvio in clear terms to keep off/stay away from that article or else he will be blocked off for a week (that discussion is preserved here). Another admin, Magog the Ogre also acknowledged the issue of Darkness Shine's problematic hounding. The message obviously fell on deaf ears, because just now, despite being told to stay off from there, he has gamed that request and showed up on the article yet again [12]. Given that just recently, discretionary sanctions have been imposed on the India-Pakistan topic area and this user was warned not to edit that article, a red line has clearly been crossed here and I would like action to be taken. There is absolutely no excuse or justification for his presence on that article. Mar4d (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll note that you have not attempted to engage Darkness Shines on the talk page of that article. Coming straight to AN/I is not an ideal course of action, even when there is a history of conflict between users. On the flipside, Darkness Shines hasn't exactly been a model citizen on this issue, and that G4 speedy tag on the premise that a dissimilar version was deleted 3 years ago is pretty flaky. So here's my advice - calm down, depersonalize the matter, and start a discussion on the talk page asking Darkness to calmly present his/her objections to the content of the article. We'll be watching what happens from there. As a second piece of advice, we don't tend to pay much attention to histrionics at AN/I. If you've got a problem, present the evidence, not your interpretation of it. Manning (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

He was engaged on the talk page and kindly told to mind his own business. No one is interested in how he miraculously finds his way to get to articles, it's the fact that's its always the same damn articles in a short period of time to engage the same people. This matter cannot be depersonalised, it's a clear-cut violation and it needs to acted upon. Mar4d (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

By itself, choosing to edit any article is not a violation of WP:HOUNDING. I've looked through the contribution log of Darkness Shines and don't see any evidence of tenditiousness or harrassment. Also no-one can tell anyone NOT to edit an article (admins can certainly suggest it, but only Arbcom or community-imposed sanctions can enforce it). So I'm far from certain what "violations" are taking place. It is quite possible that Darkness is using your contribution log to find new articles to edit, but unless there is evidence of actual harassment as a result, then there is nothing wrong with that - I do it every day. Also the topic at hand is clearly controversial, so a POV dispute between editors is almost guaranteed. At the moment I'm really struggling to see this issue as anything more than "we disagree and I just don't like it". My earlier advice to you to depersonalize and focus solely on the content still stands. If you are truly unable to do so, perhaps you should also consider ceasing to edit such topics. Manning (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please read the discussion at Salvio's talk page that I pointed. He assessed the situation and as a neutral observer, concluded that DS should not have been at that article, and that he would enforce a block if the behavior continued. This thread is to discuss the violation of that. Salvio is currently unwell and not able to attend to the issue - hence I brought it here. Mar4d (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you have misrepresented what Salvio actually said there If you think some sources are not reliable, you may start an RSN thread; but, for the moment, please refrain from editing the article. The block threat was over the source reliability dispute, and Darkness agreed (albeit begrudgingly) to abide by Salvio's call.

So for the third (and final) time, I see nothing here that requires admin attention. I have twice suggested you initiate a discussion about the disputed content of the article on that article's talk page. If further problems arise out of a discussion on the talk page, then admin action may well become appropriate. I'm not defending Darkness here, that editor clearly has their own share of problematic edits. But if you insist on demanding admin sanctions, while ignoring an admin's advice to follow standard procedure for handling content disputes, I really don't think you are going to get very far. Manning (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'll also add that he's been lying at another admin's talk page that Salvio asked him to leave the article for "a week" and then he could come back. Salvio did not say that, what he said is that he would block him for a week if he edited it further. Complete bollocks tactics used for gaming. Mar4d (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I highly recommend you strike that comment. Firstly Savlio said no such thing about blocking (see my previous comment), and secondly your assertion that Darkness is lying is completely out of order. It is a plausible misinterpretation, and you have no right to assert such bad faith. I have been very patient thus far, but you are really starting to push my tolerance level. Manning (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me requote what was said: I'll block you for a week for the reason I indicated earlier (giving the impression of hounding the other editor). If you think some sources are not reliable, you may start an RSN thread; but, for the moment, please refrain from editing the article. Also, he's using self-declared WP:SPS claims to remove big chunks of information from the article, including those sources which were not even brought up on RSN. Mar4d (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well this is nothing more than pure block shopping by Mar4d against DS, after failing to get DS blocked by posting on the talk page of various admins he is here on ANI. the article is full of POV and rather than discussing on the talk page about the problems in the article and sources he thinks it is convenient to post at ANI and get the editor blocked --DBigXray 05:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I am unsure why Mar4d is not able understand what Manning is trying to say, Mar4d do not try to push push your point which doesn't seem to have any weight, please be aware of WP:Boomerang --sarvajna (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - I don't think that Mar4d is being reasonable here. Yes, darkness shine was blocked but then he was unblocked within few minutes by admin Black Kite. IMO, that does mean something. That's all. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 08:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well a few hours have gone by, and I see no evidence that my advice to attempt to resolve the dispute by standard methods is being heeded. Because of that, I'm closing this incident. I won't outright label this as blockshopping, but it is definitely on the perimeter of my thinking. As a final comment "I don't like you so you can't edit my article" is NOT acceptable under any circumstances, particularly on a highly controversial article that looks to be replete with POV issues. Manning (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's my opinion, on reviewing this matter, that Salvio's comments have been misconstrued or simply ignored; I'm likewise very puzzled by Manning's seeming desire to dismiss this out of hand. Here's what Salvio actually wrote, in response to a comment by Darkness Shines, who'd noticed a {{ygm}} entry by the complaintant on Salvio's talk:

No doubt another hounding allegation, see [20] the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

( Full Reply by Salvio ) Yep, it's about that article and, to tell you the truth, I tend to agree with Mar4d that, in this case, you gave the impression of having followed him there — which does not mean you actually did it, but merely that this is the impression I, as a neutral observer, get. On top of that, there is the issue of the inappropriate speedy tag. As you know, I don't like to block people out of the blue, so instead of doing that I'll give you a choice: if you edit the article again, I'll block you for a week for the reason I indicated earlier (giving the impression of hounding the other editor). If you think some sources are not reliable, you may start an RSN thread; but, for the moment, please refrain from editing the article. If you think some sources are not reliable, you may start an RSN thread; but, for the moment, please refrain from editing the article. (end of Salvio's comment ).

<snip>

I'll note also, that Magog observed to Darkness Shines, in this connection: "DS, the problem is that you always seem to find a way to these pages. Yes, you have a "reason" for each time you get there, but after so many times, it starts to become a pattern, and it looks like you are waiting for an excuse to find your way to that page.."

I don't know about other editors, but if I had received such advice and comments from two admins, or from any single editor I respected, for that matter, I'd leave the cited article alone, and go try to improve one of the other 4,000,000+ articles we have here, many of which are in dire need of assistance. I have no connection to the article in question, by the way, and am not involved in this dispute. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"But for the moment, please refrain from editnig the article" is not "Never edit the article again." Its quite reasonable to interpret that as 'Go away, come back later'. That sort of ambiguity is not really helpful to anyone, especially DS as it allows people to infer different meanings and hit him with a stick depending on their conclusion. Salvio probably should have been a bit less nice and said 'Dont edit it again or I will consider it hounding and block you.' And left it at that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair comment Ohio, but I've looked into this pretty closely, and there are definitely two sides to this story. Firstly the article in question has serious issues from a POV standpoint. Secondly, while Darkness isn't exactly up for a good conduct award on WP, the editing has been largely aimed at getting a pretty inflammatory article back to neutrality, which is a perfectly reasonable action. Thirdly, judging by Mar4d contributions, he seems to have an "anti-India" agenda, and it is not unusual for such editors to attract the attention of editors with a different (or simply neutral) agenda. Anyway, thus far Mar4d has refused to attempt to discuss the content issues on the talk page as I've instructed. Until I see a genuine attempt to focus on the content dispute, I'm not willing to pander to "I insist action be taken" demands. If Darkness also refuses to engage in a content discussion (or does so disruptively), then action may be warranted, but NOT before. Manning (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Manning your talking utter nonsense the only anti anything editor is Darknesshines check his block log for his games and attitudes he has created more pov articles than anyone rape in pakistan etc where he tried to push a pov onto DYK and was refused to check your facts and both sides of the story before sending out such crass comments Itemsplot45 (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Itemsplot45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

( multiple edit conflicts ) Thanks, Manning: You're no doubt much more familiar with the context and history of this dispute, and my first inclination would be to defer to that, given my awareness of the balanced, sound nature of your previous administrative actions I've observed. I'm sure there's more going on here than is immediately apparent, from what you say, and would be interested to see a clarification of Salvio's intent, for example, and perhaps an additional comment from Magog, if he feels so inclined. Obviously, if there's a hounding problem that supersedes any one article, that should be addressed, although I've not investigated that sufficiently to form an opinion, myself. That's what I'm hoping Salvio and perhaps Magog can clarify here. In fairness, if DS feels Magog is opposed to him on other grounds, as he appeared to intimate in a talk page comment, we should hear from him on that score, as well. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Manning please see the below example from the article in Question, This highlights why Mar4d is so concerned to keep DS away (and if possible get DS blocked). The example (taken from Salvio's talk page[13]) is self explanatory.--DBigXray 09:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

the source you(Mar4d) used on "India and state terrorism" - this BBC article - to back up the content you(Mar4d) added doesn't use several terms and formulations which you(Mar4d) worked into the article to further a political pov. As one example, the BBC article states:

"A decade later, [India] continued to back the Communist-regime of President Najibullah, while Pakistan threw its entire support behind the ethnic Pashtun mujahideen warlords, particularly the Islamist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar."

You(Mar4d) made out of it[14]:

"[India] supported the unpopular Communist regime of President Mohammad Najibullah as a proxy against Afghan Pashtun warlords and Pakistan."

This is troublesome not only because of the source misrepresentation ("proxy", "unpopular", "against Pakistan") but it is partly factually incorrect also. Najibullah i. e. was supported against mujahideen from all ethnic groups, both Pashtun and non-Pashtun, against those backed by Pakistan and those not backed by Pakistan. Also, India historically had good relations to several Afghan governments predating the communist period which went beyond the issue of Pakistan. You(Mar4d) reduce the relationship to 'supported as a proxy against'.-- JCAla (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope the admins will take a note of such propaganda editing, WP:AOBF and block-shopping by Mar4d --DBigXray 09:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have taken an oath to poke your nose into almost anything that doesn't involve you, haven't you? Do not cherry pick quotes, I have replied to that comment on that talk page. Do not bring content disputes here, this is a question of user conduct. You are best advised to stay away from here too. Mar4d (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"You seem to have taken an oath to poke your nose into almost anything that doesn't involve you, haven't you?" - Mar4d, change your approach. The way you interact with other well-meaning editors, is gross. I actually support DBigXray (talk) on this, you, I think, are block-shopping my friend. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 12:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To all parties - this is an admin page. Speaking as an admin, I've given my assessment of the situation which is: all parties should take this content dispute to the article talk page, and if any conduct issues arise the admin body shall deal with them as warranted. IMO there is not enough here to warrant admin actions at this time, although there IS enough to merit admin attention, and thus the matter is now under observation. Beyond that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to bicker here, other than annoying the admin corps. Manning (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) For the Record, Mar4d is clearly WP:LIEing above, he has not answered to these comments on that talk page, and rather chose to attack me as he is doing above. I must clarify that I have not taken any oath whatsoever that i am being accused of, but we can see that Mar4d seems to be doing a Pakistan POV /propaganda based agenda editing and that there is some kind of an oath to get DS blocked (the aggressive block shopping on Salvio's , Magog's and Regentspark's talk is just an proof of that).--DBigXray 12:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did comment on that, you need to check again. The rest of your comment just reinforces my observation - you have a habit of becoming involved in things where you're not invited. This is a shining example of that. Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

@Mar4d Rather than lying again, why dont you give the diff of your reply. The only reply i can see on that is an attack on me and you skirted answering the question as you are repeatedly doing here. --DBigXray 12:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

@Manning Admins keep ignoring policy violations and propaganda editing as bickering and so the situation has reached to arbcom.--DBigXray 12:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why was I not informed of this? I asked an administrator if I was OK to edit the article[15] Admin says yes. I explained on the talk page before Sal asked me to leave the article alone about the SPS and it was brought to the RSN board were it was deemed that the sources were SPS and useless. I am really perplexed why Mar4d does not just get some new sources, I added cn tags were I removed the SPS ones. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You have removed other sources too which were not part of that RSN thread that you quote. The RSN thread is only a garb which you've used to remove material which was not even remotely related to the RSN thread. And when Salvio told you to stay off from that article, you should have stayed off. Your conduct is what has brought this thread in the first place. Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is free to look at the edits I made, I removed self published sources and some uncited content, I remove information about espionage as spying is not terrorism, I removed information about the northern alliance as they are not terrorists this was also pointed out to you on the talk page by JCala. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:41, 2 August 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.

Page protection and blocks please

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

---

 Done Blocks and protection completed by Rjd0060. Nobody Ent 10:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is 2012 FIVB Women's World Olympic Qualification Tournament. User:Cl2onaldo began removing large amounts of content from the article, including the reference list. After I reverted, two IP addresses immediately reverted me back. I assume they are both Cl2onaldo and he's working through some sort of proxy or something. Anyways, can some admin please look into this? Silverseren^C 09:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see User:Jonathanfu is fighting them now as well. Silverseren^C 09:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the user and semi-protected the page for 3 hours. If there are continued problems after that, please request protection at WP:RFPP (and if needed you may report vandalism at WP:AIV). Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 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:Arajdal

The following discussion is closed. 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

Can someone please do something about this guy? He seems to be one of those pro-Berber anti-Arab Algerian who simply removes anything Arab from any Berber-related article. I'm a proud Berber myself but Algeria is an Arab country so it does not make sense to remove Arab names of places. There is no reason why both languages can't be included in articles. I've already reverted him twice on the Zinedine Zidane article and don't want to WP:3RR. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am on the way out so can't really do much, but a look at his edit summaries [16] is not very encouraging in the POV dept. ie: we need to stay true to the Berber people. Once someone starts talking about Truth® in their summaries, then someone familiar with the subject matter needs to independently come in and assess the neutrality of the edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am blocking the user indefinitely because all of his edits and edit summaries indicate that he is only here to promote an ideological agenda, which for some reason involves removing Arabic names from articles. So this is a vandalism-only or a POV-pushing only account, take your pick.  Sandstein  09:06, 2 August 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.

Article: "Wroclaw"

The following discussion is closed. 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 tried to improve the article of the Polish city Wroclaw, especially the history part. But I'm suddenly facing "a wall of users" that do not understand the need of sources. "This is a polish city, and we know it's history the last 1000 years in our minds" is the impression I get. Someone actually has written the following to me on the talk page "As has already been pointed out to you, there are far, far better sources than either the Nordisk Familjebok or the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. We have no realistic reason to consider even looking at those sources. It would just be a waste of time". However the article lacks also references in polish or any other language. This must (obviously) be explained to them, that this isn't how Wikipedia works ! This Wikipedia is english, not polish. Anyone that can substanciate what he/she wrights about through sources may do so. But unsourced not well-known things that may have origins from rumours or inventions cannot be accepted with the only comments like the one I've presented here. Am I wrong ? If not please help me. The history of polish cities is a part of this Wikipedia, aswell as any other subject. Boeing720 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and not a matter for administrators. You should use the dispute resolution mechanism. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:25, 2 August 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.

Block-evading, Michigan-based global warming external link spammer; ACTION SOUGHT: 1yr IP range block

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

---

Caution: Case presents slippery IP issues Apologies for using the "story format". Due to the slippery IP issues I could not organize it otherwise.

User being reported A block-evading Michigan IP, details below. For one recent example 99.181.142.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Basis of complaint User has obvious POV on global warming and uses persistent external link spamming to advance that POV, without making meaningful attempt to improve articles

IP RANGE TO BE BLOCKED This is most likely the IPs residence: start 99.181.128.4 stop 99.181.159.79

EXAMPLE BEHAVIOR

• [external POV links on talk pages under thim patina of collaboration]. For example with subject heading "Add?" and then the link. As though this constitutes meaningful discussion of a proposed edit.
• In just two hours on August 1, in the guise of 99.181.142.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this sock made nearly 40 edits, of which about thirty added a global warming or environmental external link consistent with the user's POV in favor of conservation, two made a trivial wordsmithing edit, and the rest turned text to wikilinks for no good reason. My own conservation sentiments are similar, but that's not the point. The point is that my watchlist is full of non-edits consisting of POV-based external link spam, articles I care about are being hit with linkbloat, and I'm wasting hours of happy editing time monitoring and sifting this persistent external link spam.
• Likely over a 1000 other examples all told.
• My watchlist has turned into a turn-off.

DETAILS, WARNINGS, BLOCK EVASION and EVOLVING OPERATING PROCEDURE

This IP started off with a fairly stable IP address, 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs), at the Kalamazoo Michigan public library. The complicating IP issue is that in May someone else used the same IP to disrupt the project and so this IP is now blocked due to the third party's actions. I'm seeking a block for the primary alternate (an IP range) for the original party. Although this stable IP is nowblocked due to the 3rd party's actions, I will continue telling the story as it unfolded. Last winter, the library IP was the primary, and the first alernate was the IP range for which I seek the block. But it was all the same person.

They started by slamming climate talk pages with the entire text, or most of the text, from external articles on global warming related issues, like this for example. After Arthur Rubin complained of copyright problems, the IP instead targeted edit summaries.

After making a minor tweak to an article, the IP would load up the edit summary with unrelated links favoring the IP's POV. For example, after adding a wikilink to Climate change mitigation (meaning cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions to try to stop global warming), the IP abused the edit summary to advance his POV. He did this by loading up the edit summary with many additional links, including links to potentially catastrophic problems that might be caused by global warming if we don't, as the IP wants us to do, start combatting global warming. This is link spam to advance their interests, and that is disruptive and a form of vandalism.

In midwinter I made several unsuccessful attempts to reform IP 97.87.29.188's behavior, chronicled on my talk page here. Accordingly, on Feb 1, IP 97.87.29.188 was blocked for 30 days for external link spamming.

HOWEVER, the IP simply continued the behavior from other dynamic IPs....

• 99.181.133.202 21:39, February 1, 2012 to 22:25, February 1, 2012
• 99.181.138.136 23:01, February 1, 2012 to 00:57, February 2, 2012
• 99.181.139.43 23:04, February 13, 2012 to 23:45, February 13, 2012
• 99.181.157.121 18:31, February 14, 2012 to 20:01, February 14, 2012
• 99.181.132.23 01:21, February 14, 2012 to 02:21, February 14, 2012
• 99.181.145.106 22:45, February 14, 2012 to 02:17, February 15, 2012

Therefore, the 30-day block clock was reset on Feb 16 and yet the IP continued their POV campaign of external link spam. BUT (a key point!!) they switched dynamic IPs. Instead of exposing 99.181.___.___ to additional sanctions, they instead conducted their block evasion using some tertiary (expendable?) sites with dynamic IPs. Details are here. I infer that 99.181.___.___ (the range they protected during the 30 days) is for his primary residence.

After the 30 days expired, they fired that location back up with a long list of virtually 100% meaningless edits. Note the rapidity of their addition of articles... and a running battle with Arthur who is trying to combat the IPs behavior. From Feb 16 to June 30....

Collapsed ip list

99.181.128.177 20:46, June 16, 2012 to 22:32, June 16, 2012 99.181.128.183 23:56, May 1, 2012 to 00:15, May 2, 2012 99.181.128.237 19:53, June 8, 2012 to 23:11, June 8, 2012 99.181.128.4 19:08, June 10, 2012 to 20:01, June 10, 2012 99.181.129.132 00:08, April 5, 2012 to 01:04, April 5, 2012 99.181.129.83 23:13, April 20, 2012 to 23:40, April 20, 2012 99.181.130.240 20:35, June 10, 2012 to 21:22, June 10, 2012 99.181.130.36 20:53, January 21, 2012 to 20:56, January 21, 2012 99.181.130.94 16:02, January 15, 2012 to 17:10, January 15, 2012 99.181.131.189 22:17, March 19, 2012 to 01:55, March 20, 2012 99.181.131.192 18:09, April 20, 2012 to 18:45, April 20, 2012 99.181.131.205 22:03, June 14, 2012 to 22:42, June 14, 2012 99.181.131.210 18:16, May 12, 2012 to 20:47, May 12, 2012 99.181.131.215 15:01, January 13, 2012 to 16:59, January 13, 2012 99.181.131.243 22:03, June 17, 2012 to 23:04, June 17, 2012 99.181.131.248 19:35, March 18, 2012 to 00:20, March 19, 2012 99.181.132.130 21:29, January 21, 2012 to 21:51, January 21, 2012 99.181.132.241 18:57, April 18, 2012 to 22:00, April 18, 2012 99.181.133.138 [4]22:40, June 30, 2012 to 22:56, June 30, 2012 99.181.133.141 01:41, January 23, 2012 to 02:48, January 23, 2012 99.181.133.170 00:25, May 13, 2012 to 00:44, May 13, 2012 99.181.133.228 22:21, January 14, 2012 to 23:36, January 14, 2012 99.181.134.192 21:58, May 4, 2012 to 00:45, May 5, 2012 99.181.134.196 22:49, May 8, 2012 to 00:50, May 9, 2012 99.181.134.31 01:07, April 24, 2012 to 01:30, April 24, 2012 99.181.134.5 20:07, May 1, 2012 to 21:26, May 1, 2012 99.181.134.70 16:35, April 10, 2012 to 22:35, April 10, 2012 99.181.134.88 22:38, January 24, 2012 to 00:52, January 25, 2012 99.181.135.113 [3]17:22, January 24, 2012 to 18:45, January 24, 2012 99.181.135.167 [2]18:58, April 20, 2012 to 22:36, April 20, 2012 99.181.135.17 22:03, May 1, 2012 to 23:34, May 1, 2012 99.181.136.157 18:41, June 2, 2012 to 19:47, June 2, 2012 99.181.136.208 00:47, July 1, 2012 to 01:32, July 1, 2012 99.181.136.35 [4]19:16, June 17, 2012 to 19:53, June 17, 2012 99.181.136.82 00:01, June 29, 2012 to 00:16, June 29, 2012 99.181.137.180 01:04, April 14, 2012 to 02:37, April 14, 2012 99.181.137.3 19:53, April 22, 2012 to 23:15, April 22, 2012 99.181.137.33 21:56, June 6, 2012 to 23:06, June 6, 2012 99.181.137.83 22:12, April 24, 2012 to 22:52, April 24, 2012 99.181.138.146 [10]02:00, June 19, 2012 99.181.138.164 16:41, May 31, 2012 to 19:35, May 31, 2012 99.181.138.196 00:05, January 23, 2012 to 00:16, January 23, 2012 99.181.138.32 22:02, April 16, 2012 to 23:14, April 16, 2012 99.181.138.35 17:01, January 22, 2012 to 17:08, January 22, 2012 99.181.138.52 18:15, January 15, 2012 to 21:29, January 15, 2012 99.181.138.56 00:42, June 9, 2012 to 01:44, June 9, 2012 99.181.139.142 [10] 11:47, May 9, 2012 99.181.139.153 23:14, April 28, 2012 to 00:27, April 29, 2012 99.181.140.126 10:12, May 11, 2012 to 10:38, May 11, 2012 99.181.140.141 01:10, May 13, 2012 to 01:54, May 13, 2012 99.181.140.167 01:54, June 29, 2012 to 02:12, June 29, 2012 99.181.140.176 03:11, July 1, 2012 to 03:14, July 1, 2012 99.181.140.207 21:15, June 17, 2012 to 21:24, June 17, 2012 99.181.141.90 23:59, June 30, 2012 to 00:20, July 1, 2012 99.181.142.126 22:33, May 6, 2012 to 01:28, May 7, 2012 99.181.142.150 [12]20:39, April 23, 2012 to 22:07, April 23, 2012 99.181.142.152 21:11, April 27, 2012 to 23:21, April 27, 2012 99.181.142.159 20:02, May 31, 2012 to 02:41, June 1, 2012 99.181.142.19 20:28, April 2, 2012 to 00:10, April 3, 2012 99.181.142.194 [10]21:45, June 22, 2012 99.181.142.231 20:24, January 16, 2012 to 00:53, January 17, 2012 99.181.142.25 23:11, June 28, 2012 to 23:22, June 28, 2012 99.181.142.87 22:53, June 16, 2012 to 02:04, June 17, 2012 99.181.143.181 02:29, July 1, 2012 to 02:46, July 1, 2012 99.181.143.217 14:41, June 16, 2012 to 15:20, June 16, 2012 99.181.143.45 01:59, April 5, 2012 to ) 04:00, April 5, 2012 99.181.143.48 19:32, January 21, 2012 to 20:18, January 21, 2012 99.181.144.253 16:23, January 21, 2012 to 18:43, January 21, 2012 99.181.145.153 19:40, January 14, 2012 to 20:35, January 14, 2012 99.181.147.154 [15]14:58, June 17, 2012 to 15:39, June 17, 2012 99.181.147.173 00:46, June 13, 2012 to 00:55, June 13, 2012 99.181.147.96 17:04, April 1, 2012 to 00:15, April 2, 2012 99.181.148.206 18:53, April 27, 2012 to 20:22, April 27, 2012 99.181.148.240 19:10, May 13, 2012 to 00:41, May 14, 2012 99.181.149.83 16:15, January 19, 2012 to 17:17, January 19, 2012 99.181.149.86 19:35, January 25, 2012 to 20:40, January 25, 2012 99.181.150.169 19:06, June 9, 2012 to 19:28, June 9, 2012 99.181.151.68 04:50, June 19, 2012 to 05:00, June 19, 2012 99.181.152.120 15:32, January 23, 2012 to 16:32, January 23, 2012 99.181.152.187 19:55, June 9, 2012 to 20:31, June 9, 2012 99.181.152.94 18:35, January 31, 2012 to 00:38, February 1, 2012 99.181.153.161 11:46, May 7, 2012 to 12:18, May 7, 2012 99.181.153.18 19:30, April 12, 2012 to 22:08, April 12, 2012 99.181.153.207 16:12, June 10, 2012 to 17:18, June 10, 2012 99.181.153.4 06:28, January 17, 2012 to 06:47, January 17, 2012 99.181.154.161 21:33, January 18, 2012 to 23:08, January 18, 2012 99.181.154.233 13:27, May 13, 2012 to 15:43, May 13, 2012 99.181.155.14 18:16, January 22, 2012 to 22:00, January 22, 2012 99.181.155.9 19:41, June 14, 2012 to 20:57, June 14, 2012 99.181.155.96 12:49, June 10, 2012 to 15:28, June 10, 2012 99.181.156.212 03:19, July 1, 2012 99.181.157.73 [3]18:01, January 17, 2012 to 18:59, January 17, 2012 99.181.158.174 18:22, June 1, 2012 to 20:10, June 1, 2012 99.181.159.67 16:46, January 28, 2012 to 18:29, January 28, 2012 99.181.159.79 18:09, June 10, 2012 to 18:55, June 10, 2012

ACTION SOUGHT

• (A) Pretend the block clock for 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs) was reset for each instance of block evasion, instead of erroneously allowed to expire on March 16 due to lack of vigilance (LATER: I struck some of my own prior words because I belatedly realized no admin action was needed to reset the clock. See details under "Answer 1 of 3" below.)
• (B) Tentative decision to impose IP range block for 12 months pending completion of sock inquiry and checkuser as appropriate.
  • start 99.181.128.4
  • stop 99.181.159.79
• (C) Advice on what to do when the sock evades the block using the tertiary (expendable?) dynamic IPs used for block evasion before (during the official 30-day block).

APPRECIATION Many thanks to Arthur Rubin for compiling the IP sock's contrib history.

NOTICE Since dynamic IP's don't have a one-stop talk page, I am posting notices of this proceeding at four places, one of which will almost certainly get their attention.

• The library IP 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs)
• Talk:Arthur_Rubin
• User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list
• Talk:Global warming

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

PS, article talk pages and some user talk pages are replete with attempts to reform this users behavior. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the Aug 1, June 16 and May 1 contrib lists (which reflect current behavior) and I'm not seeing a pattern that warrants blocking. Adding a bunch of on topic external links to articles in ScienceNews and BusinessWeek may be excessive, but it doesn't seem disruptive. There are some quite reasonable content disputes, see for example this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banking_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=490257754 and what follows. We operate on the assumption that bad editors can be reformed. Could point out a few edits in the past month that you feel make your case?--agr (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

See edit warring at [17] and the ip's edits to Talk:Christianity_and_environmentalism for example of problematic editing against concensus. Note that article has been semiprotected twice this summer due to the ip's editwarring/disruption. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification. The problem on the above page shows that in addition to identical talk page disruption as on climate related pages, the editor is edit warring there against any concensus for his desired content and pushing a different pov. Vsmith (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Answer 1 of 3, after Feb 1 all edit content is irrelevant because WP:SOCK states,

"The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust" and

"in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart"

Under this language the act of block evasion itself - not administrator button pushing - restarts the clock. Given the nonstop behavior from the IP, application of the policy as written means the original block is still in "virtual" effect under our policy if not in the server's programming. Would ignoring the rule as written help us improve the project? ANSWER: No. The rule as written reflects the essential need for collaboration, teamwork, and trust and defines block evasion as "a serious breach of community trust". It is the fact of block evasion that restarts the clock, and we have ample examples that show the timing of the evasion, regardless of content.

Answer 2 of 3, this is a dripping faucet case, not a roadside bomb case. It is the cumulative effects of many non-edits in my primary subject area that is the issue here. On the first night, the dripping faucet is mildly annoying. After 12 months of sleep deprivation you're just about ready for the psych ward. So please adjust your yardstick to think "cumulative lowlevel dirsuption" instead of single bomb vandalism.

Answer 3 of 3, I will attempt to compile examples subsequent to your earliest date (May 1) to illustrate the dripping faucet and its impact. But that will take some time. Stay tuned. Meanwhile, hopefully other climate editors will chime in. Thanks for your interest and review so far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The range contribs for 99.181.128.0/19 shows there would be significant collateral damage from a rangeblock. If the person is spamming external links, the links can be added to the WP:BLACKLIST in order to solve problem. 64.40.54.25 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you assuming the sheer volume of edits from this range necessarily implies different editors? I chose 10 random sample IPs from the first page of hits off your link and they all appear to be the subject of this complaint (same style, overlapping main subject area of enviro & climate). Also, this is not a case where the IP is spamming the same thing over and over. As I will show, they have demonstrated no intent on actually editing, and instead make trivial non-edits and bad faith talk page posts for purpose of advancing their own interest in global warming mitigation (halting greenhouse gases) with external links to nearly anything and almost everything that crosses the newswires. So the blacklist suggestion was a good one, but inapplicable here. Thanks anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you assuming the sheer volume of edits from this range necessarily implies different editors? Yes, that was my assumption. I didn't look at the edits, so I could be mistaken. A CU will be able to give us a definate answer for both registered and IP editors. My personal opinion is that page protection is less severe than a one year rangeblock. 64.40.54.25 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, page protection is ill-advised because of the multitude of article/talk pages, and because a lot of good faith IP editors would be negatively impacted.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I do believe that a /19 network is 8192 addresses (x.x.0.0 - x.x.31.255, ie: 32 Class C networks), which is indeed a fair amount of collateral damage. In extreme cases, that kind of damage might be accepted for a very short period of time, but I don't remember a range block of that size, from a known carrier (AT&T Internet Services) being maintained for even a full day. You need to look at page protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page semi-protection can be applied, however, the wide number and variety of articles involved is problematic plus the bulk of the disruptive editing occurs on talk pages and we don't normally semiprotect those. Seems our ip jumping editor knows this and is using it to game the system. Perhaps the range should be examined to see if many/any valid ip edits are not this problem editor. Vsmith (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I don't know, I would have to defer to someone who knows networks better than I do, and I doubt it would be a 1 year block. That is a lot of IPs. Not sure who would be a good admin to ask, maybe they will wander by and chime in. And maybe something smaller than /19 could be used, I haven't done all the math here, didn't bring my slide rule with me today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge the technical challenge this presents. There has got to be some way, else the IP's methods are a blueprint for others on how to disrupt any controversial subject area, and the ultimate result could easily be an end to all IP editing. Since that is an outcome to be avoided, let's keep looking for an answer! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've sliced this pie 100 times and there isn't a way to get less than /19 that I can tell, they are all static broadband, and adsl [18] which I thought was a little odd. Not cellphone. I'm trying to determine what the real damage would be now by determining the typical use on that particular leg of the network. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is actually part of 99.176.0.0/12, over 1 million adsl addresses[19]. He might only have access to /19 of, or maybe that is all we have seen so far. To answer below, you don't really sanction an IP, you block it or don't. It is not a person, it is an address and any number of people can be using it over a month's time. I can't block here, maybe someone else can. I'm at the end of what I can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would also appreciate some kind of sanctions or block against this user. The constant "Please add random article link?" posts to talk pages and other link spam certainly do clutter watchlists, and add nothing useful to the articles. The user also provides less than helpful responses to other user comments. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  We don't block an entire range of ips just because your watchlist is cluttered.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Except this clutter is a defined form of disruptive vandalism because the primary purpose of the uer's contribs is to conduct external link spam in support of the user's POV.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Soft blocked the range for a month. Those interested should monitor the editing area for the active socks that will inevitably arise.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 2 August 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.

Copyright violations and plagiarized public domain content

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

---

199.46.198.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) The above IP has been placing unattributed additions on vaccine related materials. The contributions are multiple sentence in length, sometimes with minimal modification. Some sources are public domain, but are still unattributed. A warning about copyrighted materials was placed, but the behavior continued. This did not go to WP:CCI because:

1. I'm not sure this has reached "long term";
2. I think the violations from this IP have been dealt with; and
3. the board is backlogged.

Examples:

1. PMID 19837285 to this and this.
2. PMID 19162109 to this.
3. Content from this public domain source wound up here and here.
4. After the warning, the behavior continued. This edit used wording that has been kicking around internet forums for a while, even if I did not find the original.
5. This is straight from PMID 6469355.

The above list is far from exhaustive. While I believe all the incidents from this IP have been dealt with (more eyes wouldn't hurt), any assistance in stemming the problem would be appreciated.Novangelis (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 month for persistent copyvios. I looked at him yesterday and removed one their contribs for that. Thank you for bring it up.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Content that is the public domain is not subject to copyright at all, so there isn't a way to infringe upon the "rights" because you have the right to do whatever you want to it, for all intent and purposes. Literally, it is impossible to infringe works that are in the Public Domain. Attribution is not required, even when it is a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not being illegal does not make something appropriate behavior on Wikipedia: WP:Plagiarism#Why plagiarism is a problem. It just isn't as serious.Novangelis (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• As long as PD material is cited, it can be cut and pasted until the cows come home. It's only a problem if it's provided without a source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Berean Hunter blocked him for copyvio of copyrighted material, not the PD items linked here, and pinged me the link, so the block makes a lot more sense now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• For clarity, the additions to Alice Cooper was a copyvio of the website SickthingsUK and the Chlamydia vaccine addition was a copyvio of this article. This isn't just PD stuff.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Content on PubMed can be subject to copyright. Abstracts are commonly (not always) part of copyrighted articles such as the examples. Sites that are generally public domain can host copyrighted materials.Novangelis (talk) 18:16, 2 August 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 edit blocks and page protection

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

---

IP User 67.164.72.88 (and formerly 24.113.190.101) continue to re-add the same false data to five articles related to Gargoyles (TV series). Although I already knew this information to be false (obviously alone am not a reliable source) I also cannot verify it in any form except for a few similar Wikia.com articles requesting deletion claiming (as I assumed) to be fan faction.

Diffs for IP:24.113.190.101: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Diffs for IP:67.164.72.88: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

As they are the only types of edits made with these IPs, I request an edit block for both as well as possible temporary protection of articles Gargoyles (TV series), Gargoyles the Movie: The Heroes Awaken, Zach Tyler Eisen, and Keke Palmer. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

67* blocked 24h; 24* is stale. Articles protected for a week. If he comes back, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP should be used. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 3 August 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.

Ched Davis is not qualified to be an admin

The following discussion is closed. 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:HanzoHattori was community banned two years ago, and that accounts userpage still says they'r banned. HH socked in the meantime and his latest (apparent) sock, User:Niemti, was blocked after an SPI investigation. Administrator User:Ched Davis unilaterally unblocked the sock, which is in direct violation of WP:BAN. An unban discussion at WP:AN located here [20] showed no consensus for an unban, yet the sock was unilaterally unbanned anyway. A large number of people expressed their reservations about this, those concerns were ignored and the discussion was closed. You can either rewrite the policy to allow administrators to unilaterally undo bans or you can believe that Ched Davis isn't qualified for his sysop bit. An administrator who grossly violates core policy ought to be desysopped. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of points. I don't see what ANI can do about this, other than argue over the issue further. Your wording implies that Ched Davis went against consensus, when actually there was support for the unblock. There were also arguments against it - that you disagree with Ched's interpretation of the consensus...well, what do you expect ANI to do? He's open to recall (see here). Go talk to him instead of making a dramatic thread on a noticeboard. OohBunnies! (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I tell you what Burpelson AFB, when you contribute comparable quality content to the encyclopaedia as Niemti has, then I will listen to your argument. Comparing your two contribs list for the last few days is... compelling. Sorry to be harsh, but there you go. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• The action was closed for lack of consensus, no reason to keep someone blocked in absence of a consensus. Ched is an experienced admin who appropriately racheted down the dramazah until the process plays its way out. An ad homenim attack like this is inappropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 22:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• There are two problems here. Burpelson, I don't see you talking to to Ched on his talk page, and we generally require that to bring up an ANI, a show of effort to resolve the problem with the other participant. Second, I was there and opposed the unblock strongly, and watched the unblock, and disagreed with Ched on his view of consensus, yet this has already played out at WP:AN, and this ANI might be seen as a second bite of the apple. Even though I disagree with Ched on the unblock, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a good admin and I fully support him. Blocks are cheap, and if an admin is to "err", I would rather see it on an unblock than on a block. I also know and respect you a great deal, and I completely understand while you are a bit pissed, it irked me a bit as well, but I respect Ched enough to give Niemti (and Ched) a little rope. The deed is done and there was no consensus there at WP:AN to undo it. It was bold. It was classic WP:IAR. Time will tell if Ched was more insightful than us, or simply foolish. Reblocking is easy if Ched was wrong, and we can explore it at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Burp, I recall that discussion about Niemti and IIRC HH was from 4 years ago and Niemti has been producing content. Now, has Niemti been producing content? Yes. Has he been disruptive? Not that I saw. If so, show me. Now you mainly seem to hang around drama pages and here you accuse Ched of not being qualified to be an admin. Now, if you'd bothered to look at the thread just above yours on Ched's talk page, re you'd see that the blocking admin, JamesBWatson, told Ched he had no objection to an unblock. This is how it's supppossed to work. Now you on the otherhand, come here and accuse Ched of being unfit. Far from it, Ched acted most appropriately but you cause more unneeded drama that will go nowhere and on top of that a good case could be made for this being a personal attack. Plus you never brought this up with Ched. Now, go produce some content. PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ugh, we're doing this again? Can't we be done already? Silverseren^C 22:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, boy. Burperson AFB, my suggestion is that you please talk this over with Ched about his actions. Other than that, I think there's not much that ANI can do. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Some people here are going to disagree with Ched some people here are going to disagree with Burpelson. No action will be necessary. Let's archive this now before it gets ugly. Ryan Vesey 22:27, 2 August 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.

HanzoHattori II

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

---

Too late, it's already ugly -- there's no need to bash Burpelson AFB and go on about his contributions; if contributions are the measure of an editor, ya'll should be yelling at me for the close, as BA has more than three times the number of mainspace edits I do. The AN & ANI close protocol is an undocumented experiential thing -- I closed it because two of my very few wiki talents is "reading the wiki wind" and the unblock isn't going to be flipped and I hoped the close would just stop the drama. Obviously I was wrong and BA isn't knowledgeable enough of the unwritten rules to realize they should have just rolled the close off if they felt strongly enough to add a comment. Ched acted in good faith and BA did too (and I tried). Nobody Ent 22:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• If the OP wishes to start a new ban discussion, please feel free. Otherwise, the unbanned editor has been handed a whack of wP:ROPE dangerouspanda 22:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I was, a little ungently, just prompting the OP to consider exactly why we are here. I think it is fine to point out what I did; because I think that, although in good faith, in pursuing this he has lost sight of that. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It is usually better to just address the concern, explain another perspective and not diminish the person expressing the concerns. It sounds personal if you start comparing the reporting party to others, as that isn't the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Kinda my point. Is the issue that "HH is suddenly unblocked", or is it "admin X unblocked someone without fully apparent consensus"? Of course, asking that question will open up others, including "does the OP have a negative history with either HH or the admin?" The answeres to which could lead to more drama than a Shakespeare festival dangerouspanda 23:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have opposed the unblock of HH and since he was unblocked, I was seriously concerned that he would cause serious trouble despite our good faith efforts, and I think he has. So I also think it's better if we should just address the concerns and ask ourselves questions about the issues presented in the above comment. Other than that, I feel that only time might tell if the unblock was too much. Since some of the answers to the questions might lead to more drama per the concerns by EatsShootsAndLeaves, I think that we should just bring forth a swifter resolution to bring this drama to an end. Any thoughts or ideas? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ROPE. Reblocks are cheap if and when they cause more problems in the future. Based on their history, their first block will likely be indef. Close this and move on dangerouspanda 23:56, 2 August 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:Explorationofspace

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

---

Back when this user modified the 2012 Olympics games, he inputted an original research piece after discovering or based off a twitter feed that the logo if colored appropriately would look like Bart Simpsons receiving fellatio from Lisa Simpsons. It was kind of irrelevant and I removed it because I assumed without the source to be vandalism. He later attacked me because he assumed I was a bot reverting his contribution especially his colorful language here [21]. You can view the discussion during his block where he still maintains a negative attitude instead of assuming WP:AGF. I ignored the entire thing and moved on while keeping his talk page on my watch list. Then today I noticed he's having an issue with another user debating the usage of a Ford Escape photo and then he dropped the ethnic slur "pindos" [22] which I did not know what that term meant until I had to look it up on Google.

Pindos (пиндос) is a Russian ethnic slur and filth term, currently used for referring Americans in a strongly derogatory manner. Respectively, the USA is called Pindostan or Pindosia.

This user must be reminded to maintain a civil voice here at Wikipedia and omit from using racial terms including personal attacks. ViriiK (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Or banned. Forever. By preference.Explorationofspace (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth a minimum of 48 hr block. Ethnic insults only come from the lowest of the low. No sign that they understand any of the five pillars dangerouspanda 22:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if I give you any of the accounts I've ever used for this project since 2006, also all the possible IPs, also whatever names I can think of ever signing up with again (actually, if you just ban the static I will give you, I guarantee that as long as I'm home I won't hurt Wikipedia anymore)? See, the thing is... I like to lie. I like to give false dates to future events, I like to write stuff which never occurred, and to edit articles I have no clue about. It's kinda entertaining. You'll hardly ever meet such a troll/vandal again, but oh well... The choice is yours,Explorationofspace (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I just indef blocked for trolling, checking into socking possibilities. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 2 August 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: Jason532012

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

---

Editor User:Jason532012 has become continually disruptive in the talk section of Talk:David Irving. For the past few days, he has constantly cluttered up the page with suggestions for edits that expressly violate WP:NPOV, WP:IRS, and WP:NOR. After having his arguments questioned, and it is suggested that he read up on Wikipedia policy, he either goes into debate that has nothing to do with valid edits the article, or becomes insulting and somewhat threatening. He then starts new conversations about things that have already been discussed, starting the disruption of the page all over again. This has gone on for several days, and the talk page of the David Irving article has subsequently become a mess. He continues the same disruptive behavior no matter how many times it is asked that he be more civil and review Wikipedia's rules. According to his talk page, he has also been disruptive in other talk pages of articles, despite that he has not contributed any actual edits to Wikipedia articles. Xombie (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you notified him yet? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(Since he just posted the report, I presume he's in the process of notifying right now…) —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This recently opened account has been used almost exclusively for commenting on talk pages on David Irving, who is a well-known holocaust denier, and Anti-Semitism. In one of his first postings, on the talk page of an article about the Dreyfus affair, which is regarded as a notorious example of anti-Semitism, Jason532012 writes,

"...I've noticed that in each and every article I've read here at Wiki, over the past several years, related to Judaism, and/or Jewish groups in general, the words anti-semitism, and anti-semitic, are always systematically sprinkled throughout. This well-worn Jewish insistance that each and every opponent is motivated strictly by bias and prejudice is, not only exclusive to the Jewish groups, but quite often ill-contrived at best. I personally believe it's time to leave the obligatory Jewish apologetics behind us, and present any and all Jewish articles in the same unbiased light in which we present those of the many other ethnic, religious, and political groups. Given the obvious protective bias that Wiki holds for the Jewish diaspora, I've been extremely careful here not to be entirely too critical of the group. I've also been careful not to move beyond the facts. So I guess we'll see if Wiki will allow the same criticism of articles relating to this group that we see of the other groups. If not, the anti-semitic police will simply cut my edit with the same rusty sword that I'm certain has cut so many before. Thank you."[23]

All his postings have made similar points, that Wikipedia is hiding harmful information about the Jews. Editors have been patient with him. However his postings have not changed. Notice his comment, "Wow, you folks are such a joke. I actually enjoy this hobby, because it grinds you so."[24] I suggest a topic-ban on articles related to Jews and anti-Semitism.

TFD (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He has posted on the talk page for Anti-Semitism as well, making absurd claims which a number of editors have rejected and politely asked him to stop espousing these views. It was mentioned on the talk page that Wikipedia isn't a place to insert personal views into articles to push an agenda. It was also mentioned why it wouldn't be appropriate to include what he writes in this article, and a link to another article where it's written about (although not as a fact, as he claims it to be, which is completely outrageous). Yet he continues, to the point that he engages in the act of twisting history upside down and spinning it in a centrifuge multiple times. On the talk page of David Irving, some of his comments are highly offensive, for example his conspiracy theory about "Wiki's relentless abuse of Jewish apologetics to prejudice the reader." In fact, I'm not so sure he's so serious about any of his editing, as he wrote on the Irving talk page also, "Wow, you folks are such a joke. I actually enjoy this hobby, because it grinds you so." [update: I see TFD mentioned this above as well]--Activism1234 00:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Point of evidence: Additional diff: [25] from Talk:Antisemitism. Telling sentence: "The historical record is very clear that the Jews have been banned from nearly every single country on this planet for their illconcieved practices of usury, brokering, and banking in general, including parts of the United States by General Grant."

User clearly on WP:SOAPBOX (and per the "because it grinds you so") approaching trolling level. Doesn't help that the soapbox opinion is impolitic to say the least. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also possible he's a sock. His comment, mentioned above, "I've noticed that in each and every article I've read here at Wiki, over the past several years." Funny comment, considering he joined on July 25, 2012, per his logs... --Activism1234 00:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the case with that, I'm indefinitely blocking now for disruption. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

People rarely come in as new editors from having been brand new readers. Most people use Wikipedia now; a lot fewer edit (and fewer than that have accounts).

That comment is not therefore a reliable admission of sockpuppetry.

Is he one? Possible. Not like we don't have recurrently returning antisemitic sockpuppeteers. But we need either a behavioral or technical link, not just him holding that opinion. The opinion is not so rare that we can or should assume it's always the same people coming back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

True, I interpreted his comments differently but now I see what you mean and I agree with you. --Activism1234 00:51, 3 August 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.

Electriccatfish2

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

---

Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs) and Chip123456 (talk · contribs), neither of them admins not an admin that I can tell, seem[s] to be getting a bit over-enthusiastic in patrolling some admin pages. I say it is up to admins to decide what reports to close. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Are their closures problematic? Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is no problem if non-admins bring some help at these admin-related pages if their contributions and actions are not problematic/controversial. Fasttimes asked and so do I: Are their actions problematic? —Hahc21 03:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I would hope that Bugs would not open a new thread here if the closures were not problematic. After all, it has been noted in the past that Bugs is himself an "over-enthusiastic" commenter on this Administrator's noticeboard :-)

This does seem to be an issue that goes around and around; there have been quite a few concerns recently about non-admin closures of permissions requests by Electriccatfish2 and others, comments that implied individual administrators were being approached about providing user-rights for members of the wikiproject that Electriccatfish2 and Chip are part of, and so on.

Although, according to the thread I'm not part of this anymore, ECF has been warned by CVUA coords and myself about asking admins to provide userrightSmChip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 11:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Problematic? I could go and do non-admin closes on a dozen controversial AfDs right now, but I think people might still want to question whether I should have done so, even if my closures were "right" in that admins ultimately agreed with them. I don't think it's unreasonable for Bugs to ask the question.

Bugs does perhaps need to be more specific about which particular boards concern him - AIV is the one he's mentioned on a user talk page. Are there more? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

When I post a complaint about a user at AIV, I expect an admin to make a judgment as to whether it's blockworthy or not. I do not appreciate non-admins taking issue with it and then zapping it on the grounds of "declined". Offering advice is one thing. Usurping an admin's authority is something else again. I'm thinking back on a user a year or so ago [I think it was Barts1a] who was doing that kind of thing, and was told to stop it or he would be blocked. The same situation applies here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, this may be a wider issue, and singling out these two individual editors may not make much sense. There's been a fair amount of discussion of a very much related issue at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions but for various reasons the discussion there has foundered. Here may not be the best place either. Maybe a broader discussion somewhere at the village pump would be better, to work out what we actually want non-admins to be doing in terms of closures, and why. The conclusions seem to depend on a very small number of people thus far, which leads to this kind of dispute. Bugs may or may not be right that it's accepted practice for non-admins not to behave like this at AIV - I don't know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about "Requests for permissions" discussion. I do know that AIV stands for "Administrator intervention against vandalism". I'm very happy to receive helpful advice from non-admins. I am not happy about non-admins deciding to delete stuff that it's only an admin's place to delete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, i have to agree with Bugs; non-admins are invited to comment and give helpful advice, but closing and archiving threads might be over the line, as it's intended to be done only by sysops. —Hahc21 03:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I agree with Bugs as well. It looks like they have been working the user-name noticeboard as well. Non-admins are welcome to comment but they should not be calling a report "declined" and removing it from the board unless it was an admin that declined the report. The case that prompted Bug's report is this one, where Catfish declined a report and then removed it from the board. And here's a recent one from the UAA board where Chip declined the report and Catfish removed it from the board. So neither of these cases actually saw any administrator attention. These boards are intended for issues that users wish to bring to administrators' attention, not to the attention of random people who choose to patrol these boards. That's my opinion. Sorry if it sounds kinda harsh. -- Dianna (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are the two items I'm talking about, yes. The AIV one was mine, and the UAA one I happened to see but it wasn't mine. If there's a larger issue afoot, it needs to be dealt with too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Propose a policy change. Non admins should not be masquerading as admins. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

They weren't even masquerading, or at least Catfish wasn't. He clearly stated "non-admin opinion". That's fine. Then he took it upon himself to delete the thread as "declined". That was NOT fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If a non-admin "declined" a report of mine at AIV and then removed it, it would go right back up with a stern admonition not to do it again. It ain't NAIV, after all. That's just me. Doc talk 03:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's essentially what I did. But as I am not an admin, it occurred to me that a warning from an admin might have a little more "clout". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I will put a note on the talk page of both of these individuals. Further instances of this problem, please re-post your case, and then put a polite notice on the user's talk page not to remove cases unless an admin has declined the case. And if they persist, please feel free to call on me, or bring it to this board if that is your preference. -- Dianna (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this still happening? I had mentioned my concerns previously but was unaware it was still occurring. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well shit. It looks like JamesBWatson warned them in June, as well. We got trouble; we are not getting through to this editor. -- Dianna (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My own opinion is that a non-administrator should not perform any AIV/UAA action that is reasonably likely to mislead another into believing they are an administrator. To me this means that non-administrators should mark any comments made on the page as non-administrative, and that they should never remove reports from the noticeboard itself, unless the report has already been closed by an administrator. I also believe that they shouldn't do anything at all unless it actually helps. But to be fair to both of these editors, we are dealing with scattered opinions. The consensus is not clear about the proper role of non-administrators on these noticeboards, so it would be unfair to admonish these editors significantly without clarity of opinion. There are quite a number of administrators who welcome comments (maybe not removals), especially when the appropriateness of the comment is obvious. With respect to Baseball, I think Catfish was clearly correct in his assessment of the AIV report that prompted this thread - hopefully, however, a prevailing consensus on the broader issue may soon become apparent. NTox · talk 05:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing an AIV report is the job of this guy. After an admin has dealt with it. NAO comments are one thing, but removing reports (that have not been addressed by an admin) from those boards is a no-no. Doc talk 05:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we have a bot at UAA too. I would suggest that you, NTox, as a non-admin, should let that bot do its job.[26] Doc talk 05:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Doc, the bot does not remove a report unless an administrator has blocked the account. It does not remove reports that have been declined by an administrator. Those need to be removed manually. Please see the recent discussion at WT:UAA in which non-administrators have been specifically asked to help with this. NTox · talk 06:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see - sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. Too bad the bots can't do that for declined reports (yet?); but naturally they wouldn't know if an admin or a non-admin had declined. Removing reports when no admin has even commented on it, as was demonstrated above, should be avoided. Some lucky mop handler will get to the report eventually. Doc talk 06:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That, I do agree with. NTox · talk 06:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like we have a reoccurring trend lately. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, haven't been here in a while. I haven't mad an NAC since for a while, can someone point out a recent one for me please! The one on UAA was a comment, it wasn't declined. Furthermore, I had a private email from Daniel Case (talk · contribs) (oversight, admin) saying he had no problem with this, but since I received that email, I haven't closed any. Thanks--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 06:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything keeping you in this report at all. I'd say you're free to go, but that would be a (Non-administrator comment). Doc talk 08:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I concur with comments made by Demiurge and NTox. One of the reasons why I, and possibly some other admins I know, rarely participate on this noticeboard and other places such as WP:RPE, and Unblock requests is specifically because they have become a venue for wannabe admins. This inevitably causes backlogs and some issues to be archived without conclusions. It's a viscous circle because non-admins see this and believe it is within their remit to do our job for us. There are plenty of other areas where users can play at being Internet-style 'moderators', such as vandal-fighting and NewPagePatrol where they can work without needing special rights and without trying to take decisions of the kind for which they possibly lack the knowledge and/or experience. If they want to be admins, there are plenty of other areas, such as content building, help desks, GA, and FA, to name a few, where the best all-round experience is gained and with which they can impress their future !voters at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that admins avoiding administrator noticeboards because they believe non-admins have taken control of them is a good thing. Someone is just bound to fill the gap... the gap left by the lack of administrator presence. It's a vicious circle, alright. Doc talk 07:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Concurring again - it's not a good thing, but it is happening. Perhaps I'll try to get involved more often. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Also - * Relisting an AfD (for a 3rd time) six hours after it had already been done by an admin - if you're going to do admin tasks, at least do them right! Black Kite (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually don't see why I'm here! The diff originally provided was a comment of mine, which didn't say declined or whatever. I've had an email from Dan Case, but haven't put what he said to use. I haven't made an NAC for sometime, so if someone could expalin why I am here, it would be appreciated. Cheers. Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 08:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Similar incidents also happening at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover , obviously not the thing to be encouraged. The FMV request of a user editing here since last 8 years with 62818 edits (including filespace and commons edits) was rejected by a One of the non-admins . The non-admin user even chose to comment on me when I reverted his "not so appropriate" closure. I admit that these editors are well-intentioned but (allow me to say) "over enthusiastic". Its preferable that after giving their opinion they leave certain cases for more experienced admins.--DBigXray 08:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment My two cents is that non-admin closures are fine on pages that do not require admin privileges to enforce in any way. On ones that DO require admin privileges (RFPP, AIV, UAA, etc.) non-admin comments are certainly welcome and I can say I've relied on them several times in making a closure on some noticeboard or another. However a non-admin closure presents an issue, particularly if there maybe rev-deleted edits involved, or if a wrong decision prevents a page from receiving admin intervention that it needs. Also I want to reiterate that it doesn't look like anyone here is impersonating an admin in anyway; the comments are clearly market non-admin (and arguably, for just a comment, I don't even think they would need to be. Anyone has the right to comment.) So Chip, don't get discouraged. Enthusiasm is great, but if the final decision involves access rights that one doesn't have, one should not make a closure decision (with a few exceptions, such as say Clerks on a page with those.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Correction as you can see here [27] the non-admin user simply marked it as {{not done}} and failed to use the {{nao}}, I later noticed it and corrected the fallacy [28]--DBigXray 09:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The NAO template is completely optional, so you can hardly call its nonuse a "fallacy".--Atlan (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I'm not making myself clear, per Swatjesters comments above. I have not (for a while) and do not intend to make an NAC's. If you have read my previous comments, you would understand this, and also understand that A. I'm not making them B. Its not just ECF (user Armbrust for example) and C. I am confused to why I am here, so would like a thorough explantion, for me. Excuse the bold, but obviously I'm not being seen, and would appreciate some answers. Thanks. Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Chip, please inform Armbrust of this thread since you mentioned him. DBigXray, please notify Riley Huntley for the same. Doc talk 10:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Y Informed Riley --DBigXray 11:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Chip, that was me not being clear. I wasn't suggesting that you were, or will do them. I was talking in general about enthusiasm for helping out on project-space pages as a non-admin.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, my names has been removed grom the thread name now, so I'm out of here. It seems there has been a lot of confusion. Bugs should of contatced Electric or myself if there was a problem, as this was the first time I heard of this issue - and seen as I haven't done anything wrong, I feel embaressed over something I haven't done wrong and that this thread has started. You can deal with Electric in due course - but i feel an apology from bugs is needed to me. Thanks. Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 11:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty simple - non-admins should not be performing admin tasks. That ranges from archiving discussions on these noticeboards, declining unblocks or username changes, or removing reports from AIV or elsewhere. The only exception is WP:NAC of AfD, but even they should be few and far between, and only when there is absolute consensus. GiantSnowman 11:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's common practice for any qualified editor to close AN & ANI reports as doing so does not require admin privileges. Concur with the other instances given. Nobody Ent 12:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to excercize my right to vanish. Electric Catfish 12:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No need to continue this discussion, I messed up bigtime, and I'm leaving. Bye! Electric Catfish 12:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's completely your choice, as no one's asking for anything even remotely along those lines. You didn't mess up that badly. Relax. Doc talk 12:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just trying to help and than I get this. Electric Catfish 12:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Catfish, you are very well needed here, Your enormous contributions are well appreciated. This thread is discussing the prevalence of such incidents in general. Please do not get offended, some editors are concerned about it, hence the discussion--DBigXray 12:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Chip123456 has stated that he's not going to do this again and Electriccatfish2 is retiring. In general, there's consensus that non-admin "clerk" roles should probably be formally proposed first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Moved from proposed close Nobody Ent

No problem with the close, but there's no such consensus, at least here and at AN. If such a consensus is to be determined, ANI is not the correct forum; if some editors want to change the existing practice here I recommend an RFC. Nobody Ent 12:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Chip merely commented at the UAA, which is fine. Catfish "removed declined report",[29] which was the wrong thing to do, as it had not been "declined", but merely commented upon. He also commented at AIV and then "declined" it himself, which again was thw wrong thing to do. As Catfish was apparently warned about this kind of thing before, he should have known better. But he didn't need to leave wikipedia. Perhaps he'll come back when he's had a chance to reflect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a proper way to deal with these issues, and ANI is not it. The user talk page is a start, then on a talk page of a regular admin at AIV, for example, who can help and give instructions to the editor making mistakes. Non-admin participation is important and needed here. There are some limits to what can be done, but that is an issue of clarity, not of good faith, so coming here wasn't a good idea, even if your faith was good. AFD, closing discussions, making recommendations, are all important roles and part of the training and learning process. Since they were both mentioned or are here, I would consider Armbrust and Nobody Ent excellent examples of non-admins that to it right (although Ent has a nasty habit of boldly reverting me at times ;). Instead of throwing editors in the stocks, we need to point them to people that do it right and let them learn how to be more effective. I've left a message on Catfish's talk page, but needless to say I will not be amused if he really does retire over this, since his mistakes were in good faith, even if in bad form. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What on Earth. That is the "existing practice" (that non-admins should not be performing quasi-administrative tasks without first getting consensus for them). Why exactly did you undo the close if you have "no problem" with it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many admins have communicated with me over the past hour, either by my talk page or by email, requesting me to return. The Answer: Of course, but in a few months from now. Also, this thread gives the idea that non-admins shouldn't participate in admin-related areas. I agree that an RFC would be best, and let's see how the community here feels. Also, it doesn't say anywhere in our policies here about what non-admins can do, so perhaps an RFC would get things going. Best, Electric Catfish 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC).

No, consensus has always been that non-admins can do anything that doesn't require admin tools to complete. There are certain areas, such as unblock requests, where that have been carved out as areas where non-admins should not act. That there are some non-admins making bad NACs in areas that have traditionally been admin dominated should be addressed, but banning all NACs both good and bad is not the solution, and there has not been consensus established for that. Monty₈₄₅ 13:45, 3 August 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:Gauge00

The following discussion is closed. 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 Gauge00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been WP:OWNing List of people of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which was decided by consensus in a recent AfD to be merged. Unfortunately, all attempts to reason with this user, who happens to be creator of the list, were met with rambling and venomous abuse (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms#Re:_List_of_people_of_the_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms; or more specifically these diffs [30][31], which are just the more recent ones and ignoring his history of abuse.) Another user has brought up this user's behaviour at WP:WQA at the end of June (Here in the archive, which lists some more instances of abuse), but we've received no assistance there and Gauge00 has since picked up with his personal attacks on whoever that dares cross paths with him. One user has already left in frustration, so we'll appreciate any help we can get. _dk (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(It appears WQA was unstaffed when the request was made.) The comments diff here are beyond the (unfortunately) usual snarkiness and well into the personal attack realm. Gauge00 was already warned for [32] in June by Mr. Stradivarius, so either a final warning by an admin or a block is warranted. Nobody Ent 10:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely time for a block. Multiple attacks on one talk page thread not to mention attacking an admin for deleting an article (although that is rather old and they'd been warned for that) is not the way to be collaborative. It's also highly ironic that they quote WP:CIVIL. Blackmane (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. JohnCD (talk) 11:21, 3 August 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:Whoblitzell compromised?

The following discussion is closed. 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 made this diff [33] to a page on my watchlist, which I subsequently reverted as vandalism. After looking at this users's contributions I find this blatant disprution to be out of character and this is the first edit in over three years, leading me to believe this account may have been compromised. User will be notified. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the limited edit history, and a few borderline edits in the past, I'm thinking it could well be the original owner, and maybe they just decided to mess around with the old account after being gone for years. I don't think there is a good way to tell if the account is in fact compromised, but as they have no permissions beyond autoconfirmed, it would probably be best to just treat it like any other potentially disruptive account and go through the normal warning process followed by an WP:AIV report. Monty₈₄₅ 16:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not really "potential" disruption. I've blocked the account indef. Either the account's been compromised, or the owner can explain that edit from inside an unblock request template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was about to post a level 4 final warning, but I can't argue against it being blockworthy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Bad edit filter

The following discussion is closed. 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 "template vandalism" filter at Special:AbuseFilter/422 should be disabled. Even though my IP has changed, this filter blocked me from adding information to a template and filing a TFD. --187.126.142.32 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This filter serves a useful purpose in preventing damage to templates, which can affect hundreds or even thousands of articles. I see no attempt to add any information besides a {{tfd}} template with no reason; perhaps you should suggest why you feel the template should be removed on its talk page? — Coren ^(talk) 17:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(For those who cannot see the filter details, a necessary part of the filter is to prevent substing of other templates). — Coren ^(talk) 17:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No comment about the edit filter, but the anon editor certainly makes a valid point with this TfD. That template is thoroughly obsolete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No comment about the template from me. Given that the matter seems clear and you agree on the substance, I'd be nice if you gave them a hand with the subst:?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 18:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Already done, of course. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 3 August 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.

Bananas Monkey and Renames

The following discussion is closed. 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, Would it be possible to put a restriction on this user, to prevent any further page moves? User seems to spend most of their efforts in systematically renaming articles, some with reason, but the great majority seem to be mis-interpretation of policies. There seems to be a language barrier, from having interacted and reviewing discussions. It looks like a few others have requested the user to stop their good faith, yet disruptive moves. Thanks.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed his unusual renames when he did one on Somebody That I Used to Know. And, FWIW, this user has been accused of sockpuppetry, and here is the report. Nothing else to comment by now. Also, UnQuébécois, could you provide additional info on which other unusual moves he's made? Thanks. —Hahc21 05:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at users contributions, pretty much a user set up just to do moves. Has numerous requests on talk page to stop moves.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I propose a simple measure: Bananas Monkey does not move any article at all unless they have attained a consensus on the article talk page. Infractions will lead to immediate, progressive blocks. Cleaning up page move messes drains valuable time and energy. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  Only problem I see is that the user has been asked to refrain from moves in the past and has not complied.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 19:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Well I agree with Drmies. An additional warning over moves not proposed on talk page and then, if xe insists on such moves, progressive blocks may be the only way left, as he is disrupting the 'pedia and making admins use valuable time on reverting his actions. —Hahc21 03:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with Drmies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 3 August 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.

Open and shut cases

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

---

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

---

Wow, there are so many closed cases here that the page looks like a sea of lavender. :)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 1 August 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.

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE Bad close, man! What a travesty! This is what's wrong with Wikipedia! etc. Zad68 18:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• OMGWTF SUPPORT CLOSE i think this CLOSEW AS AW3S0M3!!11!!!ELEVENTYONE!!! U r teh wrogn! - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please close this? Once that is closed the whole page will be purple! Arcandam (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're all over-reacting. I suggest (as I always seem to do) that we take a very low-key approach to this. It appears to me the best course of action is to shut our eyes, block our ears and hum "Yankee Doodle Dandy", while simultaneously pretending it's not happening, and then moving on to a strategy of hoping it will just go away by itself somehow.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Hopiakuta

The following discussion is closed. 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 ANI discussion was not about Nobody Ent but was a request for a closure of the AN discussion. I previously posted a request several days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Hopiakuta. If Nobody Ent or Dennis Brown would improve the summary, I'd be grateful. The result of the discussion (whether there was a lack of consensus to block or unblock) should be made clear in the summary by someone uninvolved like Nobody Ent or Dennis Brown so that there is a clear resolution. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The summary is optional, it isn't a required element. it is not required, so we aren't forced to fix it. We aren't so bureaucratic. If we were so bureaucratic, I would have closed this because you didn't try to solve the problem with Nobody Ent before coming here, which is technically required, via the top of the page here. And you didn't notify him after you filed, via the top of the page, but instead of being bureaucratic about it and telling you to, I just did it myself. Bringing this here, without attempting to just say "hey Ent, can you add more to the summary" is overkill. I'm not sure how to make this more clear than I did above. The summary is not the resolution, the resolution is. It is resolved. See the bottom of the archive. Or ask Ent. Or be bold and add one, but no admin action is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To add to that, sometimes people aren't 100% serious when they write their summaries. I'm fairly certain that the summary feature wasn't used on ANI until about a year ago. Agree that bringing this to ANI was a bit overkill. --Rschen7754 02:53, 4 August 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:MaritzaBot

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Dennis Brown. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:MaritzaBot is it an authorized bot? the operator name is not given.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see two explanations. A) This is a fake bot, and should be taken to UAA or B) This was a really crappy transfer from a foreign language Wikipedia. Either way, I don't see the point of keeping it. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems premature to block, as it seems that the account was just created. I've left a note on the talk page for now, but will be keeping an eye on it. --Rschen7754 00:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the bot name policy is clear, it's never too premature to block. Either it's an approved bot or it gets blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I indef blocked via Wikipedia:Bot policy as the potential damage from an unauthorized bot is higher than the inconvenience of requesting an unblock from the Bureaucrat who is going to authorize the bot. This isn't really a naming issue, since they aren't claiming to be a human with a name that ends in *.bot, they are claiming to be a bot, without any authorization to run that account. Once they get authorization, unblocking is trivial. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If it looks like they will be running a bot, I generally don't block right away, as you need the account to be created to open a BRFA request. Had they started editing anything other than the userpage, or had a day gone by with no BRFA showing up, that would be a different story. Furthermore, not every bot is flagged; BAG is the group that approves the request, and bureaucrats only flag certain bots if BAG deems it necessary for that particular bot. --Rschen7754 02:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally, they would be asking from their regular account, and they don't even claim what that account is. I'm typically quite slow to block, but the idea of an unauthorized bot is troublesome. However, if you feel it needs modifying in any way, softer, removed, etc, I won't take any offense to you doing so. That holds true for any action I take, anywhere here, for that matter. My concern was that we were worried about the name and not the bot. For names, I always wait until after communications has failed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't plan on modifying the block at all; this generally falls under admin discretion. Just wanted to explain my reasoning. --Rschen7754 02:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And your reasoning is sound, but something does look fishy enough for me to err on the cautious side this one time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:56, 4 August 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.

Small rangeblock request

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

---

A dynamic IP on a narrow range is edit warring on Kezie Ibe to add an alleged "full name" based on a search at www.findmypast.co.uk, definitely not a reliable source. Ibe isn't too widely covered in the news (he's an association football player who's bounced between semi-professional and professional for a few years), but I don't see any reliable sources for that full name. I think that a rangeblock of 82.132.249.0/26 (64 users) will stop the disruption, but I've edited the article and so can't make the block myself. Could someone else take a quick look and see if a rangeblock or semi-protection will be appropriate? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, and I'll keep an eye on the article and range as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Holy mother of Spock! That's one massive edit war for a tiny stub! Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wouldn't just semi protecting the article be better? Have all the edits from that range been problematic? Secretlondon (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Protection is supposed to be used for multiple person/IP abuse, not a single person. It has higher collateral damage, since all IPs are then blocked from editing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*But the collateral damage of range blocks is worse I would have thought as some then cannot edit at all, on any topic, without being forced to make an account (or get us to make them an account depending on the settings). (I've been spending a lot of time on UTRS and we get loads who cannot edit without an account due to range blocks). Secretlondon (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very tiny range, 64 IPs. Protection would stop all IPs, considerably higher damage. It isn't my opinion, it is policy that you block the range and not protect the page if you are sure it is one person. Even if you were talking about the whole class C, you would still protect here. And those are dial up static IPs, not very heavily trafficed ranges. They made the right call, no pun intended. Oh, and the other editor was already blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And while the pros and cons of rangeblocks were debated, the IP's latest hit went unreverted - I have done so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 4 August 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.

Suspicious edits by User:96.50.22.205

The following discussion is closed. 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:96.50.22.205 has been making some weird edits. I think it's best to investigate, as I'm not an expert on this. Something to do with proxies. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like a new user to me, and the edits are odd. You forgot to notify them using the template at the top of this page {{subst:ANI-notice}}, and this is required. I have done so for you but please remember in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Subtle vandalism, hard blocked for 1 month, third time with likely the same user. Probably needs all the edits reverted, I cleaned up some, minor changes to templates. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Almost all of the IPs edits have been reverted. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:10, 4 August 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:75.51.171.121

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

---

75.51.171.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editwarring in a point of view way at Human rights in North Korea. I have probably reverted his POV modification to the article too many times. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Being a non-contributor to that article, it appears to be a DPRK apologist who is intent on wiping information to paint a brighter picture of the DPRK. For example, he claimed that UN document was being misrepresented so I read the source and found that to be false. ViriiK (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Fred Bauder in this edit makes clear that his goal is to maintain the POV nature of the article. He asserts that "nothing the regime says is reliable" - a statement that is at odds with basic research standards. Yet, he accuses me of editwarring and making POV contributions? 75.51.171.121 (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Basic research standards recognise that when the well is poisoned, nothing from that well can be trusted. The North Korean government poisoned that well long ago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hrs for SOAP, DISRUPT, edit warring, etc. If there is talk page discussion that indicates that are willing to edit in accordance with our policies and values and research standards going forwards any admin can unblock (they posted the above while I was blocking, and the question of research standards and sources does deserve a fair discussion somewhere, sometime, in a less confrontational manner). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 4 August 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:Still-24-45-42-125

The following discussion is closed. 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 Still-24-45-42-125 just accused Eb123 and I of plotting to harm another Wikipedian, Machine Elf 1735 when we both said nothing of the sort, See: [35] and also [36] I nicknamed Machine Elf because I didn't even want to type out his full name. But as for the discussion here User talk:Ebe123 where I'm conversing with this user, I'm merely referring to these advices that Ebe123 was giving to Still as well as the discussion that he has going on with Machine Elf here [37]. I do not appreciate being accused of inflammatory comments especially being accused of supposedly threatening another user when that did not occur. ViriiK (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm as big a fan of WP:AGF as the next guy, but this would be the second such plot that ViriiK has been involved in.[38] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I did nothing to push you to make an inflammatory accusation that Ebe123 and I are supposedly planning to kill another Wikipedian. You did that yourself. ViriiK (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Kill another Wikipedian? I'm not seeing it, can you point to the diff so I have less to look through? Ryan Vesey 05:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Just attached them, I forgot to link the diffs. ViriiK (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol, "kill"? The plot really thickens now. A discussion of the plan to get Still blocked can be found here:[39] Acoma Magic (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Classic WP:BOOMERANG. Can't you at least try and hide this and do it off wiki? Sheesh. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a coincidence seeing the same friendly faces again. As for "kill", I'm sure you understand it's a euphemism for "remove from Wikipedia". If you're ever unsure about what I mean, the right thing to do is to ask, not to delete my comment and report me. Remember when you guys reported me for pointing out a logical fallacy by claiming I was being insulting? Oh, that was hilarious! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to say that using "kill" was a fairly poor word choice. In any case, I think it is clear what Still-24-45-42-125 meant. There's no reason to continue discussion on this issue as far as I'm concerned. There might be some boomerang issues, but hey let's act in the spirit of The Great Wikipedia Dramaout and walk away from this one. Ryan Vesey 05:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I filed no ANI notice against Machine Elf because it was nothing to me. I saw the BITE template as nonsense and ignored it for all those time. So the accusation that I'm trying to either get him banned or "kill" him is inflammatory in itself. Especially his poor choice of the word. Now he's hounding me on my talk page including making these comments. ViriiK (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to intentionally misunderstand what I'm saying, you're free to. However, an objective person would notice that I correctly used the word "harm" in my original comment, and only used "kill" euphemistically in my post to Elf's talk page, linking him back to where I said "harm". Just to avoid any "unintentional" misunderstandings, I'm going to change "kill" to "harm" now. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to see whether I'm actually hounding ViriiK should check out the comments on his talk page that he just deleted. In these comments, I calmly pointed out some edit-warring that he's been engaged in and he disregarded my comments. If someone should be roasting in ANI now, it's him. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You do realize, by trying to "calmy" point something out, you're engaging in another edit war, right? Repeatedly posting to someone on their talk page when they tell you to leave isn't exactly the best course of action. Regards, — Moe ε 06:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you're mistaken. If I kept reverting his deletion of my comments, you'd be right about edit-warring. Instead, I'm responding to his comments, and I'm entirely allowed to do that. If nobody could post to an editor's talk page without their permission, it would be impossible to edit collaboratively, so that's not what the site policies demand of us.

I am obligated to first notify him of his edit-warring before reporting him, and that means I am permitted to post on his talk page. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, that still doesn't mean it was an excellent idea for you to inform him that you could inform him of something in the future. When someone asks you to stay off of their talk page, the best solution is usually to make every possible attempt to stay off their talk page. Ryan Vesey 06:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's necessary. I'm not posting taunts, I'm reporting edit-warring. I'm obligated to warn him. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel that some sort of admin action is needed. Lionel's false report of Still breaking the 3RR and ViriiK filing this frivolous report indicates that their plan of getting Still banned is in action. I'm not saying this as a matter of argument, but because something needs to be done. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Acoma, I can't disagree with you, but you do understand that anything I post will just be called sour grapes, right? It would be helpful if these people could be convinced to improve their behavior. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

They've formed their little club though. They've got their manifesto written down lol. It's very hard to convince a group of people to change. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, plenty of administrators know about his promise to get me kicked off, but none of them care. Sounds like complaining about it on ANI would be useless. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of Lionelt's biggest critics, but y'all need to chill out and go work on building the encyclopedia. Please close this thread. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't open it... Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing the thread will just move the problem to another day. This will go on for too long. Some definitive action is needed. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not disagreeing, but allow me to remind you that all of the administrators who supported Lionel's ANI knew about his threats. I know this because I informed them and they just didn't care. Apparently, they're perfectly ok with this sort of thing! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What definitive action do you suggest, how do you believe it would solve a problem, and what do you think the long term ramifications could be of that. We're all a bit too lynch happy here. Ryan Vesey 06:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no suggestions. All I know is that I'd like the administrators to intercede so that Lionel and his buddies stop targeting me. I guess it would be nice if the dishonest block were removed from my record, but that's just icing. What really matters is that they cut it out. It's up to the administrators to figure out how to make that happen. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

How about an interaction ban on all those concerned? Time to grow up folks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 4 August 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.

Lazy Saturday

Gee, I don't know if I've ever seen a table of contents this short before! :-)

In any case, I was looking for more opinions on a RM over at Talk:Jane Harrison (GC). It's been open for two weeks with only my request and one other editor chiming in, so I was wondering if a few more people could take a look at it and opine appropriately. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:MikeWazowski

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

---

In regards to a newly created page for "Tyler Ward" [40], many of us have begun to add relevant information regarding the status of who the person is about and the band that his is most notably under with the same name (Tyler Ward) Not only has he deleted important information about the members of his band, the people he has worked with and his occupation as a producer and not just a singer/songwriter and basic, he has also deleted information such as is DOB, Full name and birthplace... He has also continued to delete the page in its entirety by deleting the top most viewed videos he has posted on YouTube (important seeing as he is a YouTube artist) and small segments including his ideas for music and his faith. I have tried to get in contact with him via his talk page however he has deleted what i have said and ignored it... Soon the page will be bare and i am very concerned with the way it is going as we, the fans of Ward have fought for a while to get him his rightfully deserved Wikipedia page... I don’t understand why he feels the need to delete such important information unless he has no knowledge of who the page is actually for. I feel he should not be doing this and that the original edit [41] created by many of us should remain and later expanded on further.. Help?

Joetri10 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Joetri10 fails to mention that he had been edit-warring on the article with another editor, and the content I removed was either unreferenced, or fell under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I also added various maintenance templates to the article, as it's in need of work from non-fans. I stand by my edits. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Ward was deleted in 2010 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Ward. I can't find a WP:DRV for it - if someone can't find one, I'm going to nominate this for deletion, as it doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. But it's probably a G4 and A7 CSD candidate. The complainant should urgently be working to add strong evidence of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician". That, and not this complaint, is the only thing that's going to prevent this article from being permanently deleted. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits all look fine to me, can't see anything worth an ANI report QU ^TalkQu 21:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Joetri10, nobody "deserves" a Wikipedia page. Somebody is either notable or they are not, and putting up WP:BIGNUMBERs on Youtube does not establish notability. Please also see WP:RS, WP:EW - and WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 4 August 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:SkepticAnonymous

The following discussion is closed. 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 think this diff needs to be addressed: [42]

Not just because it's a flagrant personal attack, but also because evidently this user has some history and he has been warned, recently and in no uncertain terms, not to make personal attacks: [43]

I'm sure there's more information out there, but this seems to cover everything necessary pretty concisely. Belchfire-TALK 22:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to review this edit summary. 72Dino (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: [44] Belchfire-TALK 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Problem solved. Indef blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Now he has deleted the block template twice and is asking for a review of the block by this abusive admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  Totally in support of you on this one, Dennis. When I initially unblocked him I made clear a repeat of his earlier behaviour would lead to precisely this outcome. Ironholds (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  • • And he got in his third request right before I revoked his talk page access for making yet MORE personal attacks. I lost count. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering there was inflaming and provocative language used on the talk page, indef seems very harsh. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do all of those personal attacks embedded in the unblock requests need to remain on the user's Talk page? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionel's language also looks like it is designed to totally inflame the situation with references to "out of control militant gay activists". IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto for Belchfire's sarcasm, not to mention simply edit-warring against this user. There's lots of guilt all around. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Something went very, very wrong here, and the problem is with Wikipedia, not this user. See the commentary at User_talk:SkepticAnonymous for more. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I did see it, and commented, where you are being an apologist for hateful speech, which isn't helpful. You are mistaken, greatly about this, claiming he was bitten by being blocked for his venomous attacks. Regardless of anyone's point of view, editors that can not communicate without making personal attacks every single sentence should not, and will not, be here. The other issues are just that, other issues, but nothing excuses his behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Endorse block given the terms under which Ironholds unblocked him. However, I agree that there is more to this. In particular, parroting FoxNews' POV on controversial issues is not NPOV, just as parroting the New York Times' would not be.--Chaser (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, putting aside this editor's fate, which seems to be sealed, what can we do to avoid this problem repeating? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like Belchfire's article was turned into a redirect, which makes sense. No one has provided other diffs to review those edits closer, although I'm still slowly filtering through them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted this user a few times due to personal attacks in the edit summaries. It appears they might have been baited and lost their head. Could we reduce the block to a week and let the editor cool down? As Dennis says, blocks are cheap. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Indef isn't forever, but this is not the first time this editor has had problems. My standard offer, that any admin may change any action I make without permission, always stands, but I won't recommend it (this offer is on my user page, always has been). Not because of their views but because of their history of personal attacks and inability to control their temper, which creates a hostile environment for everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. As Dennis said, if this person cannot control his temper, then he is not welcome here. --MuZemike 02:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Dennis here. SkepticAnonymous has shown in the past that they have done nothing but spew personal attacks to opposing views, which he was clearly warned by Ironholds about doing again. His recent edits show that when he is presented with opposing view points, that he is unable to properly control his anger. If he's able to show that he is calmly accepting of his block, and requests a proper unblock in the future, then he can do so. His posts have been inappropriate and his block is more than deserved. The content Lionel was trying to insert was inappropriate for the article, but again, attacking editors is not something we should condone based on our viewpoints. Regards, — Moe ε 02:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I hope he reads this. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to link or out the IP, but based on his IP that he used in IRC to attack me and a host of others afterwards (this is public record via a /whowas in any IRC client), he has been blocked for a long period here as an IP, and refused an unblock for the exact same behavior anonymously. This definitely reinforces my belief that the indef is justified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I have the same information from IRC. I checked it as well. You're overstating your case based on a public, DHCP address in one of the biggest cities in the USA which happens to have an active gay population and a gay mayor. It's looking more like you are more invested in this case and in trying to hunt this specific user or justify your own failure to behave yourself, your own WP:BITE violations, than you care to admit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, anon. If Dennis annoys anyone on WP it's because of how little he bites not because he's too harsh. Seriously, try to convince Dennis to block someone without first offering them a WP:ROPE factory and you'll be sorely disappointed. When he actually does block someone, there's a really good chance it was deserved. Sædon^talk 04:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to add an alternative perspective. I was in IRC and watched much of that part happen, and I have looked over the other issues as well. There are a few key points to consider in the treatment of SkepticAnonymous.
  • Regarding previous incidents following from the history of their user page, it's clear that something very bad and ALSO WP:BITE level happened to them previously. To have a user hit by WP:BITE issues twice in a row, including false accusations of sockpuppetry that took a very long time to clear up and an incorrect assertion of CheckUser results, is not good.
  • The admin who blocked failed to provide a timely notification of the issue. Likewise, the user who submitted this issue did not seemingly provide a timely notification nor a direct link, only a link to WP:ANI itself. That's poor form and WP:BITE level again.
  • The blocking admin, in putting his notification in, appears to have removed the user's unblock request at least once. I can't tell whether there was an honest mistake edit conflict or two simultaneous submissions that somehow got in together. Part of the user's first request addresses some of the notification issues, their second one addresses the admin's removal of template which is not cool and again WP:BITE level of incompetence.
  • There are level of civility issues from the other side. Some have been raised. The first response from the editor who brought this here asserts, among other things, that an edit "fails common sense." That's not designed to do anything but inflame in an incivil manner. Added to the level of incivility from his friend and his creation of POV forks that said some very insulting and inflaming things, definitely WP:BITE.
  • Regarding the IRC discussions, the blocking admin (Dennis Brown) came in VERY late to it. He was not there for most of it, when a group of editors led by Demiurge1000 were deliberately trying to rile up SkepticAnonymous, playing games that would infuriate anyone. Dennis Brown did briefly try to enter the discussion, but he only posted once or twice before another admin decided the game had gone long enough, made a very rude statement, and then proceeded to kickban SkepticAnonymous from the channel. All in all, it wasn't anything but an incivil WP:BITE tactic and it was very disheartening to see wikipedia editors act in this manner. Dennis Brown, from his post to the talk page of SkepticAnonymous, is probably not aware of what went on in the channel before his arrival and his judgement about SkepticAnonymous's demeanor in IRC is tainted thereby.
  • Nobody ever seems to go into these situations to try to explain the situation. They template and attack and prod, like Dennis Brown. Or they template with a generic, as foxj did. Or they leave borderline insulting messages with unusual terms in them, as Fluffernutter did. Each admin who dealt with unblock requests didn't bother to talk to SkepticAnonymous, they walked in with a sharpened stick ready to poke the bear. That all adds up to a colossal case of WP:BITE.
• So as I see it, Still-24-45-42-125 is right. This is a pattern on Wikipedia, something we see from administrators and "veteran editors" alike far too often. It's an example of wikipedia game-playing that drives off editors who, taken with a kinder hand, would more likely turn out to be good editors. There's misbehavior from a new editor and it's been met by a pack of snarling dogs, not a welcome hand of humans trying to make a better editor of a newcomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder what you're up to. "when a group of editors led by Demiurge1000 were deliberately trying to rile up SkepticAnonymous". I have a record of the entire time from when SkepticAnonymous joined the channel to when they were kicked from it (not by me), including my suggestions (several times) that they should not accuse people of being bigots in their unblock request, when their block was originally for calling people bigots. Their ignoring those suggestions, their screaming at me in all caps, their screaming at other people in all caps, their homophobic accusations about everyone involved (for once, I won't be quoting right now, but I can), and all the rest of it. The log I have continues after SkepticAnonymous was kicked (not by me), to include my being the only person who pointed out to Dennis that there were a couple of things he could have handled differently.

By the way you talk, it sounds like you have a log of that IRC conversation that looks very different.

I do hope you kept a copy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw many of you simply saying over and over either "calm down" or otherwise insisting that the editor ought to "take a break." None of you actually addressed substantive issues, which should have been the FIRST thing to look at in order to get emotion out of the equation. You were playing at games, like a cat with a mouse, not as equals trying to help someone, and it showed that none of you were actually interested in the larger situation at hand. It was not one of Wikipedia's better days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I recognise your style of writing, now. Do you recall that one of my first suggestions was that the person should not call others bigots? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the IRC thing could equally have been a "joe job" - the guy was sufficiently nuts there to support an indef purely on grounds of WP:COMPETENCE, and I see no need to transfer that identity irrevocably to a possible WP persona. Unless there's a very good reason otherwise, IRC behaviour is IRC behaviour, and leave it at that. However, I do wonder what this very enthusiastic IP is trying to do here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What am I trying to do here? Point out what I saw, nothing more. There's a longstanding problem on wikipedia with WP:BITE behavior by those who feel they have the power to get away with it, especially with those who have the "extra buttons" and can stop someone from being able to present their side of an incident in the open where all can see. It's somewhat related to Jonathan Gabriel's Greater Internet F-wad Theory as well as the old adage about power corrupting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All sounds a bit deep to me. My recommendation, the same recommendation as I made when you first appeared there claiming to want help, is that if you've been blocked for calling another editor a bigot, then repeatedly making unblock requests that also call people bigots, is really really stupid. Oh, and thank you for the mental image of my "leading" a coalition of Ironholds, Fluffernutter, Dennis Brown and others to cruelly squash some righteous crusade against morally noxious chicken salesmen somewhere. I am going to pay an artist to depict this in some appropriate format. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to make unfounded assertions, Demi, and leave it at that. I'm not SkepticAnonymous. Now that you've made that claim and abandoned the assumption of good faith, please rethink your own untoward behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You sat through all the horrendous things that you claim I and others did and said regarding the person who claimed to be SkepticAnonymous, and you said nothing to defend them?

What does that make you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking up the previous history and trying to come up with something productive to say, rather than just toying with another editor and deliberately trying to inflame an already WP:BITE laden situation. It took me this long to comment here because there was a lot to be seen in previous talk page history and I wanted to be sure I had a good understanding of what was going on. Having done my research, I feel confident my analysis is correct, whether you agree with it or not. Your quick jump to accusations of sockpuppetry only reinforces my suspicion that you have no positive commentary to offer for this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, "please calm down" and realize that I am not saying you did anything horrendous. You did, however, fail to conduct yourself in a way to calm down an inflamed situation. Your behavior, and the behavior of others in the chat room, appears to have been intended to inflame it further. The behavior of admins on here which I have described is a combination of interpersonal-skills incompetence and sheer lack of compassion, nothing more or less, that adds up to a WP:BITE situation. I am not accusing people of having some massive conspiracy - though there is a definite tendency of wikipedia admins to "circle the wagons" upon criticism of the behavior of another admin - but simply of failing to conduct themselves as well as they could have. Never assume malice when mere incompetence can be just as valid an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as well that IRC counts for nothing and none of these decisions are, or should be, made on IRC, right? I'm sure your friend will manage to write an appropriate unblock request in due course. Good luck to you and to her.

P.S. I have the complete log of her ridiculous, screaming, swearing, nearly incoherent behaviour on IRC. I can't post it publicly but I can provide it privately if it would help with any assistance you are providing her about her problems interacting with others. I don't have any further comments, sorry. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

See, there you go again. First of all - he/she/it is not my friend. And I'll point out that with a talkpage locked, due to WP:BITE prodding, there's unlikely to be a satisfactory outcome to this that doesn't involve hard feelings and future trouble. As Still stated [45], "We bit a newbie, and he's going to correctly tell everyone he knows that Wikipedia is a hostile environment that picks on people who are just trying to make articles neutral and abuses them until they're enraged, only to punish them for that rage. This is a typical yet completely avoidable wiki-tragedy. Instead of kicking this editor out, we should be apologizing for how they were treated and striking a deal to treat them better if they can forgive us. " That is the situation, which has happened time and time again due to the fact that we seem to pick some of the worst people to be admins - mostly because the qualities that make for a good editor seem to make for some sort of compassionless, empathy deficient aspergers patient whose interpersonal skills revolve around trying to win every argument. What makes it worse is that the group who regularly "patrols" unblock requests treat everyone as some sort of test case for templating abuse and how hands-off and infuriating they can get away with being. What would happen if we had admins patrolling unblock requests who had solid empathy and compassion skills, good interpersonal skills, and an ability to actually look at the issues rather than dumping yet another "BZZT! You didn't bow low enough and you only kissed 7 of the 10 rings, back to the dungeon for you" sort of denial out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I also suspect, just so I mention it, that much of the mistakes made by the incompetent crew who usually review unblock requests - their rush to judgement, the rush to template everything, the failure to leave courtesy notes or take the time to really examine an issue to determine whether a mutual block, a fish-slapping, or some other solution might be better than just launching a denial - has to do with their rush to "keep the page clean" on the requests for unblock category. It's OK if something sits there for a little while, with a note on the user's page that the issue is being looked at and inviting the user to reword their request if it seems written in anger. The problem is, none of these incompetent people would ever think of doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't "strike deals" with editors who engage in this sort of behavior. And you need to mind the personal attacks you're making. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So rather than address the substantive points the user makes, you're going to come in making threats. Not surprising from someone with a page that looks like a military weekend-warrior reject and at least one userbox full of anti-islam sentiment that might, by the uncharitable, be described as "bigoted" by itself. But doubly ironic given that you simultaneously display a userbox claiming to oppose any form of censorship. Which is it - do you oppose censorship, or do you like making threats against anyone who makes valid points that hit a little too close to home? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.84.153 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, we should strike deals with editors who we've mistreated and enraged. We should offer them an apology and a clean slate if they promise to forgive us for biting them and agree to edit with decorum and sanity. I don't see any other way to repair the damage that systematic abuse has caused, do you? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we have more info. Lionelt and his friends are actively [46] engaged in wikilawyering and wikigaming to try to get rid of anyone who disagrees with them, and outline public plans to WP:BITE. This ought to factor in. I call it evidence of deliberate WP:BITE level provocation, in an organized manner. That SA is blocked for taking the provocations is bad enough, but they are engaged in harassment campaigns against others as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.84.153 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

[47] How To Abuse A Talk Page. This is the precise point. Welcome to the bad neighborhood known as wikipedia. There are no cops, just bullies with badges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.84.153 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 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.

Editing my watchlist

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

---

I have been trying to edit my watchlist. When I click on the "View and edit watchlist" link, I get a Wikipedia error page. It says, "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes." and "PHP fatal error in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.20wmf8/includes/HTMLForm.php line 889: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 15848051 bytes)". When I click on "Edit raw watchlist", nothing loads. I have almost 24,000 pages on my watchlist, and I am trying to "whittle it down", but I can't if it won't load. Now, with that many pages, I don't remember all of the pages, or I could type them in and remove them that way. Is there any alternate way to view ALL of the pages on my watchlist, for example, an option on the toolserver site? Thank you for your great help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is for editors needing assistance from an administrator. Your thread on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is probably sufficient for discussing this. Regards, — Moe ε 02:30, 5 August 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.

Move revert of Talk:Jang shin young

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

---

Please assist with reverting the move of Talk:Kim So-eun (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) to Talk:Jang shin young (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs), which has no apparent connection to the original name and no article. Please also clean up redirect(s). An editor performed this move and then appears to have used the resulting page as a sandbox; I don't see any valid reason for this activity. I reverted the edits but I can't revert the move, apparently. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Odd. Thanks for finding and cleaning up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:31, 5 August 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:Oscarbell

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked by Favonian (while I was looking into it...)  Frank  |  talk  17:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User is once again relentlessly adding his own websites to a page, in this occurrence OUYA Adycarter (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor

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

---

Page: Spanish Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trasamundo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Report disruptive editor. Trasamundo reverting critical information referenced in the introduction . He ignoring me and says this.

6-revert:[48]
5-revert:[49]
4-revert:[50]
3-revert:[51]
2-revert:[52]
1-revert:[53]

Please restore this information in the introduction:

• Americas and Spanish East Indies was incorpored to the Crown of Castile. Ref:Empires Of The Atlantic World, JH elliot, pp120.

Thank you.--Santos30 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have protected the article again, this time for one week (I have probably protected m:The Wrong Version). Please discuss the dispute on the talk page and follow the steps of dispute resolution.--Chaser (talk) 00:42, 5 August 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.

Inappropriate moves by tag-teaming new editors

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

---

New and inexperienced editors are wreaking havoc with University of Newcastle (Australia) related articles and cats. The university is commonly known as Newcastle University but this conflicts with the English university, which is why the article name is disambiguated. There is a disambiguation page at University of Newcastle and a redirect from University of Newcastle (disambiguation). Related cats include "University of Newcastle (Australia)" in their title. At least that's the way it's supposed to work. Instead, University of Newcastle has been cut and paste moved to University of Newcastle (disambiguation) and University of Newcastle (Australia) has been cut and paste moved to University of Newcastle. A number of other moves have been made without any discussion or consideration for our disambiguation practices etc. I've warned editors on their talk pages but one editor, User:Lillywaterpower is unresponsive and continues to make cut and paste moves etc, reverting every attempt that I've made to restore the correct structure. I've run out of reverts at University of Newcastle (Australia) so there's not much more I can do at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a list of editors here, and notify them? That would be helpful. Thanks! --Rschen7754 06:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What a mess. Blocked User:Lillywaterpower for 48 hours while investigating as a temporary measure, as blanking this ANI report is disruptive. --Rschen7754 06:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I smell socks, personally: Newlove4castle (talk · contribs) starts doing this as their first edit, but I'd need to see the list of the users involved to be sure. --Rschen7754 06:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the cross-posting. Here is the list of users:

• User:Lillywaterpower
• User:Newlove4castle
• User:Waterfirespirit
• User:Little.shroom

Possibly User:Sundowndawn. If there are socks, they may have been originally created in order to influence the discussion at Talk:Sydney Law#Requested move. StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tone.itdown1901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This was the first user I saw making cut and paste moves.[54] --AussieLegend (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Extended blocks on Lillywaterpower and Newlove4castle to indefinite, as those are obvious. Will be filing a SPI shortly. --Rschen7754 08:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tone.itdown1901 --Rschen7754 09:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All accounts blocked and indef'ed after a positive CU. --Rschen7754 18:48, 5 August 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.

Edits by 75.51.171.121

The following discussion is closed. 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 content of Human_rights_in_North_Korea#Freedom_of_expression after editing by 75.51.171.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is based nearly entirely on a propaganda document issued by North Korea. That document may be used only as a source for the official position of the North Korean government, not for any other purpose.

Edit warring by this ip earlier resulted in a 24 hour block. I have been trying to engage him, but prospects are dim. He makes a great many edits, most in reliance on This document submitted by North Korea to the United Nations creating a situation that can only be cured by reversion of the entire page.

I request permission to revert the page to a version preceding the ip's edits and semi-protection of the page. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, although I won't be surprised if I see some WP:BURO opposes quoting "involved". — Ched :  ?  14:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Just have to ignore all rules in that case. I'm not running this by here because I don't know what to do, but because being heavy handed in a dispute I'm involved in is inappropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's all been reverted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

They started up again, more subtle changes but still not acceptable. Blocked 1 week. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

For reference: earlier AN/I thread that resulted in first block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 5 August 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:Æðð

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

---

For the past 3 months the above editor has edit warred consistently on the Modern liberalism in the United States article. Both as an IP(68.173.248.54) and the account listed in this report. As the IP the user has removed the same material 5 times(1,2,3,4,5), as the user account he/she has removed the same material at least 20 times. The user is making edit summaries that claim Talk page consensus to remove the material, when the attempted discussions on the Talk page have unanimously went against their removals(Thread 1, Thread 2. Several editors have tried to reason with this editor on the Talk page, and the user has been warned numerous times on their own Talk page. Both the Ip and the account have been blocked for edit warring on the article. I see no other alternative other than to bring this issue to ANI. The editor should be blocked until they are able to recognize consensus and stop edit warring. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)(Update: I will be away from the PC for some time now. I will return later. Unavoidable. Thanks) Dave Dial (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this user refuses to mention that a sockpuppetry investigation ([55]) was conducted against me and came to naught tells you everything you need to know about his regard for the facts and playing by the rules. He continues mentioning the sockpuppetry charge as if anything actually came of it because number one, he wasn't able to make his case on the talk page, and two, attempting to slander me and other users who have the exact same problems is the way he thinks he can make up for not winning the argument on substance. This user [56] was also accused of sockpuppeting [57] just a few days ago for having the same problem I and other users do with the article. And if you actually read the talk page discussion I'm referring to [58], you can clearly see that what actually happened was that this user stood up and left in the middle of the discussion, and that somehow translates into "everyone went unanimously against" me in his own mind.--Æðð (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for violation of the three revert rule. The user seems to have a valid point but violation of the three revert rule is an automatic block. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 5 August 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.

attempted outing by User:JordanFrancis

The following discussion is closed. 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:JordanFrancis can be seen in this edit claiming to have the IP addresses of a non-IP user (and no, he's not an administrator) and claiming to list other sites they have visited. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a single-purpose account which has been passionately unhelpful in the area of articles related to the Universal Life Church. I've been following the account (and some friends he presumably asked to come and help, unless they are sockpuppets) for a few days now, and I hardly know where to start with dealing with him. A warning about the number, and length, of comments that is useful in an AfD? A request to discuss the notability criteria? A topic ban on the subject of his church and the related church of the same name? He seems to be involved in a battle with a rival sect over ownership of the relevant articles; Universal Life Church is a mess and there's no grounds for even having an article about the rival sect. This is possibly the most irritating religious dispute I've been involved in on Wikipedia, and I've edited Londonderry. The whole general mess needs more attention than I can give it from someone with time on their hands and a high tolerance for annoyance. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that describing the current contretemps as a "religious dispute" is even correct, as that would suggest folks arguing from a basis of religion on both sides. I've not seen that - JF and his apparent friends may accuse others of belonging to the other group, but as one of the so accused, I can tell you that it's without grounding. But at the moment, I'm most concerned with these claims of having people's IP addresses and the claim to be revealing some of their browsing information and the usage of that to try to silence one side of the discussion; what they claim to have would be a privacy violation if true, and a form of inappropriate leverage to be established on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. When JordanFrancis made another post to the AfD, claiming in part to "possess direct proof of your direct or indirect connections to the ULC Modesto, and/or Seminary and/or Monastery", he crossed the line—especially since he'd been notified of this discussion and warned that WP:PRIVACY violations are one of the quickest ways to get blocked. No diff for the edit, as I'm weighing whether to have it oversighted. Whether the claim he made has merit or not, it's a clear violation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 5 August 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.

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan

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

---

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to leave this message here or on WP:AN (or both), so apologies in advance if there is any unnecessary duplication. I'd like to notify the board that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs). The RFC/U can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither - they show up automagically. Adding them in more than one place some form of canvassing/spam/forumshopping dangerouspanda 19:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Cross posting from WT:RFC, which too few people watch:

WP:Requests for comment/Youreallycan needs help ASAP. It's got threaded comments throughout, including edit-warring to keep such comments in the section reserved for the exclusive use of the subject's response[59][60][61], as well as multiple sections for people to oppose views. I think that this needs multiple people helping the participants read and follow the directions, or we're going to end up with an RFC/U that requires full protection (thus making it useless for resolving the dispute).

If you are familiar enough with the RFC/U rules (they're not hard: (1) if your name isn't in the URL and you aren't currently using oversighting tools, you have absolutely no business editing anything under the heading of ==Response== [NB that 3RR does not limit the RFC/U subject's right to control his section], and (2) if you are "replying" or "objecting" or "disagreeing" or "commenting" on what someone else said, then your message belongs on the RFC/U's talk page), please lend a hand and help educate these participants about how to read and follow the directions. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 6 August 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: 98.195.86.32, personal attacks

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

---

There seems to be a lot of this sort of thing lately.

[62] [63] [64]

I'm actually pretty sure this is a sock, but it's probably more efficient just to flush him. Belchfire-TALK 03:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked. Consider AIV, after some warnings, for this sort of thing. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I will if that's what you really want, but my understanding is that this wasn't vandalism. (See: What is not vandalism) Some things just don't merit giving a mulligan. Belchfire-TALK 03:57, 6 August 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.

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan

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

---

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to leave this message here or on WP:AN (or both), so apologies in advance if there is any unnecessary duplication. I'd like to notify the board that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs). The RFC/U can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither - they show up automagically. Adding them in more than one place some form of canvassing/spam/forumshopping dangerouspanda 19:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Cross posting from WT:RFC, which too few people watch:

WP:Requests for comment/Youreallycan needs help ASAP. It's got threaded comments throughout, including edit-warring to keep such comments in the section reserved for the exclusive use of the subject's response[65][66][67], as well as multiple sections for people to oppose views. I think that this needs multiple people helping the participants read and follow the directions, or we're going to end up with an RFC/U that requires full protection (thus making it useless for resolving the dispute).

If you are familiar enough with the RFC/U rules (they're not hard: (1) if your name isn't in the URL and you aren't currently using oversighting tools, you have absolutely no business editing anything under the heading of ==Response== [NB that 3RR does not limit the RFC/U subject's right to control his section], and (2) if you are "replying" or "objecting" or "disagreeing" or "commenting" on what someone else said, then your message belongs on the RFC/U's talk page), please lend a hand and help educate these participants about how to read and follow the directions. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 6 August 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: 98.195.86.32, personal attacks

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

---

There seems to be a lot of this sort of thing lately.

[68] [69] [70]

I'm actually pretty sure this is a sock, but it's probably more efficient just to flush him. Belchfire-TALK 03:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked. Consider AIV, after some warnings, for this sort of thing. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I will if that's what you really want, but my understanding is that this wasn't vandalism. (See: What is not vandalism) Some things just don't merit giving a mulligan. Belchfire-TALK 03:57, 6 August 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:Nathalia92

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

---

Nathalia92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - based on the userpage description, the user is impersonating (or at least claiming to be) the actress Nathalia Ramos. The user vandalized WP:About today, and seems to have nothing constructive in contribs.

It's been a while, and I've forgotten what the preferred procedures are in circumstances like this. Blank the page? Block the user? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider this final warning? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jorgath. Let's issue them a stern (but note Bitey) final warning that if they continue, they'll be blocked. Electric Catfish 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Warned user. Electric Catfish 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the impersonation problem at the page User:Nathalia92. (Based on the quality of writing, and spamming of image links, I think we can assume it is not actually the actress that the user is claiming to be). Shouldn't the userpage be blanked, or a warning be given for that? Not sure. Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that it's probably impersonation, may I ask what about the "quality of writing," one way or another, that impels you to make such an assumption? We're talking an actor, not a professional author, and there's nothing about the acting profession which confers (or doesn't) writing skill. Ravenswing 03:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say this is a terrible attempt at search engine optimization more with the user page rather than question the quality of the edits there. It probably isn't a human that wrote all that out at least there, but just a script that somehow managed to spill all that text (the repeat of her acting history over and over is what gives me the SEO theory). Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, from the Nathalia Ramos article: She confirmed via Twitter that she would not return to House of Anubis for a third season due to school related issues. → Perhaps that explains the poor, rather incoherent writing, if we were to assume this account is her :) --MuZemike 05:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I really just wanted advice on whether to blank the page completely or not (and whether it's a blocking offense or not). I'll blank it now. (I'm kinda sad that anyone would even question (and comment on) whether it might be the same person. Fwiw, I rolled eyes, and checked the actress' official twitter and an interview from the article, and it's definitely not her. Clearly literate.) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather sad that anyone would imagine that Wikipedia is based on unfounded speculation, rather than on observable and verified fact. Ravenswing 07:49, 6 August 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:Doniago

The following discussion is closed. 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 notice, because I have unfortunately crossed with this editor too, how much of a bad apple they are here. I thought WP:GF should and be the most overriding reason before making changes. But all this editor seems to do is remove material and then go onto spout rule after rule if anyone complains. Due to the inability to listen to reason or respond to a cognitive argument, they then have the temerity to start quoting WP:CIVIL when the other party invariably loses their temper.

The question I pose, is to what degree is a reference needed? Returning to this editor's wiki behaviour there is arguably no end to what references are needed. For instance, you are watching a movie and the twin towers of the NY WTO appear, as an iconic landmark, this editor is quite happy for this to be noted. However less well known locations in movies are aggressively removed with the proviso that it is unreferenced original research.

I say wait a minute. Assume good faith. But this editor seems to only allow what they know castigating and removing anything they don't like in a high-handed and officious way. I don't like this. As one of the more busy people who proudly works as an IP (I have no need for Wikipedia status or medals) who enjoys the sharing of information not the power of status, this person needs to be reigned in. More uncomfortably they state they are not administrator (which begs the question why the disambiguation) but hope to be one some day. i hope not, I really hope not. After the likes of RodHullandEmu et al (yeah I know, but I do have a sad fascination reading the ArbCom minutes - Wikipedia for too many is just a form of Internet Big Brother), you don't people like this on here.109.155.77.177 (talk) 10:25, 6 August 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.

Somewhat edit warring on Victoria Foyt

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

---

I'm writing because my request for edit protection on the Victoria Foyt article has been declined and there's been a sizable amount of edit warring recently from anonymous IPs. Before I explain what's going on with the article, I have to explain the history of the page. Foyt is many things, including an author. She wrote a book called Save the Pearls that came across as incredibly racist and insensitive to many, myself included. (I want to stress this because I don't want the IPs thinking that I'm doing this because I'm defending her. I'm doing this because the article needs to be neutral.) Because of this, her page was vandalized at one point and there's been some non-NPOV statements put in there. It's still not 100% neutral even now. Long story short, after receiving a fairly large backlash for what was ultimately a self-published book (Foyt started the company that publishes her book) Foyt has tried to defend herself in the paper. Since I didn't know how to sum up her quotes without appearing biased, I just included them "as is" in the article. Within the last 24 hours or so there's been an IP address that has been repeatedly removing the quotes, claiming that it's giving Foyt "a platform" to defend herself as well as saying that "If there's an honest interest in not appearing biased, one should rename the section 'critical reception' and find some positive reviews. Not quote the author defending herself. An accusation of racism shld not require a platform to say 'Nuh-uh!'." (Clearly not understanding what the whole idea of "non-biased" means.) I've tried to explain the point to the IP editor, but they seem pretty determined to remove the quotes for reasons that ultimately stem from WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a biased point of view. Now I do want to stress that I'm not accusing the SPA that came along after of being the same person, although I admit that it did raise an eyebrow. (On a side note, there have been a few people creating SPA to vandalize but again- the recent SPA that logged in doesn't seem to be vandalizing.) That user at least tried to add useful things to the page, although a lot of it fell along the lines of original research and hypothesis, as well as potential copyvio for the linking to an image from the book. I did try to keep the sentence in the article, so I'm not sure if it is still violating copyvio or not. I really would like for an admin to step in here and try to keep things from escalating and perhaps protect the article from random IPs. The edit warring and vandalism seems to mostly come in spurts, but when it happens it's usually hit pretty hard. I've given the IP a warning, but I think that someone with more authority than I have needs to deal with this now. See here for a list of the various edits done to the account and a few examples of the vandalism: [71], [72], [73], [74] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I want to add that there's been some people PRODing the article since the initial reaction to the book under reasons that essentially boil down to them only doing so out of bad faith because they didn't like what the author wrote in her book or in the series of articles she posted afterwards. My aim with the article isn't to defend Foyt but neither is it to write it so the entire section is slanted against her without including her claims on the matter. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added the article to my watch-list and will help you monitor. -- Dianna (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! I know that not all of the people contributing to the article are operating on bad faith and might be genuinely new to Wikipedia, but there's been enough activity that it'll probably be like this for a while. Foyt is still getting some chatter in the YA blogging world so I expect to see a few more flareups before it's finally finished for the most part.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I also have this article on my watch list. I have checked all the recent edits and I see no persistent vandalism that requires any immediate PP. TG has left appropriate messages on other editors' talk pages, and we can wait and see what develops. This report can be closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

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

Requesting a speedy delete of User:Bittergrey/CAMH_Promotion

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

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Please place on the article you want to be deleted. Mdann52 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin)

---

G10.
This wiki-hounding userpage was created by now-indef blocked editor user:Bittergrey. Although gathering material just for the purpose of attacking another editor can sometimes be permitted for short periods of time preceding genuine dispute resolution, no further action was ever taken by user:Bittergrey, leaving only a prejudicial (and potentially BLP violating) page floating around WP with no owner. I'd appreciate some eyes, and I believe a speedy delete is in order.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:50, 6 August 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 Removing Sourced Content and Editing Bias

• Article in question: Woman to Woman (Keyshia Cole album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User in question: IT'SPAIN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background

It'spain has started an article for the upcoming album by Keshia Cole. The revision before I got involved in the article is here. Notice how the article is poorly written with few verfiable sources, unformatted references and original research. I edited the article to remove everything that was unsourced and It'spain undid the edit without any explaination here. In this edit revision by me I re-wrote the article using reliable sources and attempted to preserve as much of the original version as possible. Again this was reverted so I made a final attempt here to take on board It'spains comments and add referencing and formatting to the content s/he was trying to add as well as preserving the sourced information which i originally added to the article. I've made attempts each time either on the user's talk page and the article's talk page to address the user's supposed greivences with my revisions were as well as pointing out potential rule breaks.

Key issues

• It'spain refers to the article as "his own work"
• It'spain repeatedly reverts the article to a version with fewer sources, incorrect refernce formatting, speculation and original research.
• Its'pain claims to be personally involved in the actual album, comments on my talkpage IT'SPAIN claims to have been to business meetings about the album and therefore personally knows what information should be included regarding the album.
• It'spain is adament that the information he/she has on the article is direct from the artist and record label yet less than 50% of what is claimed is back-up by references.

Summary

In conclusion when you compare the last "correct" version of the article here against the current version that IT'SPAIN is trying to maintain I think its evident that the current version contains speculation, original research, a non-encylopedic tone of prose and poor referencing whereas the revised version is more in the spirit of wikipedia and addresses the issues at hand with the current version. I'm at a loss as to what to do next. I am particularly concerned with IT'SPAIN's apparent bias due to a "personal interest" in the page as well as clear violation of content removal for blatently not liking the content added and reasons like "I already know what's best I know everything there is about the subject". — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Lil-unique has given It'spain some warnings including unofficial friendly ones, but no official ones for edit warring or claims of ownership. It'spain is a new(ish) user with few edits and may still not be fully aware of all the policies and guidelines. The way to resolve this issue is in a less heated manner without throwing threats of blocks around - it will only fuel the fire. I think both of you should step back a bit from that article until the album is released; after all, strictly speaking an encyclopedia deals with facts and not the future, and there is absolutely no hurry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • thanks for the comment. I agree it is a little heated. I've tried to refrain from posting a myriad of warning templates cause I could have easily done it for ownership and edit warring to but then he would have had nearly ten different warnings cause each time he/she edit they violated each of the policies. Also if you look at the user's contributions they date back to 2009 - don't think that constitutes a new user. And the user's personal page makes it clear he/she is claiming to be a music executive for Geffen Records - the label that the artist is signed to and thus a direct bias as the user would have a vested interest in editing the page in such a way that benefits himself/the artist/label's agenda, instead of reflecting what's been sourced. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather stupid legal threat

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

---

See [75] at Talk:Maya calendar. " guys like Dougweller need to be sued for their criminal activity of showing favoritsm to false information 5125 solar years would be 3114bc Gregorian August 12 to 2012AD Gregorian August 12 or 3114bc Dec 21 to 2012ad Dec 21. This is fact not original research. Your labeling it solar years is the false original research. THe count is 5200 tun or 13 baktun being 13 of 400 tun. Go ahead and deleted this, a jpg copy has been made, and a million dollar law suit will proceed the minute it is deleted." I'll tell 98.144.71.174 (talk · contribs) about this discussion. They've been doing little but posting nonsense to talk pages plus a bit of editing at Dating creation for over a year. Probably blockable just for their refusal to get it. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say its just an ordinary personal attack/libel against you rather then a threat of legal action. They don't appear to be threatening to actually sue. Monty₈₄₅ 18:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth a warning but I forsee a block. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 72 hours for making legal threats.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:25, 6 August 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 IP hopping indef blocked user returns to be disruptive again

See this archived thread from a month-ish ago - IP hopping possible indef blocked user

Past indef blocked user Marburg72 (talk · contribs) occasionally returns with IPs to insert WP:FRINGE and WP:HOAX material into certain articles, this being one (Walam Olum), has returned to make personal attacks on the article talkpage, [76] and then reinstated it with this IP [77] when the NPA was removed. The second IP is one of the IPs from that last bunch listed in the previous ANI report. They have now moved on to a 3rd IP with this gem [78]. Heiro 22:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

1. 166.147.120.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2. 166.147.120.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
3. 166.147.120.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Since they are hopping within the same range, would it be possible to get a rangeblock to curtail further disruption?Heiro 22:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged all of the associated IPs with {{IPsock}} to help facilitate investigation. In the future, concerns like this can also be brought to WP:SPI. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be an open proxy. It's a tight little range but there's a lot of good edits being posted from others on the range. I am going to block the individual IPs for the weekend and open a proxy investigation. -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Whatever you think will help the best. Heiro 23:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The WHOIS listing for the IPs suggests they are for a wireless broadband/cell network. With this in mind, it could be possible that the IPs are dynamic. With this in mind (and given the positive edits coming from them) an extended/range block might be counterproductive, as it's entirely possible a lot of unrelated people would be affected. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That's right, Elektrik Shoos. The range is tiny, but wow, there's lots of good edits coming from there. -- Dianna (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Except for the ones that aren't. The indef blocked user has now returned to this IP range twice, jumped around the range multiple times, edit warred, inserted POV pushing false material into articles and now resorted to out of the blue personal attacks. I guess all we can do is play whack-a-mole. If the range is determined to be an Wikipedia:Open proxies, will the range be blocked then?Heiro 01:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's been no further edits from the range since I blocked the three IPs. There's only 16 IPs in the range (Range 166.147.120.16/28). So whack-a-mole would not be as futile as you might think. If they are all open proxies, they will all likely be blocked long-term. People with user accounts who want to edit from that range will have to apply to get IP block exemption if they're all blocked as open proxies. -- Dianna (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Another one for a block please, 166.147.120.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), see [79], note the personal attack in the edit summary. Heiro 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And they are back again [80] as 166.147.120.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Heiro 01:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jac16888

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

---

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

---

Good afternoon. I am here to report the administrator Jac16888 and his attitude with regards to myself. Our unfortunate exchange began today, when Jac16888 posted an unreasonably sarcastic note on my talkpage here. Now he could have just spoken in a polite tone, but he decided to forgo basic respect and begin a hostile set of communications. When I asked him what he thought was wrong about the set of tags, he replied with an even more hostile and sarcastic response here, and also here, where he claims my "career wouldn't last long here" in a thinly veiled threat, dispite my good editing record. Unfortunately, he goes on to threaten me with harrassment, as well as making a somewhat insulting comment about my editing here, before closing off with an unveiled personal attack here. It concerns me that an administrator has acted in such a hostile tone from the off, when a basic explanation of what I did wrong would have been more appropriate. Indeed, I am not adverse to correcting myself, this, and this are but two occasions where I have self reverted or accepted a mistake I have made, so it strikes me as very strange that an administrator would treat me as if I was extremely unreasonable. I'm not looking to cause trouble with this administrator, but I would like this addressed. Many thanks, Iamthemuffinman (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Your tone in the entire exchange is dismissive. There are no personal attacks or threats by Jac16888. Considering you were blocked for extreme personal attacks just 3 days ago, it is not that surprising that an admin is going to watch you. Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG for the frivolous ANI post. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Iamthemuffinman for this edit summary, just a few days after his last PA block. I'm off running now (in a thunderstorm, I think), so if any admin wants to change this block, have at it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Called it--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagging was excessive, Jac16888's comments in response seemed reasonable, then it all escalated for no good reason, culminating in a justified block for the personal attack. Iamthemuffinman is a good editor, but seems a bit stressed at the moment and looks to be responding to people more confrontationally than necessary. All that's needed is to take some time off, let this storm over nothing subside, and come back to editing calmly and collegially. There's no admin action needed here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I would consider muffinmans behaviour to be inappropriate in more than just this exchange, there is this lovely conversation User talk:Martijn Hoekstra#Ok based on nothing but [81], there is his comment to this new user here, this over the top reaction to being welcomed, this comment to Nyttend, and all this is just in the last few days since his previous block for personal attacks seen here--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As I say, I think we've just got an otherwise good editor who is perhaps a bit stressed right now - let's just let this block ride out and hopefully get back to improved collegiality. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the first unblock request, but they have asked again. As always, any admin to free to disagree with me with no prejudice and use their best judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the second request, and after this response to someone else's comment, I've revoked talk page access. I know we don't do "cool down" blocks, but I hope a short "shut up and stop making things worse for yourself" break might help - anyone is free to reinstate talk page access should they feel otherwise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as a cool down, but instead a reasonable reaction to prevent disruption, based on continuing behavior. Hopefully he will cool down during this period, but I didn't see that as the rationale for your refusal or mine. This is one of those times when revoking talk page access is actually doing them a favor as much as for the community, so they don't dig themselves into a hole they can't climb out of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you expressed my thoughts better than I did ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 5 August 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 to dredge this up again, but considering muffinman has now been globally locked for cross wiki vandalism, and is most likely the culprit of this friendly message, perhaps someone might want to consider extending his block indef, IMO this is more than just a stressed out editor--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, with the account locked an indef would accomplish little, though it would make it harder for him to come back if he ever does.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, seems I'd misunderstood what a global lock is, never mind, least I learnt something new--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of uniformity, block extended to indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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

IP inserting very large list into talk page for no reason, potential BLP violation

This ip Special:Contributions/84.106.26.81 is inserting this large list: [82] from User:POVbrigand/list into the Cold Fusion talk page. I've reverted it as inappropriate and a potential BLP violation but the ip is restoring it. The text also contains a personal attack: "It must be hard to work on wikipedia if you are stuborn and illterate. But just because you cant read or refuse to read doesn't mean you have some kind of point. You do understand that right?". The IP has been blocked for disruption previously: [[83]]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm writing my reply. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That massive list is ridiculously long and definitely should have been removed. This, along with lots of BLP, NPA and OR violation leads me to believe that a very nice, long block is in store for this IP. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, lets start there, what is rediculous about it? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, for starters, it's extremely long. Most people just can't read something that long. See WP: TLDR. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the length itself appearing on the talk page? We can simply use {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}; I've done this to my own comments on talk pages when I've done resource dumps. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The attitude is problematic, but...

What's the nature of the alleged BLP violations? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a list of people who are claimed to be Cold Fusion researchers. One of the people on the list and in the cold fusion article complained about being labelled as a cold fusion researcher at Cold Fusion, so it is a contentious label. The sourcing is also poor, lots of OR. I suggest people read the text before the list as well, in relation to asking someone to show that it is fraud etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I read it. In an article I would throw it out, for discussion maybe not. The unwanted inclusions, though... Link for the people disputing their inclusion, please? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

[84]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That text is ridiculous because it is not discussing any edits to the main article, and because it proposes an open ended discussion of the topic, which is not the intended use of talk pages. Olorinish (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you are right, we could collapse it. My problems are the NPA violations. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read the text itself really, and I'm making no comments about it; the length issue is all that I plan to discuss. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tried to collapse it, reflist doesn't collapse. Text is already available in diff form: there is no reason to post it, especially considering the BLP implications. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Reflists can be collapsed; see User:Nyttend/Ohio RA for an example. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The material on the talk page ought to be collapsed, anyone wanting to post something else on that page should not be expected to scroll down through it all. Per WP:BLP - We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources - , any contentions claims about people should be removed from an article until the matter is resolved. Note also: Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. See also: WP:LISTPEOPLE. As regards civility, just because this is written and anonymous media, there is absolutely no excuse to issue insults and it's not going o help get the job done. Both 84.106.26.81 and IRWolfie have been sparring over various issues for months. Time to give it a rest before someone does get blocked.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is a fair characterization of my editing. Bear in mind that this ip has been inactive for months, so I'm not sure what led you to that conclusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Doughnuthead

Look out for that WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Initial discussion I've copied and pasted this directly from AN, as an editor there suggested it was better to discuss the ban here. The discussion is to resume as normal and people can continue voicing their opinions.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC) After noticing the extensive amount of vandalism this user has caused to the encyclopaedia, and this diff which clearly shows his persistent activity, I feel that a community ban is warranted for this long-term troll. His attacks on various editors (namely User:Boing! said Zebedee and User:thejadefalcon) are vulgar and persistent, and I feel a ban would help get the message he is not welcome here.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Dougnuthead is a sock of an indef banned user. The primary account has multiple declined unblock requests and is therefore defacto banned -- there's no benefit to WP to have a ban discussion. Nobody Ent 11:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Nobody Ent, as much as I see your point that no one will unblock him, a community ban would make it more 'official' that he is banned and alert other users who do not know him to know who he is. Also he is not a sock of an indef blocked user, he is the sockmaster of these 30 odd accounts. And if you look at User:XxTR1CKZzxx's talk page, you'll see the users there were considering unblocking him subject to him agreeing to conditions (which he ultimately didn't and gave away it was him). That itself perfectly warrants a ban, as far as I'm concerned.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Apparently the person behind the account is already community-banned. Why community-ban the person again? Banning yet another sock account is simply feeding the trolls dangerouspanda 11:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Which account was he banned under? 28bytes (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC) No people, Doughnuthead is e master account behind these sockpuppets. From what I can see there is no community ban linked with him or his socks anywhere at all. It would not be feeding the trolls, simply dealing with a constant pest. Cheers.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC) 28bytes, he has not been banned officially yet (although I did take the liberty of placing a banned template on his page per Nobody Ent's comment above. If anyone has an issue with this please contact me.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think placing such templates based on a decision by a single non-admin is a terribly good idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I reverted that tag as he isn't banned, and adding that only makes it confusing. Seriously, this starts to become feeding the trolls and giving them new trophies. De fact banned means anyone that would need to know can easily see that the user should be treated as banned even if he isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Support - He has exhausted all patience with the community. With the sockpuppeter on the loose, we should put this user in its place. With that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Waste of everyone's time, and giving him the publicity he wants - just revert on sight, block and ignore. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Support - Just adding my own support, as I am the proposer of this. Also, can anyone contact Thejadefalcon about this discussion, see what his position on this is.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Strong Support - I certainly don't like the idea of non-admins slapping BANNED templates on errant users' pages either (as RBW has done), but I think this user has long since rendered himself ineffective to the project as far as positive contributions are concerned. I'm reading his talk page right now. I just shake my head at how he has abused the unblock template to no end and some of his lines like to quote unblock request #3 (denied by Peridon), "Oh my god... you are such a fool. I have much more than 17 other accounts. Theyve all been used in the exact same way but whether or not they actually exist is for your stupid checkuser to find out," is actually nothing more than hot air when someone calls BS on his promises to behave. Like he's even proud that he has a truckload of socks. Get him out of here and tell him to take a hike, because like his handle states, he really is a doughnut - got nothing in the middle. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I've suggested an edit so we don't have to do this every month or so Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Quick_question Nobody Ent 15:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - I don't understand the point of this. He's already indefinitely blocked, so why are we having a discussion about imposing a community ban? He's technically restricted from editing, so I don't see any point in enacting a ban.—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 05:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Yutsil, he has continued attacking the site and harassing other users since 2009, and continues up to the present day. It's clear that he's just not getting the message here, so a ban is appropriate to show him that he is totally not welcome here. If he stays only indeffed then he may think that we are still tolerating his actions. However a ban would show we're not putting up with him anymore, see what I mean?--RedBullWarrior (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I appreciate your well-meaning suggestions, but you really don't think he already knows that, and you think a formal ban will make one iota of difference to him? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I doubt it will, but the one thing it does do is make any sock edits fall under the "banned means banned" provision of the banning policy, thus making WP:RBI easier to accomplish. That is far and away the best approach to take with such cases. I wouldn't have started this conversation but since we are having it we might as well just ban him and get back to ignoring him. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I agree with Beeblerox, we can ban him and then if he decides to start socking again he will be reverted without question under ban evasion.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Once the sock has been verified, that is. Which is no different than the sock of an indef user. Nobody Ent 11:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC) So what's the decision on Doughnuthead? It's been 2 days and there's still not a clear decision on whether to ban him or not.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC) With this appearing on AN rather than ANI, it's getting far too few responses - although consensus from the few !votes is to ban, it's hard to consider it to be representative of the community as a whole. As such, it may need at least another 24hrs dangerouspanda 11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Support. Proposing his own ban? I give him 2/10 for not being completely unoriginal. Very obviously, he is here only to troll. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) A strange twist of fate Based on Deskana's checkuser investigation, RedBullWarrior is a Doughnuthead's sock himself - blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Hmm, I hadn't noticed that RedBullWarrior has only been registered for 2 weeks, yet knew all about Doughnuthead from long before that :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Bizarre. Let's just implement the ban he desired then. Not quite a self-block, but obviously Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY dangerouspanda 15:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I've declined a rather bizarre unblock request ("I want to ban myself so I can forget about myself and start again", or words to that effect) and have revoked talk page access - any unblock attempts should come from the original account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC) WTF?! RBW is another Doughnuthead sock? Oh man, well-played, but it ends here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:18, 6 August 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.

Repeat Vandalism at Major League Soccer

The following discussion is closed. 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 page protection from anons at Major League Soccer. Repeat vandalism in the last 5 minutes by multiple anon IPs. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for a day. If vandalism resumes tomorrow, try WP:RFPP for a longer protection. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 6 August 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.

184.187.14.181

The following discussion is closed. 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:184.187.14.181 has attempted six times to define Battlement as "A pattern of structure focused of structure of actions of defensive capability." —Tamfang (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks; they edit war this silliness in spurts, with long periods of inactivity in between, so it's for 2 weeks to ensure I get their attention. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 6 August 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:Nemambrata

Nemambrata (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA created a couple days ago for the purpose of pushing a new title for the controversial Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. The account's behavior is combative, aggressive, and imo highly suspicious. Upon arriving here three days ago, the user immediately began pushing a distinct POV in a long-standing dispute on that article - appearing to have a pre-formed position on the subject. The user proposed an RM, and began edit-warring across no less than 13 articles to insert his preferred title into the text without consensus (see contribs). -- Director (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I kindly ask administrators to help me here. User:DIREKTOR is track and revert my changes and he do not discuss it on talk pages. Both User:DIREKTOR and User:Peacemaker67 are harras me and revert me since the moment I started to edit Wikipedia. Look this: [85]. I explained there my changes. User:DIREKTOR did not discussed anything on that talk page but he reverted my edit without any explanation. I also see that User:DIREKTOR was blocked many times because of edit warring. I discussed my changes on talk pages that I reverted but DIREKTOR did not: [86],[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMa%C4%8Dva&diff=505425273&oldid=501580892]. Yes, I did not discussed my changes on talk pages of all pages that I reverted, but problem on all these pages is more less same. I only changed barely sourced and misleading description into more accurate one and I explained why. DIREKTOR even did not explained why he revert my changes and what he think that is wrong there. Nemambrata (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is actually 18 articles, they all relate to the history of modern-day Serbia in WWII, and the user usually uses the edit summary 'better' without discussion (on the talk page) after being reverted. When the user does edit the relevant talkpage, it is generally immediately followed by a revert on the article page, and there is no attempt to actually discuss. The sense is of an editor with one purpose, to impose their pre-registration ideas on a set of articles. As soon as another article comes to their attention they immediately add it to their list for edit warring. For example, I make this constructive edit [87] on Occupation of Serbia in World War II, bringing the article Banat (1941–1944) to their attention, and this is followed by this [[88]] edit on the Banat (1941–1944) article pushing their preferred article title for Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia which is currently under RfM discussion. The edit warring regarding this editors preferred title in the RfM ramped up immediately after they opened the discussion here [89]. I have not experienced this level of aggressive single-purpose edit-warring since I have been on WP (mainly working on WWII MILHIST Balkans articles, which isn't for the faint-hearted). I am also concerned that a lot of the same articles that this user has been edit warring on have had very recent edit warring by another obvious WP:SPA that was subsequently blocked, HuHu22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know who is HuHu22. I was editing Wikipedia before with IP number, not with registered username. I only registered my username now to repair mistake about history of my birth town Šabac but after Peacemaker67 started to be aggressive, revert my changes and to threat me, I decided to repair mistakes in some other pages. Please see threats that Peacemaker67 sent me when I registered my username: [90]. I do not know who DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 are and I do not understand how can they behave like this. They threat new users and revert them without any explanation.I now also see that Peacemaker67 accusing me that I am sockpuppet of some user that was blocked: [91]. I think that users of Wikipedia should cooperate in friendly way not to attack others like this. Am I wrong? Nemambrata (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clearly state that I am not suggesting you are anyone's sockpuppet. I am suggesting that there is a lot of similar disruption occurring on the same pages all of a sudden, and you are part of that as a WP:SPA. And there is a big difference between a threat and a WP:template warning for disruptive editing. I have seen no evidence of friendly cooperation from you, and though I have attempted to explain my actions on various talkpages and used WP:RS you continue to revert my edits. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, you say you have seen no evidence of friendly cooperation from me, but your first message to me was “Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Šabac. Your edits have been reverted or removed”. Do you say that this my edit is disruptive? I even included reference in my edit. Look that you just want to accuse users who do not think like you for disruption so that you are free to write what you want in pages. This is content dispute, not disruption. I changed page, I included reference, I discussed it on talk page. And we see here that other users also think that name that you want to impose in Wikipedia is bad and wrong. And my explanation for administrators about this content dispute is here: [92]. Please read my comment there to see what this is about. You will see that Peacemaker67 try to impose in Wikipedia an name that is barely sourced and not established in English language, against recommendation in WP:TITLE. Nemambrata (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This fella is an obvious sock or meatpuppet. An SPA account created for the sole purpose of helping his buddies, arriving on the project with ready-made POV he's edit-warring over on 18 articles. There have already been two or three users (I can't be sure I wasn't active until recently) that appeared and were blocked as socks and disruptive SPA accounts. Evidence has also been provided of serious threats, and canvassing on the Serbian Wiki (here's the latest thread on the subject). Notice, for example, how these folks all immediately point to my block log as soon as they're reported for some reason. Even a casual investigation of this person's activities should imo confirm the allegations. -- Director (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Nemambrata. You removed sourced content and two inline WP:RS citations supporting the material, and replaced it with your own content (the version of the article title you have been consistently edit warring in support of) AND you placed an inline citation there from a source that was immediately identified as non-WP:RS as soon as it was mentioned on the reliable sources noticeboard. The diff you provided of your first edit here shows of all that. That is disruption, and is why I warned you.Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, yes, I am sure there is huge conspiracy of many sockpuppets against you. Perhaps evil space aliens are behind it, are they? Or maybe masons? Or world government in shadow? Nemambrata (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, other users also confirmed that your references are wrong. This is what User:Dicklyon say about this: “Now it's clear why all the caps in the German, official or otherwise, but there's not official name in English, so he made up a translation and capitalized it. No other book or paper that we know of uses this term. And no source has adopted his translation in the last 40+ years since he did it. Even if we adopt it, there's no reason to capitalize it, as there's no evidence that it's an official or proper name.”. This is what User:Antidiskriminator say: “No, I don't mean Hehn. He is the only source for another article's title which has serious problem with its topic and name because it is not WP:COMMONNAME”. Both users agree with my position about name that you want to push in Wikipedia. Are they sockpuppets too? Nemambrata (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrators, this block log show that DIREKTOR is disruptive user blocked for disruptive revert warring many times. This show that he continue with that behavior because he simply reverted me with no edit summary and with no comments on talk page where I explained my changes: [93]. Nemambrata (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, forget the squabble above and please note the account's activities. He's trying to clog-up the report. Its an SPA - no question. And he is edit-warring all over the place. -- Director (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

and suddenly, after five days of ferocious editwarring, nothing for over 24 hours...

What that mean? I must edit Wikipedia every 24 hours? I have life. Nemambrata (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Could we please get an admin to look at this SPA? It is nearly the oldest report here, and the SPA continues to edit war in the 18 or so articles identified already. This has now also occurred with User:MrX here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request awaiting a response

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

---

Luciferwildcat (talk · contribs)

The user has had an unblock request up for quite some time. Would an administrator have a moment to respond? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 7 August 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.

Unreferenced BLP at AFC, OTRS ticket raised for deletion

The following discussion is closed. 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 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eddie Kathrein. I've courtesy blanked the page for the time being, but is it worth just speedying this? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 7 August 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.

Hanja skirmish at Lee Areum (possibly Korean speaker needed)

I have reverted once. I would semi-protect, but I believe the IP is correct and the registered user is wrong, so semi-protection is backwards in this case.

• Lee Areum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Famitsudc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.116.215.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

I understand people sometimes use mixed Hangul and Hanja in their name and romanize differently, so I suggested it not be changed until it could be verified by citation. However, it looks like they have both found resources that support their position. Unfortunately, the resource in each case is YouTube.

Thanks,  :- ) Don 13:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter and Giant Snowman

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

---

Ganging up and promoting Serbian nationalism. Edit-warring between the two of them [94], Giant Snowman has blanketed my every edit since I joined [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100] and all if you look. My point is that there is no WP:MOS rule that says a country of birth has got to be what it was when the person was born, and all Kosovan cities have two standard titles in English: Albanian and Serbian equivalent. But the majority of locals use the Albanian titles (eg. Ferizaj and not Urosevac). They have no rule book to show me and they have never got a consensus on these things, they just go and spread the Serbian names then guard them angrily. I suggest blocking of both. Kthimi në Shqipëri (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, this is almost definitely a blocked user socking to promote POV - running straight to ANI on your first day? Secondly, please read WP:MODERNPLACENAME - "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods." There is also a long-standing consensus to do. Nationalism and POV of any kind has no place on Wikipedia. You will soon find out when this ridiculous thread is closed and your biased edits are reverted. Thirdly, you have not notified myself or WhiteWriter. GiantSnowman 10:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

O, i can say only few words.  Looks like a duck to me Should be blocked per BOOMERANG and ARBMAC restrictions. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite. Closing this. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did, I told WhiteWriter in a statement on my talk page. Giant Snowman, please learn how to use Wikipedia: old names or new names are just content dispute. There is no consensus to support old names, and don't you find it provocative considering what happened in the 1990's in Kosovo? Do Kosovars want to have their names in Cyrillic and their town names in Serbian just because this all applied in Yugoslavia which is now defunct? It is just content dispute and I back my reasoning by citing the fact that English sources do use the Albanian names too so they can both be right, but a local majority use the Albanian name because they ARE Albanians, so Albanian is the better of the two for Kosovar places. The fact is you never used the talk page, you never achieved consensus, and yet you harass me by reverting my every edit. Why can't the majority name stay while we talk on talk pages? Kthimi në Shqipëri (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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

IP 108.71.197.17 / User:HunterSilver

The following discussion is closed. 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 think banned User:HunterSilver returned again, with his attempts to push his unconstructive edits at List of Prime Ministers of Nepal, now with this IP address: 108.71.197.17. Just to let you know, User:HunterSilver is a sockpuppet of User:HasperHunter, who was banned indefinitely on April 20, 2012 for abusing multiple accounts. All of them are, in turn, sockpuppets of User:DBSSURFER (previous SPI about that user can be found here). This looks like a classic WP:DUCK to me. I hope someone can solve this issue for good. --Sundostund (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Probably no point blocking a dynamic IP that edited four days ago, so I've semi-protected the article for a longer period instead. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 7 August 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:Evlekis 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.

---

Disruptive editing: insists on messing with other users' input, here [101] and here [102]. User notified [103]. Long ANI history [104]. Majuru (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Majuru is referring to these edits[105] [106]. In both cases, I provided reasoning in the edit summary. Initially, this was inserted on the wrong article. It was corrected not by me but by a mediator here. The same edit introduced the following section. Next, for one reason or another but with no explanation comes this badly placed contribution. I was only restoring it to the section titled Let's Get Started which is where it belongs. Three people discussing an issue, three statements; then discussion from the next paragraph. So as far as I can see, the only violation to have occurred was Majuru's false claim of vandalism. Concerning matters where I have been reported in the past, once again I fail to see where they come into this matter. Not only is this not related to any other but nothing has happened here to warrant admin action. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Messes in a stupid way" - please read WP:NPA, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think measures should be taken: he hasn't reverted himself yet. He shows no respect for other people's contribs. I'm offended. He has no business with other people's texts. Majuru (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Did he change the meaning of your text, or did he simply reformat it or move it to comply with some guideline on format? I mean, did he ADD or TAKE AWAY actual content here to make it look like you said something different? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He copy-pasted a previous (longer) version of mine, twice, after I had made some pretty normal changes to MY statement on a talkpage for mediation request. He wasn't moving it to comply with guidelines, format or anything like that. His statements might help:

• This negligible whimper by Majuru needs to go onto the talk page and not here, it is not my task to paste this text and then sign it for him.. [107]
• I have cleaned the article of the mess. Can you know paste your little "testament" onto the talk section... [108]

User:ZjarriRrethues also warned him... [109] I think we're dealing here with an arrogant! Majuru (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, you are absolutely correct. My edit was a reformatting and there was no amendment of content, nothing added and nothing substracted. Furthermore I was not the original author of the version I twice restored. Keilana copied Majuru's text from the main space into the talk section; when I saw Majuru moved it into a place it didn't belong, I replaced it. It was a good faith contribution aimed at keeping things in perspective. The so-called "warning" from Zjarri did not pertain to Majuru's edits but to something concerning a different editor. I am just baffled as to why Majuru's every edit seems to focus heavily on this comment placement rather than editing on that talk itself. A discussion is in progress and the three of us who are involved in the dispute have been discussing the matter for several days, Majuru hasn't made one contribution to that page since giving his original statement. Isn't it time to just move on? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand? Leave it as it was!!! Majuru (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Majuru, it is you who needs to familiarise himself with the conditions and practices of this website. In the first place, you do not give orders to other users with your imperitive "Leave it as it was!!!" and "Revert yourself". Every editor has a right to make amendments as and how he sees fit in the interests of the website. When I told you that it was not my task to insert your text onto the talk page I meant precisely that, I cannot sign something for you; Keilana may have done what I didn't but this is both an admin and the mediator in the affair. When you then shifted the piece to a space which appears after the ongoing discussion, it would have forced everybody including you to add comments which are sandwiched between already submitted statements. Furthermore, I played no part in conditioning the edit in the way you are not happy with it, Keilana took care of that; I was only working from a plain "Undo". Now if your wish is to tighten your sentences then you are free to do this; if your only wish is to see your old edit restored purely out of blind loyalty to this ANI position then I cannot help you, I will not make an edit I know to mess the page and confuse readers who wish to read all threads in the order they were posted. With that, I can only say that your statement - which flouted all requests by the mediator not to poke at or name other editors - correctly belongs to the place where the rest of us placed our viewpoints. You could do yourself far more favours if you accepted my good faith contribution and proceeded to engage in that discussion which you played your part in creating. Apart from this one section being discussed here, you have made no contribution to the actual discussion, yet it has been active several days now. Can I suggest you drop this purge, and stop running here every single time one of my edits interferes with yours. You need to pay attention to admins who alert you to WP:NPA and not continue to violate this convention as you have done when labelling me "arrogant" in one of your later posts, and get down to the reasons we are here; join that discussion, give everyone your views on what has been said by me and what has been said by ZjarriRrethues, and the sooner we will reach consensus. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you read: Behaviour that is unacceptable (Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions (with permissions) are described in the next section.) [110]Majuru (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to recite procedure again I see. Well, for your information, I did not alter your comments. They say now what they did when you wrote them. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Here you are, the following is acceptable. Read: Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And which of the above did you do?

• You didn't move a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom,
• you didn't add a header to a comment not having one,
• you didn't repair accidental damage by one party to another's comments,
• you didnn't correct unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting,
• neither did you accurately replace HTML table code with a wikitable. On the contrary, you actually messed up another user's comments. Beside lying, I think you are trying to game the system. Majuru (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Tick the first box, moved your piece from bottom to top. The header was already in place (2). Concerning your third point, I do not know whether I was repairing accidental damage as whether or not it was accidental is down to the user who made the mess (ie. you). Of course, if your edit was not accidental then you have tacitly admitted to wrecking the page, because your introductory comment belonged to the introductory paragraph. Concerning your claims of me "lying" (a third personal attack by you on this one thread) and your allegation that I am "gaming the system", I invite you to gather your evidence and start a new post. In the meantime, can I request an admin close this thread once and for all, it has dragged on needlessly and has served as a soapbox for Majuru who has now made contributions on ZERO other articles since August 3. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Have neither of you wondered why no admins (except Dennis early on) have chimed in here? I'm closing this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 8 August 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.

Enforce WP:PLACEHOLDER

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

---

According to WP:PLACEHOLDER, "Use of these placeholders is deprecated. Many editors objected to their appearance, though some felt that they worked for the intended purpose." The context is image placeholders designed to draw attention to the absence of an image.

A few people at WT:NRHP have agreed to ignore that consensus and conveniently have overlooked the fact that "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.". I have multiple times removed the placeholder from {{NRHP row}} (which is used to generate lines in lists), but my attempts to remind them of projectwide consensus on the subject have been treated with scorn. I therefore must ask that the template be fully protected with the placeholder absent. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, I'm sorry to disagree with you here. First, "deprecated" does not mean "verboten", in my opinion. If there is a consensus at NRHP (yeah, I know, and if pigs could fly we'd all be going to London on our pet porkers) that the pic/icon/ downloadbutton is fine, then that does not violate "deprecated". Second, I don't think that ANI is really the right forum to ask for an enforcement. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places is still ongoing. I read Ammodramus comment and doncram's response, for instance--I think there are bigger fish to fry here than enforcement of a generally held guidelines. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

While the NHRP project is in the wrong here, it's not appropriate for minor policy disputes to be decided by fiat at ANI. It's important to ensure that LOCALCONSENSUS issues are settled properly through the usual dispute channels rather than by admin fiat in order to gradually introduce more insular projects into cooperation with the wider encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that ANI isn't the place for this discussion - but at the same time, I noticed the project talk page discussion isn't generating much input from the broader Wikipedia community, only from project members which can result in a type of groupthink. An RfC would be the better course to get broader community consideration. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please close this discussion. The discussion at wt:NRHP is open for anyone to comment at, including suggestions that it should be listed as an RFC to attract wider attention. There is no good purpose served by keeping this ANI section open, it just seems like inviting idle, negative chatter about a WikiProject which is doing fine, thank you very much. --doncram 23:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• And didn't we have a huge discussion related to this about a month ago that ended in everyone losing interest and going off to edit articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 7 August 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:Uncle G

The following discussion is closed. 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 administrator!. I was involved in a normal discussion about users templates here which is closed already just now. but the big issue is this user thinks people who are just registered to wikipedia are kids!!. I went to his talk page regarding his edit here. I told him politely at his talk page that he should go to noticeboard and talk about it. he replied; "actually kid". this is insulting and i may elder than him. I request an apologize at least.--Neogeolegend (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of us are old emough to call anyone "kid" and be right, relatively speaking. ANI is not the board you would complain about this, WP:WQA is, and I'm pretty sure no one is going to see that as offensive. Maybe a little condescending, but you did just tell him that he has no authority to edit a template because he is an admin, which was odd, to say the least. In my opinion, there is nothing here to complain about, as it wasn't meant offensively. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A better idea would be for you to stop quite deliberately causing drama; you were given the benefit of the doubt in that discussion, but that is unlikely to continue to be the case given that you should have known that the boxes in question were likely to raise eyebrows if not offence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Predictably ... Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 7#Template:User interested in Nazi Germany. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Nazi Germany would be next… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I just found this page and wrote. Maybe am new to English Wikipedia to some reasons of my real life or my work. He has no rights to call me a kid or anyone here. If I didn't write this complaint, he would say it to anyone.--Neogeolegend (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point it's beginning to look like you're trolling for attention. You may want to read WP:BOOMERANG — Ched :  ?  22:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevant AN thread — Ched :  ?  22:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

oh my god. am not trolling. am not playing here. am old enough for not be treated like this type of discussion.--Neogeolegend (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Ok, so "kid" may be dismissive, but it's not the purview of ANI - nobody is going to be blocked for it. dangerouspanda 22:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

give me a chance. :I don't want to request block! I need justice. am not playing here.--Neogeolegend (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

am not requesting a serious action, i need justice. this is ain't polite at all. I am a regular user who wants a good manner type of talking to other users. Again, am not playing here.--Neogeolegend (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Then go edit an article and move on with your life. He called you kid. Big deal. There's an article that needs editing. --Golbez (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

One cannot force a valid apology, so don't try. As an adult, you already know that, and you know that trying to force it is fruitless. dangerouspanda 22:57, 7 August 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:68.37.29.229

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

---

Firstly, IP user 68.37.29.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) makes edits to List of The Real Housewives of New Jersey episodes, which are reverted by Logical Fuzz (talk · contribs) due to copyright; thus, a violation of Wikipedia's copyright violation guideline. Then, he contacts Fuzz, saying that is not copyright, because its promotional. Me and Fuzz state it still violates the guidelines. Now, 68.37.29.299 goes to TBrandley (talk · contribs)'s (my) talk page, stating that it is "Non-free use". We repeated explain that "non-free use" only refers to images, as explained on the page. He keeps disagreeing with us, then starts to personally attack us. One example is "what other television show entries have been ruined by deleting content is not a personal attack". TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) then joins the conversion, noting various things [111]. He gets put on the "Admin noticeboard for Edit warning", and is blocked for two days. He, again, starts to attack us on his talk page where we left messages, stating that we have "powers" when an admin blocked him. He started editing on his user account, and was blocked on that too as he is not suppose to edit. Then, out of nowhere, after blocked, Then he makes a irrelevant edit to one of TRIJC19's pages, and says that we are the same users, and opens two "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TBrandley" and "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TRLIJC19", for Fuzz, TBrandley (me), and TRIJC19. I have requested checkusers to check, then end this madness. I'm very angry, honestly. A half-dozen editors all agree as of right now, according to Fuzz's conversion with an admin. Various admins got into this conversion; and now, see the top of his talk page! Here are some links to conversions/pages related to this topic (please see them): [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], etc. Thank you. TBrandley 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC) OK, I'll look into it, but please (a) relax, and (b) stop making all these little tweaks to this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Only reason is because I keep telling him, but he is failing to see the point. Thanks, TBrandley 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've left a strongly worded note on the IP's talk page that I hope will address this. If not, a block is in order. I've blanked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TBrandley as it was incomplete, and commented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TRLIJC19 that it should be closed if no evidence is going to be presented. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think it's right that an SPI was opened on me, with no evidence from an IP, harming my reputation on Wikipedia. This IP needs to be dealt with. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the case was closed. Thanks everyone for helping bring an end to this ridiculous accusation. I still feel that the IP should be dealt with. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So sorry this accusation was levelled against you, but reasonable people will not take it seriously. Your reputation should survive intact. In fact, T. Canens has deleted the SPI page as "routine housekeeping". Please read the warning Floq has given on the IP talk page; if the activity resumes, I would be surprised. -- Dianna (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I do not know how to correctly fill-out a sockpuppet investigation-most people would not. I really need to know why it would be so important to cancel it once it is started? What harm or serious waste of resource could come from letting it run its course? I have serious reasons to suspect. Most importantly being where one character claimed that they did something, (an edit)-but then I saw where that edit had been signed by the other person. Isn't the SPI-thingy what that is for? Again, how could letting it go be a bad thing?68.37.29.229 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See here; you misread something TRL said, he did not take credit for that edit. You keep talking about "serious reasons" to suspect, but all you've ever mentioned is this one, easily explained thing. You don't get to fling unsubstantiated accusations around, which I assume is why the SPI clerk deleted that page. It's particularly galling when I see you actually sockpuppeted with User:Housewifehader just a few days ago. If an errant SPI was the only problem here, I'd be more delicate, but all you've been doing lately is disrupt. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, "most people" would know to follow the directions at WP:SPI to fill out their sockpuppet report. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really, but we clerks don't mind fixing the botched reports when needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:36, 7 August 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:TurtleMelody

The following discussion is closed. 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 removing information that are of interest to any given reader from pages that do have popular culture information that are helpful to know as per WP:POPCULTURE. Three editors including myself (not counting ones that have warned him in the past) have told him to stop removing these information and he claimed that administrators supported his cause although he cannot name them. He has been warned so many times over the last couple years to stop removing trivia / popular culture information from articles and still does it anyways. His editing also violates WP:NOBLANKING which he removes these categories arbitrarily himself without discussing them. His talk page is quite colorful into displaying his attitude and he seems to hold utter contempt for editors that disagrees with him. ViriiK (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot name them but I have had support in the past on the talk pages of numerous articles where I blanked the fancruft and pop culture trivia. I believe I am in good faith and doing a service to Wikipedia by wiping this stuff which is frankly embarrassing to the project. You do not need every reference, passing and otherwise to Williamsburg in an article on Williamsburg. It makes the article look bad by having the largest section be the section on trivia. Maybe this differentiates Wikipedia from other encyclopedias but I know there are sane people out there who think that to include every reference Family Guy has ever made to a product, person, place, thing to be an idiotic waste of time.TurtleMelody (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I see an issue whch I cannot stand for. He conducted personal attacks on many editors, including User: 117Avenue ("Removing insane amount of detail to a horribly written article counts as disruptive? You've got some serious problems."), User: CliffC ("I have added a topic in the talk page for that article about why the reference to a cat in a bad, CGI, Hollywood movie is not relevant. You are either not listening or assuming bad faith. I will continue removing 'bad trivia' from articles. You're free to undo them but do not call them 'vandalism'. It isn't vandalism, it is quite purposeful and I believe being done for the good of Wikipedia. There are countless wikipedia articles with serious topics that have bad references to Family Guy and other stupid shows for fat, white, adolescent boys, which just happens to be the description of most Wikipedia editors, oddly enough." and, most impotantly, User: Drmies ("Sounds like someone's beating their chest and stroking their dick at the same time. It was withdrawn so I deleted it. No one else wanted the article to be deleted so the issue was settled.", "I'm an anarchist. That means 'without leaders' in Greek. I know you're probably used to people kissing your shoes, but I will not."). This was taken just from his talkpage. He then peppers users with wild accusations and theories and then hides behind WP: GOODFAITH. I cannot fathom what other atrocities this user has uttered, but I certainly won't stand for these attacks. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The following quote shows that he knows perfectly well what Wikipedia policy is on this and advocates changing the policy:

"I've been deleting these [in popular culture sections for quite some time, I feel that these add nothing to the articles and are frankly embarrassing references [...] while these references might be well-known to a certain segment of society, white, pudgy American neckbeards, they are probably quite foreign to most people in the world. My proposal, change the guidelines for trivia entries and in popular culture entries [...] Does someone want to rewrite the guidelines? I'd be very willing to help do it. As it is Wikipedia is looking pretty sad with every article seeming like an annoying college-aged dude who remembers every episode of Family Guy."[119]

Alas, instead of actually making a proposal to change our policies, he has decided to just go ahead and delete a large number of "in popular culture" sections even though he knows that doing so is against policy.

Other problematic talk page comments: [120][121][122] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content#Good and bad popular culture references lists several examples of what we want to see in "In popular culture" sections. Look carefully at the third example. Now look at This Edit. Disruptive editing doesn't get much clearer than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You think so? Well, for my part, what I see at the top of WP:POPCULTURE is that it's an essay, with no force as a guideline or policy, and is no more than the opinion of its authors. As such, who is the "we" to whom you're referring? Obviously TurtleMelody has serious problems with WP:CIVIL, and the wave of egregious insults is more than enough to warrant a wake-up call block, but c'mon now. Failure to abide by the opinions of the author of the xkcd webcomic is a Wikipedia violation worthy of ANI? Seriously? Ravenswing 05:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ATA and WP:BRD are "only essays" too you know. Just because it's "an essay" doesn't mean it's not the standing WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for TurtleMelody's deletions, and multiple editors have reverted them. He doesn't get to make a new policy like "no in popular culture sections allowed" without community input. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I know; I'm just sayin'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, does our article on Sea Breeze (cocktail) actually need to be 50% composed of practically unsourced text detailing every time a character on TV or film ordered a Sea Breeze? No, it doesn't - that's just ridiculous. Some of the others are like that as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that some areas do suffer from an excess of "in popular culture" fluff (often poorly sourced or even contradictory); but that isn't a license to bulldoze everything. It's important to keep the good stuff, get rid of the bad stuff, and try to get along with other editors, no? bobrayner (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If he was being selective and discussing the edits when someone objects I would have no problem. What he has done is to decide, unilaterally, that no Wikipedia article shall have a "in popular culture" section, and proceeded to mass delete them. That hurts the encyclopedia. Plus he is uncivil. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Guy Macon's assessment. So the question is, what's the remedy? I'm sort of thinking an article-space-only topic ban from "In Popular Culture" sections might be in order. Not from discussing them in, but from editing them directly. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that would do the job. I would like to see some wording thrown in saying that he is invited to try to convince Wikipedia to change the policy that he disagrees with. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, while discussion continues, TM also continues their pointy non-consensual edits, having just now removed all popcult entries from William M. Tweed. And who is this person, anyway, who appears out of nowhere and starts such a pointy campaign? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the question... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You suggest a checkuser check for socking? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask for checkuser when I filed the SPI case (see below) but any other user is welcome to do so. Where there are two, there may be more. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's very probable that these editors are the same, so I endorse the SPI, but since STS has been around since 2006, a CheckUser to look for other socks seems like a good idea. I tried to rectroactively change to "checkuser=yes", but I can't figure out how to do it. If a passing admin is able to do so, I request a CheckUser for this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And this is why normal people flee Wikipedia. Anyone who challenges the hegemony of the wikinerd wolfpack gets bureaucracied into oblivion. I think the fact that I lost a fight over trying to remove references to Green Lantern in the Boss Tweed article is all the evidence anyone should need that Wikipedia is (a) irrelevant, (b) inaccurate, and (c) useless for any purpose except stroking the ego of pale, moist, pugnacious Trekkies with personality disorders. - SmashTheState (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting new twist: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SmashTheState --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Very, very interesting. This is definitely either sock or meat. I foresee a block for these two in the near future. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use subst:ANI-notice to do so." If you're going to accuse me of being someone else, have the balls to follow your own rules and alert me. But then, we all know I'm not him, and this is really about using your poisonous little clique to punish people for disagreeing with you. I am tiresomely familiar with the way Wikipedia works at this point. - SmashTheState (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If I ever report you at ANI, I will give you notice. However, I reported you at WP:SPI, where the instructions say "(Notification is not mandatory, and in some cases may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.)". Free clue: the instructions for filing an ANI case are not the same as the instructions for filing a SPI case. That's why template:ANI-notice exists and template:SPI-notice does not. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Why am I reminded of Kafka's The Trial. SmashTheState made the connection before. Wikipedia is a cult and its users display cult-like behaviour. Nothing I can say will be able to defend me from the rabid pack of neck-beards (I used neck-beards, I must be SmashtheState). I acknowledge your rules but will take any effort to follow them as long as they allow for spam and nerd trvia to be included. As it is now, any topic that was ever acknowledged by Family Guy should be referenced to said show. This will kill Wikipedia and make it into a ridiculous club for white privileged males. I think people are forgetting that English Wikipedia is used by English-speakers all over the world and they don't necessarily give a shit if Family Guy ever made reference to some person, place or thing. Most don't but the editors, who are Wikipedia's cult members have created this project for themselves and not for the English speakers of the world. I will add: I created the article No Gods, No Masters and with great difficulty because it wasn't a new episode of Family Guy, The Simpsons, Pokemon or a new They Might Be Giants] album. This typifies the problem with Wikipedia in my opinion. What is considered encylopedic is anything the US mass-media barfs out for nerds at the latest Comic-Con, everything else is subject to inquiry. This is my last posting on this topic as I don't believe I will be fairly judged by the cult of Wikipedia users who cite the rules over and over and over without ever thinking that perhaps the rules are ridiculous and wrong.TurtleMelody (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have had about enough of this disruptive editing and personal attacks. Both of these editor are destructive, so I am proposing a block. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In the last 10 months, I've made something like six edits to articles, all of them extremely minor. My "disruptive" editing and "personal attacks" (hint: commenting about the general behaviour of Wikipedia as a whole is not a personal attack - I've been through this already and repeatedly in regard to my user page) consist in disagreeing with you here. It is *your* behaviour which is disruptive, *your* behaviour which is threatening and discourteous, and is precisely and specifically the reason I stopped editing on Wikipedia. - SmashTheState (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Then do it then! We don't want you, we don't need, you, so quit already! Stop wasting all of our time disrupting Wikipedia. I guarantee, everyone else on this board will agree with me, you are not helping the encyclopedia. You are hurting it. This is a classic case of WP: NOTHERE. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

SmashTheState is the kind of editor we do need on Wikipedia. He has a vast knowledge of many topics but is put off by the cult-like behavior of the users and the fact that Wikipedia caters to people who can spend the most time on Wikipedia. This is why I won't even argue my case any further. It's pointless. If I begin, it won't end because I'm facing the wrath of adolescent mini-dictators who think they're Mitt Romney. Yes, there are those who do support SmashTheState. I'm one of them. Wikipedia needs a healthy anarchist community.TurtleMelody (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strong libertarian strain to it, but it is not, and cannot be, an anarchy, nor was it intended to be. Those who wish to push it in that direction will ultimately be unhappy, because the community will, collectively, move to the balance of authority vs. freedom that works best for it. In its existence, it has been moving (sometimes as a glacial pace) towards a more authoritarian but democratic structure, and, in my opinion, will have to do so even more now that it's reached its middle-age, and its needs are longer what they were when it was a start-up. As it moves, some people will be unhappy and will drop out, while others will thrive and new editors will come in an adapt to what's there. If an editor such as TurtleMelody/SmashTheState cannot acclimate himself to what Wikipedia is, he should simply go away, because the place just isn't going swing the way he wants it to. To stay and make disparaging remarks about other editors and the project itself doesn't make one a revolutionary, just a garden-variety troll. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Block proposal

Support As proposer. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Not due to "violations" of a non-policy, but due to repeated violations of something that is a policy: WP:CIVIL. One would think that ANI would be the last place one would want to haul out "Screw you all, you're just out to get me anyway." Quite aside from that I've never known an anarchist not to be stunned and shocked when people aren't being anarchical in the exact same fashion he is (wouldn't anarchy result in MORE pop culture references, not fewer?), my longstanding observation is that an anarchist isn't really someone who doesn't believe in rules so much as someone who is too lazy to work within them to form a consensus around his way of thinking ... it's far easier, after all, to just smash things up and declare moral victory. We need fewer people like that on Wikipedia, thanks. Ravenswing 03:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - actually, it's more that just WP:CIVIL. I've seen in this discussion, on the SPI and elsewhere violations of WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:POINT, WP:IDHT and slow, long term WP:EW violations, plus the probably WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT behavior. Clearly whether one person or two, they don't really want to be here, so why not accommodate them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

More pointy editing here: attempting to add Wikipedia to an article about cults. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. This is a blatant piece of sockpuppetry, TurtleMelody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SmashTheState (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are surely one and the same and we don't need either of him. Guy (Help!) 04:35, 8 August 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.

District Court notice at User talk:Standell66

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

---

Can someone knowledgeable give any advice necessary over the statement recently added on that page? The dispute centres on the past and current membership of The Standells rock group, where I've tried to mediate over article content in the past. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Reblocked with talk page access disabled for the duration of the court case, and another editor removed the material. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is ¶2 of The Standells#Later reformations and versions of the band even in our article in the first place? It's not independently sourced, being A-said-B-said sourced to an interview on one side and a (now missing) countersuit claim on the other. Uncle G (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

SOFIXIT? You seem to have the best handle on the content... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:28, 7 August 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:67.218.41.166

The following discussion is closed. 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 do not know this person and I don't have a clue why they are impersonating me, there have been three recorded incidents of impersonation and requests that my rollback be removed without my knowledge or authorization and while I appreciate the efforts of User:Drmies, User:5 albert square and User:DMacks to block User:67.218.41.166 those block were only for a few days and following which User:67.218.41.166 went back to their old tricks finding another Wikipedia Administrator and requesting my rollback be removed. Something needs to be done on an administrative level to stop this person including possibly envoking a permanent edit ban. Any assistance that you can provide would be appreciated. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has now been blocked for 3 months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Golfer, the IP was blocked for 3 months well before you posted here - perhaps you misread the length of the block. IPs are not blocked permanently ("IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely.") because IP addresses can be assigned to different people.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave that three-month block after the IP played the reported game on my talk-page. The IP as anon does appear to be WP:SPA and is obviously following up on...something...but I have no idea what. Looking briefly, there's nothing obvious in its global contribs or the en contribs of its surrounding /24 anon range. Maybe Golfer can help figure out if there is a named account with whom he has dealt that might be related? DMacks (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

thank you User:Berean Hunter and User:Bbb23. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:28, 8 August 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.

Semi-protection of Roger Kahn

G'day guys,

there've been repeated efforts by unregistered users to turn the Roger Kahn article into a hagiography. Most of the edits come from a single IP. I don't think a block would be useful in this case --- given the user(s)'s edit pattern, the block would need to last many months at least, and I'm not comfortable with that for an IP address, particularly as other IPs are used on occasion.

I've semi-protected the page for three months. Could someone a little more hip and with-it please review that decision, as:

1. I've been personally involved in attempting to clean up the article in the past, and
2. I'm extremely rusty at this whole "Wikipedia" thing.

Thanks! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of problems, but I understand why and agree that bringing it here for review as best. First, if you think it needs page protection and you're involved, dropping it off at WP:RFPP is required now. That way an uninvolved admin can review, per WP:INVOLVED. (If you aren't involved, protecting out of venue is fine.) Second, if it went there, I wouldn't have protected it. Normally we only want to protect if there is more than one IP, and the edits are either clearly vandalism, heavy POV or otherwise disruptive. This looks more like puffery, and it isn't very often. Since it is a BLP, I normally would err on the protect side, but it really isn't needed here. Over the last couple of years, we have tightened up on when and how we protect, block, etc. so a look around is likely a good idea. If all else fails, it is better to just dump the problem here at ANI if you aren't sure and one of us will hash it out. Hopefully you can hang out more often, work the boards a little bit and sharpen up the tools, as we could use the help anyway. I went ahead and removed protection on the page. And it is very, very unlikely we would block for a few instances of puffery as well, per WP:BITE, and instead try to engage on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

User talk:Funchal123
diff
"sorry how is it a personal attack? i am just stating my reasons and if you block me i will make sure solicitors get involved as i use wikipedia very seriously" Jim1138 (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Already indeffed by User talk:GiantSnowman Jim1138 (talk) 08:54, 8 August 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:SmashTheState

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

---

• ...and now SmashTheState has been unblocked. I won't wheel-war but strongly suggest an immediate reblock for his massive and flagrant WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA violations that he shows no signs of stopping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• The unblocking admin -- User:WereSpielChequers -- has now reblocked, an action I endorse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• SmashTheState has never been anything other than a deeply tiresome agenda editor. Whether the puppetry was sock or meat is immaterial, the WP:DUCK can be heard from another continent. We do not need this person. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

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

IP user 209.190.61.7

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

---

209.190.61.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add advertising to Template talk:WikiProject Cities (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), one or two postings per day (11:21, 2 August 2012; 16:28, 2 August 2012; 19:07, 3 August 2012; 23:55, 3 August 2012; 03:11, 5 August 2012; 07:59, 5 August 2012; 11:54, 6 August 2012; 00:22, 7 August 2012; 21:32, 7 August 2012), despite warnings. I have issued warnings up to and including {{subst:uw-advert4}} with no effect. Since there is sometimes a gap of more than 24 hours between these postings by 209.190.61.7, I suspect that if I issue a 24-hour block, they'll merely ride it out and then continue. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Give him 3 days as a trolling account. He is trolling WP Cities. Also, I note that he added this link: - *lasjan.page.tl (*|search current) which may be getting spammed here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Chintu6 is your guy (one account anyway)...look at this history.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Disregard that please...possibly not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, which of the reasons in the drop-down list at Special:Block/209.190.61.7 is the best fit; similarly, which of the template messages at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Blocks would suit? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reason WP:Disruptive editing
• Template {{uw-disruptblock}}
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you,  Blocked --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 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.

Ongoing 4chan Wikipedia improvement drive

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – List of English words of Japanese origin has been semi-protected. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

_{Made the heading more accurate :) --Jac16888 ^Talk 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)}

Ongoing 4chan raid affecting List of English words of Japanese origin, requesting 24h protection. Thread in question is https://boards.4chan.org/a/res/69794304 /a/69794304 (archive). I am a registered user posting anonymously, a checkuser can confirm my identity.

Quote:

• Seriously? "Sayonara" is fine, "kawaii" is borderline, but fucking "mottainai"?
  • It's on wikipedia.
    • then just delete it and it will be fine

Regards, 101.118.223.198 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-protection due to a couple unusual edits there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't object to the protection, but 4chan may actually have a point here. At least good half of the words listed couldn't be called "English" words even in the absolute broadest sense. Compare List of English words of Spanish origin, which does a much better job of the same type of article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Starblind - the article is far too unsourced. GiantSnowman 15:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

4chan conspires to improve an article? Why can't this happen more often? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Looked at Talk to see if anyone had raised some solid points, and an IP recently did a pretty good screed on the issue as Talk:List_of_English_words_of_Japanese_origin#What_makes_a_foreign_word_English.3F. Not to barge into longer arguments without reviewing the consensus of dozens of other "Foo words in English" articles, but I think the litmus test of "can you use this word in English and people don't automatically think of Foo?" is a good one. For the Japanese list, people clearly say "tycoon" and don't necessarily think they're drawing any parallel with a Japanese prince. However, what on earth would zori mean other than a very specific kind of rice-straw sandal completely Japanese in nature? To give 4chan all due credit, they've raised a valid issue. A lot of other lists employ terms that nobody would ever use outside of describing a specifically Foo-ian thing. The Persian list includes Bostanji, an Ottoman Empire imperial guard; not exactly something I draw parallels to in everyday conversation. I'm also not thrilled about geographical names making the lists (we call a Philippine city by a Tagalog name? Wonder of wonders!). Maybe the time has come to set a clear standard for the "List of English words of Fooian origin", in terms of structure and inclusions, and then set forth to enforce it, maybe ensure each Talk page (and maybe even a hidden-text warning at the top) inform editors where to find the standards? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't a good academic dictionary that gives word origins be appropriate to use here? Or to avoid having any third-party dictionary, limit it to foreign words that appear in the most accepted English language dictionaries like Oxford or MerriamWebster. That implicit declaration would be similar to saying that for "List of people from X", we're only considering those with articles on WP (eg notable people). --MASEM (t) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really - the question isn't veracity, but scope. Is bonsai included? Obviously Japanese, obviously used in the West whenever miniature trees are discussed, but has it become an English word, as the concept is still fundamentally and obviously Japanese? It didn't replace Shakespeare's or Chaucer's obsolete English word for an miniature tree (I can just see Bill Bailey getting a standup sketch out of this), is was imported along with the concept. Now how far does a concept have to be absorbed into English culture (with its word tagging along behind) for it to be accepted in this list? Koshirae clearly isn't, but how about katana? Komusō aren't, but how about geisha? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

These arguments have all been had on the talk page: someone simply needs to do the work. I was planning on eviscerating it myself later on, but if anyone else wants to step up be my guest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's no reliable source stating word X is an English word of Japense origin then said word should not be included on the list - no ifs, no buts, no coconuts. GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Appearing in a major English dictionary, OED or Webster, as Masem suggested, would seem to be the best way to go. I expect trying to use "mottainai" in English conversation would get only the blankest of stares, even at an anime convention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• "We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 8 August 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:Thumperward and templates

The following discussion is closed. 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:Thumperward today redirected a template without any prior discussion. Earlier today he decided to move Template:Category relevant? to Template:Cleanup-categories, which clearly is not the same thing, and then later undid this move himself. I remember having some history with him, about precisely this same subject - undiscussed merges. I find his conduct unacceptable for a Wikipedia administrator. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you started an RFC for this? That would be more appropriate as this isn't the place. I don't see that anything under question involved the use of admin tools, did it?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lordy. The Honorverse situation was one where Debresser defended a huge wad of un-universe garbage for years before it was finally cleared out, against his wishes, after I made a drive to do so. The {{cleanup-laundry}} situation occurred after a TfD with an inconclusive outcome three months ago; I decided to boldly merge the two today rather because I was annoyed at how plainly terrible {{cleanup-laundry}} was at its intended purpose. So far as I know, none of this required the use of my admin bit. I've had conflicts with Debresser before, mostly due to the way that the most basic conflict resolution is seemingly escalated to teeth-pulling levels every time he's involved. This would be more of the same. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The underlying problem being that a Wikipedia administrator should know better than to make merges of articles and maintenance templates without prior discussion. But perhaps this is indeed better discussed at an Rfc. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them. I think his change was fair game. But your objection is also fair game. So the question is, when you raised the concern, what happened? Resolute 18:48, 8 August 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:VideoGamePhenom

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

---

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

The user has been warned multiple times on their talk page about vandalism and edits without citing verifiable source. A final vandalism warning was issued at 17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC). Since then, the user has made multiple unsourced edits that have been reverted by other users including:

Drew Hutchison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Dave_Lombardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Ben Sheets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Princess Peach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Bobby Abreu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff

Additionally, the user has also been warned twice about marking non-minor edits as minor, yet still continues to mark all edits as minor. The disruptive editing pattern which is burdening the community with the need to revert, combined with the masking of edits as minor needs to stop. Warnings and discussions on talk page regarding reliable sources, vandalism, and NPOV, have not been effective to date.—Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Propose block per WP:NOTHERE, "General pattern of disruptive behavior." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Continued even after being notified of this discussion. So, blocked indef, until he indicates that he understands the problems with his edits and will not repeat them. JohnCD (talk) 00:20, 9 August 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:Malik_Shabazz repeatedly deleting my talk page comments

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

---

I posted a comment on 211.26.243.21's talk page and User:Malik_Shabazz has removed the comment three times, claiming it is trolling. I believe removing my comment from a talk page is a violation of WP:TPO and I warned Malik Shabazz each time he removed it. Here is the revision history of the talk page, which shows how my comment kept being removed and I kept adding it back. I first wrote to NawlinWiki's talk page, which shows what I was told by User:QuiteUnusual (QU) and User:Drmies, including Drimies threatening to block me if I added my own comment back one more time. Drimies also reverted my comment, making it a total of four times it had been reverted. Also, QU wrote to Malik Shabazz to tell him I had reported the incident, which makes it appear that they are all working together. My comment said nothing inappropriate or threatening in any way. It simply made a comment and asked a question. Are they allowed to remove my talk page comment? Can I add it back? Thank you. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you lay it low and go away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Asking someone why they vandalized a user's page as though it was the vandalized editor's fault is at least inciting ire towards the victim of vandalism. The alternative, if you were not trying to go after Tenebrae, is that you were trying to grief the IP editor. Either way, that's not really a good idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I told Malik Shabazz that they were being discussed because you hadn't - and you should have done as discussing another editor's conduct without notifying them is inappropriate. As I noted on NalimWiki's page, I am a disinterested observer. I was patrolling recent changes, saw your original question, and decided to comment. I have no prior interaction with Malik Shabazz as you can easily check and we are not working together. I stand by my view that your question is trolling. Approaching a vandal to ask them what an editor did to make them angry because that editor has a track record in upsetting people (or words to that effect) reads like trolling to me. QU ^TalkQu 22:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

QU... actually, as my edit comments show, I had already warned Malik Shabazz if he reverted it again. And he was obviously following my contributions page closely because he kept coming back right away when I put my comment back. And if you thought he should have been contacted, you should have simply asked me to do it instead of sneaking behind my back to tell him (without informing me). It sure gives the appearance that you and he are working together. I have no idea what that guy's track record is (the guy who added the bad image to Tenebrae's page). All I know is that one thing he did, which I told him I was not going to say I thought was appropriate. And it should be mentioned that Malik Shabazz failed to disclose that he knows me from an article's talk page discussion we were both involved in a few days ago, in which he and Tenebrae accused me of being a sockpuppet (a term I didn't even undertand at the time). I filed a report about it, but Tenebrae has since learned from the other useer that he was wrong. So Malik Shabazz is not some disinterested user at all, as you claim yourself to be. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"So Malik Shabazz is not some disinterested user at all, as you claim yourself to be." -- say what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sarcastic remarks like "say what?" are not helpful. If you don't understand something I said, just ask me about it. Malik knew me days before he made the repeated reverts and falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet. So it was not like he was some impartial user who just stumbled on something. Therefore he was not a "disinterested" party to this, as QU told me that he (QU) was. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I thought you were a sockpuppet has nothing to do with the fact that you were trolling. How many people have to tell you that your message was trolling before you get the point?

And for the record, I've never dealt with QU before today, when she/he notified me as a courtesy that I was being discussed somewhere. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

They key point is that you falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet. And did so without filing a report, which, as I've been told by another administrator, can be grounds for being blocked from editing. Then after that, you're removing my talk page comments. So clearly not disinterested. And QU appeared pretty excited to tell you that I was "complaining" about you instead of using neutral language. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This IP has had enough food. Close this thread. Block if trolling continues. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to assume that Choyoołʼįįhí:Sebaz86556 is not an administrator. Because an administrator would not be rude and act like a bully when I am trying to have a sincere discussion. So far, all's he's said is "go away," "say what?" and "This IP has had enough food." A classic bully trying to instigate a gang mentality. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as I suspected. Choyoołʼįįhí:Sebaz86556 has multiple blocks for incivility, vandalism and battlegroundbehavior. [123] I know a bully when I see one. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it was - the intriguing thing your talk-page comment referred to - it is apparently deleted now, i.e. it's invisible to us in the general public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was removed four times. Haha. You can see it in the revision history links I put in my original comments here. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Before you posted here, you were advised to read WP:BOOMERANG. I would reiterate that suggestion, and recommend WP:ROPE to you as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Malik, this report is about you so you're not exactly impartial. I am doing nothing wrong. I am replying to people that are commenting to me. So please stop the condescension. Interesting how you see that one user (Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556), who's been blocked repeatedly, bullying me, yet you say nothing to him. That says a lot. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find the number of Seb's blocks that have not been undone is precisely one, not "repeatedly". But I'm going to re-close this; more heat than light. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Malik here. The IP should know that talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG apply to edits on talk pages. The fact that the IP claims to not be a sockpuppet is not particularly important, unfortunately - very rarely to sockpuppets acknowledge their status. What is probably more important is that the IP has indicated behavior which tends to be associated with sockpuppets. That includes any number of variety of unacceptable behaviors. I have to think that starting this thread on such a spurious basis as this one probably does nothing but further support the evidence of unacceptable behavior by the IP. I suggest that the thread be closed, as non-actionable. However, if the IP editor wishes to continue in posting here, based solely on the evidence presented, I suppose we could perhaps consider sanctions against them based on WP:DE and other possible conduct problems. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

John, I'm replying because your comment appeared after it was closed before. I don't get how reporting this is "spurious" at all? Some guy repeatedly kept removing my talk page comment. So I asked him to stop, he didn't, then an admin gave me a link to this page to file a report. So how's that spurious? And as I explained previously, the original editor who accused me of being a sockpuppet subsequently found out I wasn't. He even apologized to the other guy for calling him/us that. So anyway, I came here because I was directed here and I simply wanting a ruling on whether removing my talk page comment was allowed. So if it's not I think something should be done about it. Thanks for your comments. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I went back in time and closed it for you... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 8 August 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.

Mass spamming from multiple socks

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

---

Note mass spamming from LauraBrad (talk · contribs) as well as MaryBroady (talk · contribs) and however many others. May need help with this one. -- œ^™ 03:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(From MaryBroady) - Apologies, I was not trying to spam. I was adding reference links to a new Diocese Calendar for Catholic Diocese pages, which I thought was an appropriate link for their WIKI pages. I am very sorry for the confusion. --MaryBroady (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything appears to be rolled back. What do you still need help with?--Chaser (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thought there might be more than a few socks/meatpuppets here but it seems I've overreacted. Everything's rolled back, user has been informed, nothing too extensive to be fixed. -- œ^™ 04:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(From LauraBrad)Diocese Calendar References

Apologies, we are not trying to spam. Every Catholic diocese in the world has a homepage and an events calendar on xt3.com If someone is looking for Catholic events happening in their diocese this is where they can find more information and upload their own events happening at their parishes within their diocese. There must be an appropriate place for this information? This is useful for all Catholics in that diocese also please note that all the diocese links are different and specific we are not just copying and pasting information --LauraBrad (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions i would say you are not correct. You have clearly been adding links to a calander trying to promote it. In That case, I propose a temporary block. --Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 05:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate place for parishioners to find out about events happening in their dioceses, if they wish to do so online, is from the respective diocesan websites. There's nothing wrong with you creating a commercial central website for this - although it's farcical to imagine you could possibly keep up with the doings of thousands of dioceses on an ongoing basis - but you cannot promote it on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 05:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ravenswing, The central website is called xt3.com (however it is not commercial) it has been created for WYD 2008 by a team of English and Australian Catholics and overseen by an Australian diocese. It was created as a service to all dioceses in the world. Every diocese in the world has a homepage and an events calendar on the site. Therefore a link to the specific diocese calendar on wikipedia is a useful reference for all dioceses in the world. The diocese calendars are user generated therefore priests, youth ministers, etc can upload their local events on the diocese calendar therefore it is not "farcical to imagine keeping up with the events of thousands of dioceses on an ongoing basis." (you could say the same thing about wikipedia) Your comment that "The appropriate place for parishioners to find out about events happening in their dioceses is on the respective diocesan websites." is problematic as many dioceses do not have websites, especially in rural Australia and African countries that is why we wanted to reference their diocese calendar and homepage on xt3.com on wikipedia. --LauraBrad (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the url for the Sydney Archdiocese event calendar on xt3.com http://www.xt3.com/diocese/calendar.php?dioceseId=19 it is widely used by catholic agencies and parishioners in Sydney Archdiocese, this would surely be of interest to anyone in that diocese who search for the diocese on Wikipedia?? --LauraBrad (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Laura, adding the link to a number of articles is problematic due to the rules on spamming. While it might not be "commercial" in the traditional sense, it isn't a scholarly source, but instead a blog of information for a particular organization, hence commercial in respect to our policies (ie: it is promoting itself). If there is an article on that diocese, then the link would be appropriate as a primary link, but not likely in other articles. Keep in mind the goal is to verify facts, as we are an encyclopedia, and not to just create a list of links. To everyone else here, biting isn't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I'll add that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and only and exclusively an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles include "encyclopedic" stuff like date of creation of the dioceses, historical buildings owned by the dioceses, and other items of what is known as "knowledge". What you want to add is not knowledge, it's information. Wikipedia is a compilation of knowledge, not a compilation of information. And Wikipedia is not a directory of links, either. Adding links to multiple pages is frowned upon, unless your website has valuable encyclopedic knowledge that is difficult to obtain from sources like books and journals. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled. We always add an EL to the official home page of an organization. We would for a school district--we should for a diocese. If these pages are being prepared or coordinated by a central agency, I do not see how it is wrong to use them. I think from what Laura says they have semi-official status. This assumes, of course, that the link goes directly to the appropriate page for the particular diocese=, not to a general site from which one can search for the particular diocese. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see adding these ELs as terribly problematic, but I think in an encyclopedia it would be more appropriate to link to the diocesan homepages on xt3 than to their event calendars – which are easily reached from the homepages. For example, for the Archdiocese of Sydney, Australia, that would be www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=19.  --Lambiam 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Lambiam I agree and would be happy to edit selected diocese as such. --LauraBrad (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments DG. and to re-emphasise xt3.com does have official status in the Catholic community Rome Reports even did a story on the site http://www.romereports.com/palio/modules.php?name=News&file=article&newlang=english&sid=1386/ we webcast global Catholic events such as World Youth Day and canonization of saints such as Mary MacKillop we are run by the Sydney Archdiocese in Australia, it is not a freelance website it is official as it is under the Archdiocese authority and is a central website for the service of all Catholic diocese in the world. Many diocese turn to the trusted calendars and homepages on xt3 as they don't have the resources to keep up a diocese website themselves therefore not providing an EL to a calendar for their specific diocese could leave them with the impression their diocese is a ghost on the internet apart from the historical dates and facts on Wikipedia. This EL link can alert them to the events happening in their diocese. I can see your point that this could be seen as information and not knowledge but why would a person go to a diocese wikipedia page? They may be seeking knowledge about events in the diocese. There must be an appropriate place to direct people to the fact that their diocese whether its Sydney Australia or Aachen Germany, has a homepage and an events calendar on a central Catholic website? Where can this information be added that would fit the vision of wikipedia and not be censored?

Furthermore the diocese event calendars and their homepages were created to be a support to all dioceses in the world especially those in rural areas who do not have websites. Every time I edited the information on a diocese wall on Wiki I provided an EL that linked to the specific diocese event calendar (not a general one) and I never mentioned xt3.com therefore I believed I was abiding by the self promotion rules of wikipedia for example when editing the Diocese of Aachen website I linked to the diocese of Aachen events calendar on xt3.com not to a general calendar and I took great care in doing so. So I was surprised that half a day's work was removed. I thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing your response. --LauraBrad (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not believe you are promoting the xt3.com website with what you added to Roman Catholic Diocese of Aachen? You linked to instructions on how someone could integrate the calendar into their website and even to a page where they could find other dioceses that had already done so. To me that tells me you are promoting the website. You should read the guideline on external links. GB fan 03:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If the links to the instructions are the problem then I will leave them out and only link to the specific diocese calendar. Would this be acceptable? --LauraBrad (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not the only problem. The links are not any help to an encyclopedia article. They are something that belongs on a website for the diocese and the Wikipedia articles are not webpages for the dioceses. Did you read our guideline on exteral links? GB fan 04:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Closing admin's comment: Laura and Mary, I'm sure your edits were made in good faith in possible ignorance of the policies and guidelines. Please take note of admin advice by Dennis, DGG, and GB fan, and also take a moment to familiarise yourselves with Using Multiple Accounts (in case it's appropriate) and Conflict of Interest before making any more edits to the encyclopedia. I'm closing this now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 8 August 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.

Yes thank you for referring me to this link. I have read it and what I gather from reading this is that links to the diocese homepage on xt3.com should be as an EL External Link) rather than placed in the body of the article (which was the mistake I made originally) I have read what needs to be considered when adding an external link to an article and I believe the EL to the diocese homepage does fill Wikipedia’s criteria see below • Is the site content accessible to the reader? Yes xt3 is accessible to anyone • Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Yes it would be useful to someone in the Archdiocese of Sydney to know there is a homepage and an event calendar for their diocese. • Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional? Yes. Therefore if this is ok I will add EL to Diocese Pages on Wikipedia in the appropriate section. --LauraBrad (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)--LauraBrad (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• • We get so much spam, we sometimes get a bit trigger happy here as well, so hopefully we didn't bite down too hard. If you have any issues or concerns with the links in the future, just drop a note on my talk page and I will try to help you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• The editor continued to add links, and I have reverted these edits. These pages do not provide more information about the diocese itself, it is providing information about possible activities. That is not the function of Wikipedia. If you want information about the diocese, you go to Wikipedia, if you want to know what they are up to, you go to their homepage (or you use Google to find thát information). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked all of them, but noted some already had primary links. In the event that one of the diocese didn't have a primary link, ie: no website of their own, then this would be acceptable as the primary link since it is under the control over the organization (as not to be too bureaucratic here), but I tend to agree that as a second primary link, it is likely not within WP:EL. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I must confess that I did not check all additions, but the first three (i.e., the last three edits) link to a page on xt3 which gives as information:

Welcome to the Xt3 homepage of your diocese - this is where you can check out your local events, groups and projects (those that give their location as this diocese will automatically show up here), and connect with others in your area.

The diocese homepage is a fantastic place to stay in touch with members of your diocese on Xt3. The coordinator of the page is able to update all the information on it and contact everyone in the diocese via a private message. This is not an official diocesan contact point until it is adopted by a diocesan representative. If you work for your diocese and would like to become involved in maintaining the page, please do contact us through the feedback form.

In the meantime, please post messages on the discussion board and add your photos...

([124])

In other words, no information.

I'll assume good faith, and that other pages will have more, but I start to be afraid that these pages are then for those dioceses which do have an own webpage already, and that the information on xt3 is mainly copying that information, or just some general chit-chat without additional information (see number 4:

Howdy Y'all - Welcome to the Rockhampton Diocese Homepage.

Stef your friendly WYD Coordinator has now transformed into your friendly (but only on Friday's) Youth Ministry Coordinator for the Diocese.

Let's get connected and stay in touch.

Commit to check out this XT3.com page at least once a week and update us with what's on in your area. Feel free to post messages, add your photos, create a group or two (remember to put Rockhampton as the location so it appears automatically on this site) and generally keep each other informed.

If there is something special that you woudl like to see hear for the Rocky pages then please let me know!!!!

Looking forward to getting connected. Cheers from your friendly Youth Ministry Coordinator Stef Lloyd :-)

Official URL: www.rok.catholic.net.au

([125])

which still fails our inclusion standards completely). If, if there are pages which do give really more information worthy of inclusion (though that may actually be included into the wikitext content) then individual editors can add such a link, but we do not need to spam that link onto every Diocese wikipage, as most (if not all) of them simply fail. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is about time I put in a word here. I was not commenting earlier as I am regular contributer of content on several other pages (which have nothing to do with this matter being discussed) - I was worried that I could have my account suspended. But I do need to clarify that I am not the same person as LauraBrad as someone has claimed. That aside, I just want to mention that Laura and I decided to add these links as we found the young people are not visiting their diocese official websites. But they are visiting Wikipedia, and they are also visiting Xt3. Therefore it made sense for us to add a link to the Xt3 Event Calendar and Diocese pages as an alternate source of information about a particular diocese on its Wikipedia page. It is simply another resource adding to the pool of knowledge about the Diocese. We have to get with the times - young people are going to visit a website that is based on Web 2.0 and encourages user-generated content, as opposed to a static Diocese webpage. This is why the links that we added are a positive contribution to the relevant Wiki pages. --MaryBroady (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Dear Dirk Beetstra I understand your original concern however I would ask you to reconsider your response to remove *the EL. These external links are not inappropriate Xt3.com is a recognised and respected official Catholic website in *the catholic world community and the specific diocese link to that diocese homepage is indeed relevant and adds useful *information to a person interested in their diocese, the aim was not to alter search engine rankings but to direct *people to the semi-official diocese homepage. I have already had a discussion about this in the administrators page and *2 people agreed that this was acceptable to add in the External links section (not in the body of the article which was *MaryBroady and my mistake originally.) There seems to be some question here amongst administrators to these inclusions, *so who has the final decision here? I can see that this is an unusual situation for wikipedia and that multiple *external links are frowned upon however it is an unusual case that I believe needs to be discussed further --*LauraBrad (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

1) You appear to be going through the Wikipedia categories on RC dioceses and creating clone pages on Xt3 for them. At least once this has been in error: Diocese of Aberdeen is the WP historical article on the modern Roman Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen, yet there is the cloned Xt3 link.

2) Most of the Wikipedia articles on the dioceses already have a link to that diocese's official homepage. Social events do not fall under WP purview. If the official site hosts a link to the Xt3 sites, that is their choice.

3) Since there are already church-supported homepages for many of these dioceses, the addition of Xt3 links feels more like linking to a social network. The fact that "the young people are not visiting their diocese official websites" is not a problem that can or should be fixed by networking links on WP. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

*Dear UTC what are clone pages?

• To me a clone pages suggest content is all the same but if you see the below URLS this is not the case
• http://www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=22
• http://www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=19
• http://www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=33

Regarding Diocese of Aberdeen and the add to the EL on the WP historical article as opposed to the modern Roman Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen, thank you for picking out that mistake, however a mistake in one article due to an oversight should not lead to all my ELs being removed. Wikipedia would be pretty empty if you dealt with every mistake like this.

addressing your second point that

• 2) Most of the Wikipedia articles on the dioceses already have a link to that diocese's official homepage.
• With this reasoning will I be allowed to add an EL to the Catholic Diocese of Albany which has no Official diocese *homepage? For example
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Abancay

Social events do not fall under WP purview. 

We have addressed this before that is why I am now adding EL's to the diocese homepage only not the events calendar

What if someone does not know there is this diocese homepage resource "the WIKI knowledge" that I am trying to contribute is that xt3.com is an available resource for their diocese" this is useful content and fits with Wikipedia's policies the diocese homepage also has information about the diocese. I would appreciate if my external links would remain I know you must see a lot of spam but this is not spam. --49.143.225.34 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Clone, as in all of them say the exact same thing. While Adelaide has extra words and pictures inserted, it still says the same thing as, say, Broome, which has a few different words and pictures. They are cookie-cutter copies, placeholders that present little to nothing encyclopaedic that cannot be garnered from reliable sources.
• If a diocese does not have its official homepage linked in the article, then editors should find and add the official homepage. If such a link cannot be found, leave it blank, or link to the archdiocese's page about the diocese if there is one. If someone wants to find a diocese's web presence, there are plenty of resources outside WP to do it with. A social networking site is not a substitute for an official page, not even temporarily.
• Xt3 is a social networking site, not a reliable source. It presents nothing that would be allowed in an article that cannot be taken from reliable sources. The pages you are linking are not even officially under the control of the diocese: both Broom and Adelaide above contain the line, "This is not an official diocesan contact point until it is adopted by a diocesan representative." That I cannot find a way to determine when a page has been "adopted" is not important. What is important is that there is no reason this social networking site should be treated any differently than Facebook or Myspace, per WP:ELNO #10. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"What if someone does not know there is this diocese homepage resource. "the WIKI knowledge" that I am trying to contribute is that xt3.com is an available resource for their diocese" ..." and thát is exactly the plain violation of WP:NOT that is happening. Wikipedia is not a place to 'advertise'/'promote'/'suggest' the existence of your site by linking utterly non-informational pages throughout in sometimes erratic, often useless, and often superfluous ways, where it is even questionable whether the pages will provide information in the future, and the ones that have been created sometimes do not yield any encyclopedic information either. I have reverted again one of the additions, and I would strongly suggest that from now on you do NOT add any of those links by yourself, but let it be done by other editors without a conflict of interest. I see the point that these links sometimes may be of interest, but as has been obviously shown a couple of times now, but that is not your call anymore. Please, be careful with further pushing of these links, other admins may consider (I am considering) that it is time for blocks on single-purpose accounts or even blacklisting of the links to finally stop the pushing of links. Leave it to the community. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Carthage44

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

---

Carthage44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User continues to resort to personal attacks, "you know nothing about baseball" being a popular refrain in baseball-related articles. User was issue a final warning on personal attacks on 22:27, 6 August 2012‎ (UTC).

Here is a sample of the attacks:

1. 02:17, 27 May 2012 "Again, you should stick to whatever it is that you update and stay away from the baseball pages because you have no idea what you are talking about." attack warning
2. 09:09, 26 July 2012‎ "You clearly know nothing about baseball or you do not understand English. I am just glad you don't live in this country because people like you don't belong." attack warning by admin Djsasso
3. 22:09, 6 August 2012 "If you know anything about baseball ...", "Muboshgu has bullied many Wikipedia users for years just to get his way. He thinks he owns Wikipedia and will do anything to make sure pages and Wikipedia are the way he thinks it should be. I really wish someone could take a stand against him because Wikipedia is NOT owned by Muboshgu." attack final warning
4. 21:39, 8 August 2012 "If you follow baseball, which I now you do not" attack

The user is also disruptive with using reversions in lieu of discussion, despite multiple blocks in the past over edit warring and receiving a recent warning at WP:AN/EW. Here are recent reverts to List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to user's preferred version:

1. 21:53, 6 August 2012‎ [126]
2. 21:12, 6 August 2012 [127]
3. 21:05, 6 August 2012 [128]

The disruptive behavior needs to stop before valuable editors get frustrated and leave.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand on this and say that Carthage44's disruption and edit warring appears as a frequent topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. Ryan Vesey 02:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that discussions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Carthage44, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Carthage44 reverts, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 26#Help with 2011 Major League Baseball Draft. Ryan Vesey 03:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Carthage apparently goes to a lot of Sox games and is a student of the details. Unfortunately, it appears that his enthusiasm is being overtaken by a sense of "ownership", as with the top 500 base stealers thing, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just checking my 2007 Sporting News record book, the last one TSN published. They list what were then the top 66 base stealers of all time. Not using 66 as any kind of magic number, but rather 400 stolen bases or more. Because countless players are going to have stolen bases, but that does not make them notable base stealers. Carthage's list gets down into the 150 area. That's 15 a year for a 10 year player, or about 1 every 10 games. That's not a base stealer, it's just a guy who has some stolen bases. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Two week vacation issued for flagrant flouting of WP:NPA. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ownership issues and uncivil displays

1. 21:39 8 August 2012 "Just because I beat you when it comes to updating Adam Dunn's page first, doesn't mean you have to be so inconsiderate and immature. If you follow baseball, which I now you do not" made here
2. 15:14 8 August 2012 Ownership behavior displayed in edit summary here

Thanks, Zepppep (talk) 09:33, 9 August 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.

Implied legal threat

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

---

User talk:109.144.205.34
Edit summary 1: "Criticism: Much of the information in the article referred to is incorrect and is being challenged by the author and his legal representatives." Diff 1
Edit summary 2: "Criticism: The article referred to contains several inaccuracies and is being contested by the author and his legal representatives" Diff 2
Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not really a legal threat per se, pretty borderline since the IP is not explicitly stating that they're the one taking legal action, unless of course information comes to light that the IP is the author. Blackmane (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's close, but not exactly a legal threat, especially as broadly as "his legal representatives" could be interpreted (for instance, his manager could qualify. His mother could qualify. It all depends and we don't know). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Note that the statement is that action is being considered against the writer/publisher of the original source article, Nick Cohen, that is being cited in support of the content. If the edit summary had been "Removing biographical content that was sourced to an op ed.", you probably wouldn't have blinked an eye. That's what the person not using an account was actually doing. Given the whole backstory surrounding Johann Hari, Cohen, and others, which you can start reading about in this Signpost article and continue to read about in the archives of the BLP and COI noticeboards, strenuously requiring good sourcing in all of the biographies of these people is a very wise move, even if the less-than-exemplary actions of a possible partisan in the affair are what draw our attention. Don't overlook legal threats. Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The wording of the summaries plainly states that the action is being taken against the cited source, not Wikipedia, so this isn't NLT territory. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 9 August 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.

RM backlog

Wikipedia:Requested moves has a pretty large backlog, with many requests well over their 7 day expiration. I'm going to take care of some of those later today, but I won't have time to clear the whole backlog myself (and I can't close those discussions where I'm involved). ~Amatulić (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Index to isotope pages, moves and a deletion ended incorrect

About Index to isotope pages -- Template:Index to isotope pages (by periodic table). One is content, one is a Redirect. There was some moving & deleting, which left an incorrect situation.

1. [129] 20:14, 24 July 2012: DePiep move from Article to Template space, leave a R
2. [130] 19:26, 1 August 2012‎: IP tagging the R with DB-R3
3. [131] 20:13, 1 August 2012: Martijn Hoekstra: MH moved the tagged R page to his Userspace
4. [132] 20:17, 1 August 2012: MH removed the R3 tag.
5. [] 03:00, 2 August 2012: Matthewrbowker (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD R2).
6. [133] 05:51, 2 August 2012: Nyttend deleted the R page for DB-R2
7. [134] 14:32, 2 August 2012: Double sharp moved content page from Template to Article space, leaving R.

So the page was fine for almost eight days in Template space and an R. An IP vandalised the R with a speedy tag, MH moved it to (his) userspace, which invoked deletion for R2. That left many red links on article pages, so DS moved it back to Article space to make them blue.

The situation now is that it is template page in article space. I request reversal, back into the situation before the vandalism started (so: code in Template space, the Article page a redirect).

The move by Martijn Hoekstra (talk · contribs) MH was bad judgement and did not address the R3 tagging. When I asked for explanation [135], MH was incomplete. Later on, MH was evasive, did not explain his motives, and ducked responsibility [136]. I find the behaviour of MH (bad move and not cooperating) disruptive. I contacted Nyttend to discuss (propose) undoing the deletion [137], but Nyttend denied, arguing that the R2 deletion in itself was correct at that moment (which is a valid point too). He then helped me clarifying the process (I am not an admin, I didn't see everything). [138][139] I concluded to take the whole issue here.

Anyway, I request a reversal. Note: if the pre-vandalism situation is to be challenged (arguments have entered), that should be done after reversal, and on apropriate pages -- not at ANI and not by es. The current situation was created by vandalism and bad judgement, which is not the process to imply changes. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, what administrator intervention would you like, and what here can't be fixed through requested moves? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Notified MH, DS, Nyttend. -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While I don't really agree completely with the index page being moved to template space, I don't really mind either if it is (though there do seem to be many precedents for keeping indexes in article space, I'm quite undecided on the matter, since an index is not really an article in itself, but rather a means to find articles). My major motive (which I put first in my edit summary) for moving it back is that the links were broken, and it seemed easier to move one page that edit 118 pages. I wasn't aware of this situation until now, since I wasn't involved in the speedy deletions going on on that page.

While cross-namespace redirects are generally considered to be a bad thing, I would consider that if they are linked by many pages or are also of interest to readers, like Periodic table (standard), then they should remain. This is especially true for pages that straddle the boundaries between two namespaces: for example, Template:Periodic table is in the template space, while Periodic table (large version) is in the article space, even though they are very similar. Likewise, while an index is not really an article in itself, but rather a means to find articles, it could also be argued that putting an index in template space (or some other namespace) means that readers are less likely to find it (unless, of course, it is linked heavily and prominently). In such cases, especially when the actual content page is not in the mainspace, there should be cross-namespace redirects to ensure that readers will find it if the page is useful to them. (An R3 posted on the redirect Periodic table (standard) was not carried out, as it had many links from the mainspace and was thus manifestly useful to readers.) Double sharp (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly this discussion should be elsewhere, and after the revert. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DS acted in good faith when doing that last move. No complaint from me. It's just that IMO, seen the process, the situation should be mirrored. -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, I'm not seeing any Wikipedia:Vandalism here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So you did not see? What an impressive argument. -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I think you did not even read. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That was uncivil and uncalled for, DePiep. CBW has done nothing to deserve an assumption of anything but good faith from you. That said, I only partially agree with CBW. I see a series of good-faith actions on the part of others that combined to result in an unfortunate disruption. While that's certainly not vandalism, it is a problem. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that CBW did not read the thread. CBW did not contribute anything to the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read the entire thread and followed all the links. I still don't see any vandalism. The only possible way that the IP edit can be described as vandalism is if it is expanded to cover using the wrong speedy template. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding R3 was vandalism. Then, the thread is about more. The red herring is yours. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no intention of any red herring on my part it was a valid question. You called the IP edit vandalism and it is not that, even Martijn Hoekstra didn't claim that. The most you can say is that the IP made an error. Also if the the IP is guilty of vandalism why did you not add a warning to their talk page? In fact I now see that you didn't even bother to notify them about this discussion, which I have done for you. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Because IP adding R3 is not the issue here. -DePiep (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

re CBW: "No intention of red herring"? -- but still you did. You followed it by yourself. "a valid question"? I'm not seeing any Wikipedia:Vandalism here you wrote. Is not even a question. "even MH didn't claim that." -- Had you read the thread, you'd know that MH is the lowest authority you could invoke. MH is the perpetrator. And IP vandalism is not the ANI topic. "you didn't even bother to notify" -- Talk for yourself. You did not even check your thing. -DePiep (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"User does not agree with me" does not equal "user did not read what I said." You are being uncivil. Furthermore, vandalism has a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia. What you encountered was quite possibly disruption, but CBW is perfectly correct to claim it was not vandalism. Finally, notification of being mentioned in ANI is not optional. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP is not the subject of this thread, not even his edit. Neither is the R2 tagger or the bot. Just in between edits. -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Smells like Jorgath and CBW are after the same red herring. Have a nice distraction. Now please read what MH, an editor I accused, wrote right below [140]. Is what I call being great. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As a general note, I would like to note WP:DONTPANIC. The tagging the IP did was wrong, the move I did wasn't the smartest thing to do, I don't think the deletion of the mainspace redirect was the best idea, though certainly defendable in policy, the move back by DoubleSharp fixed the acute issue of redlinks. The wiki isn't burning, everything can be solved by normal processess (let this be the third time I go on record suggesting requested moves to move to template space). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to describe it as you see it. And I agree. -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

News

Further information: [[:../#Mitt Romney VP Selection|../ § Mitt Romney VP Selection]]

Wikipedia is front-page news at USAToday.com.[141] Things must be a little slow today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it was necessary to semi-protect those pages. Electric Catfish 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wonder who planted this quasi-news story. I also wonder if it's true that some of the potential VP candidates' pages were fully protected as opposed to merely semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the latter, because I have very little confidence in the ability of news media in general to understand the difference. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Turns out that only Pawlenty is fully protected, at the moment - the others are semi'd. The USAToday piece refers to Rob Portman, Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie and David Petraeus "all have locks on them with a message that the page is either fully or partially 'protected due to vandalism'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, in relation to at least Romney and Portman, could someone take a look at User:Viewmont Viking's edits and tell me I'm seeing things? Would make me feel a lot better. Thanks! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I pulled up WikiChecker [142] and took a look. I see an interest in two (maybe three) topics: Mitt Romney and Florida (and possibly Florida animals). On the Florida-stuff, I don't see a problem. On the Romney stuff, I see mild POV-pushing, but much more restrained than some of the silly-season stuff that happens around here. That said, this user takes WP:BOLD to extremes, and should probably discuss more. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So I am fairly new at editing and cannot believe I have already been added to the Administration Notice board. The original warring complaint which Viriditas made didn't really have a specific edit warring that I was involved in, when asked to provide one he came up with a change I made to the 2002 Winter Olympics. The information had been on the talk page for almost 24 hours before I removed it, and still no one else has complained. In addition Viriditas made warring threats to a number of editors at about the same time he made it to me. He made them to. to Belchfire on August 4, Causa sui on August 3, 32.142.204.111 on July 31, 130.65.109.101 on July 31 (These two may be the same person), And Ianmacm on July 30. As for the Portman article I did not make any edits. I mentioned that controversy sections invite controversy in the talk page. For Mitt Romney I was working to improve his Elections Campaign 2012 when things got too heated I pretty much backed off. As you can see from my edits, I also went much more to the talk page once a number of additional editors got involved. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry I had didn't sign I meant to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(squints hard) So you did. All right, I take back the last sentence about BOLD and discussion. I won't retract this: you do dhow a mild POV in favor of Romney. It's not strong enough to keep you from editing Romney stuff, but I'll ask you to keep it in mind that if someone suggests something is non-neutral when you thought it was perfectly neutral, they may be right. We all run into that eventually. Other than that, I say nothing to see here, move along all. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 11:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should allow BRD to provide cover for naked partisanship. Anybody who understands BRD (understanding is not universal, mind you), should also be able to comprehend NPOV. Using one to ignore the other is simply disruptive, and should draw sanctions. Belchfire-TALK 16:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll appreciate you taking up your baseless sockpuppet accusations at WP:SPI. causa sui (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

Criticism of Wikipedia was originally an article. A February 2011 NPOV noticeboard discussion [143] came to the consensus that it should be a disambiguation page. This was created and content merged to the listed articles.[144]

The following month RekishiEJ (talk · contribs) reverted the page to an article [145]. Rememberway (talk · contribs) then restored the disambiguation page [146]. Over the following months there was persistent sockpuppetry to restore the article, and some restorations by other users - particularly QuackGuru (talk · contribs) e.g. [147].

Per a talk page discussion with only 3 participants, [148], JTSchreiber (talk · contribs) converted into a redirect to Wikipedia in July 2011[149]. In February 2012, Extra999 (talk · contribs) refined the target to Wikipedia#Nature of Wikipedia.[150], which was undone by an anon in May 2012 [151]. Longbyte1 (talk · contribs) nominated the redirect at RfD in June 2012 [152], the outcome of that discussion was "keep" with Reliability of Wikipedia suggested as a possible target by several participants (note: I participated in that discussion). However, during that discussion Guy Macon (talk · contribs) changed the target to Wikipedia:Criticisms [153] without commenting at the RfD and this was not noticed by any of the participants nor apparently by the closer, Ruslik0 (talk · contribs).

On 5 August 2012, Ibicdlcod (talk · contribs) nominated the redirect at RfD (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia) [154]. Yesterday (8 August 2012), Silver seren (talk · contribs) reverted the page back to the most recent article version, stating "The NPOV/N board a year and a half ago was the wrong location anyways. This should have been taken to AfD or a Request for Content should have been started. This is all highly inappropriate and I oppose it."[155]. Despite being aware of the ongoing RfD [156] they did not mention their actions there.

Although I am a participant in the current RfD discussion, and therefore not neutral regarding its outcome, the comments so far do not show a consensus for returning this to an article (although it has been suggested).

AN/I is not the correct location to determine what this page should be, and so do not comment about there here please. However, it is a place to get advice regarding what actions (if any) should be taken against any of the users and to get advice on whether the ongoing RfD should be continued (with or without reversion to a redirect) or whether it should be taken to AfD or another location? That is what I am seeking here. I will now notify all the users I have mentioned above and the current RfD discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What's with the assumption that I would edit war? I already said my piece at the RfD. I, however, didn't know that there was a talk page discussion about changing from a DAB to a redirect, but I must say that it is highly unimpressive and doesn't seem like any kind of consensus to me. Silverseren^C 11:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I closed the RFD as "keep the redirect", which means that there was a consensus against reverting it back to an article (at least, until NPOV problems are sorted out, which should be done on its talk page, not at RFD.) The exact target was not important and, in fact, was not discussed except for one comment by Michaelzeng7. (I noticed that the target was changed.) Ruslik_Zero 12:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On 2 July 2012 I searched for "Criticism of Wikipedia", and discovered that the page it redirected to was stupid.

On 12:00, 2 July 2012, I changed

Criticism of Wikipedia #REDIRECT Wikipedia

to

Criticism of Wikipedia #REDIRECT Wikipedia:Criticisms

with the edit comment

"Someone who is searching for "Criticism of Wikipedia" is not looking for Wikipedia. He/she is looking for Wikipedia:Criticisms or for Reliability of Wikipedia, which is the first hatnote at Wikipedia:Criticisms."

Here is that edit.

I left the redirects for discussion notice intact.

The state of the redirects for discussion page when I did that is here.

or, if you prefer to jump to the section in question, look here.

Please note that the RfD was closed. thus, the above statement that "during that discussion changed the target to Wikipedia:Criticisms without commenting at the RfD" is factually incorrect. My action was after the discussion was closed and marked "The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it." I don't go around changing redirects that have open RfDs. That would be disruptive.

The actual close was six days later, then there were no edits for a month.

I was simply following the advice found at WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. I made a bold edit (which I contend fixed a real problem), explained why in my edit comment. and waited for someone to revert and discuss.

Also, I made the right decision. The existing target sucked. Someone who is searching for "Criticism of Wikipedia" is not looking for Wikipedia. He/she is looking for Wikipedia:Criticisms or for Reliability of Wikipedia, which is the first hatnote at Wikipedia:Criticisms. Does anyone here dispute that my decision was correct? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On 2nd July the RfD was not closed [157] but still open, so you should have commented at that discussion, linked from the redirect page when you visited it, rather than ignoring it. As for "Does anyone here dispute that my decision was correct?", yes - everyone who has commented so far at the current RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion as of 09:33, 2 July 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=500305985 (Search for "Criticism of Wikipedia")

My edit on 12:00, 2 July 2012:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&diff=500319163&oldid=498111108

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion as of 00:13, 3 July 2012:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&direction=next&oldid=500305985

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion just transcludes the daily subpages, so all those links are showing you is which subpages were transcluded at those times because, exactly with templates and all other forms of transclusion on Wikipedia, the current version is transcluded rather than the version that was live at the time of the historical revision. To see the state of the RfD discussion at the time you need to look at the historical revision of the daily subpage - the link I gave above. To illustrate this, see the version of the main RfD page as of 23:11, 18 June 2012. See also Bug 34244. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And in that case there's a perfectly good reason to assume it was just an honest mistake. If it appears closed in the transclusion that Guy Macon was looking at, and it appears open in the one you show, then that's an "oops," not a "you were disruptively going against consensus." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. For the record, if I saw a stupid redirect target that had an open RfD, I would have made a comment at the RfD saying I though it was a stupid redirect target. I would never purposely change a redirect while the RfD is open. That would be rude as well as disruptive. I wish someone had noticed and reverted or commented at the time. Right now I don't know exactly what I was looking at and how I missed the open RfD. I apologize for the error. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Errr, in July 2, the RfD page was transcluding the discussion as it was in July 2, when it was still open. When you opened the RfD link from the article, you were shown a still-open discussion. The transclusion was showing an open discussion. You must have mis-readed the RfD page, and mistakenly believed that it was closed. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how I made that mistake, but it was a mistake, and I certainly will be extra careful in the future to avoid making it again. Again, I apologize.

That being said, I see several other actions by several other editors mentioned at the top of this section. Perhaps it is someone else's turn in the barrel? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentally ill or incompetent editors

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

---

I don't come to Wikipedia often enough to really answer Help Desk questions, but this is one I felt needed some clarification. I don't think sending the person here would necessarily be the right answer, but there wasn't a clear answer on the Help Desk.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, please see WP: CIR. Second of all, I'm sure that there are some editors here with mental illnesses, and there is a fantastic admin here who wrote an essay on editing with mental illnesses here. Electric Catfish 21:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIR is covered, but another answer said "off-wiki" and I have gotten no response from the person who wrote that as of yet. I will add that second one to the Help Desk response, though. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And we got a response about how to report the person.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:44, 9 August 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:Urklistre

• Urklistre (talk · contribs)
• Talk:16:10 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to file a complaint against User:Urklistre, for his conduct during the dispute on the 16:10 talk page. He shows several signs of a disruptive editor, including tendentious editing and failure to engage in consensus-building.

Examples of his conduct include (in roughly chronological order):

• dismissing the sources I provided as "just opinions" [158], "[no] more valid than mine or yours" [159], "noob sources" [160], "noobs comments" [161], "not serious" [162], "neither relevant or significant" [163], "low quality blogs" [164] and containing "false statements" and "factual errors" [165], and the statement backed by those sources as "simply false" [166] and "a paradox" [167], without any supporting evidence or explanation
• accusing me of being biased [168] and deleting "research" [169], again without evidence or explanation
• aggressively telling me to "back off" [170]
• calling the whole discussion a "farse" (sic) [171]
• indicating intention to resume edit warring as soon as temporary protection is removed from the article [172], directly below a comment from a moderator encouraging us to resolve the dispute through discussion, rather than reverting
• editing my comments without good reason or my permission [173] (a violation of WP:TPO), under the pretext of "equality", but with the apparent goal of disrupting my argument by removing emphasis from where I felt it was needed to accurately convey my argument
• lying about the status of the dispute [174]
• failing to participate in dispute resolution processes (attempts at both WP:DRN and WP:3O failed due to no response from him for a week [175] [176])
• accusing me of trying to sneak in non-consensus content and deleting "important info" and "reliable sources" [177] (in reality I just proceeded with my proposed edits after no opposition from him for several weeks and per advice from another editor [178])
• editing and reverting disputed content in the article without discussion or consensus, something he has been called out on several times [179] [180] [181]
• claiming that my proposed version "isnt covered covered by sources and also isnt correct", once again without any evidence or explanation [182]
• categorically declaring that my proposed version "wasnt accepted 1 month ago, it isnt accepted now and it will not be accepted in the future" [183], that "it isnt an option" [184] and that "it can't be in the article" [185] (a possible sign of article ownership)
• baselessly accusing me of refusing to collaborate [186], despite my repeated attempts to resolve the dispute through discussion
• deleting a comment of mine (another violation of WP:TPO) [187]
• repeatedly editing and deleting significant sections of one of my comments [188] [189] [190] [191]. Permission was originally given only to edit in order to improve or clarify, not to delete. The permission was later explicitly retracted and requests were made to stop [192] [193] [194], thus further edits constitute a gross violation of WP:TPO. The edits also constitute an apparent attempt to sabotage the WP:3O process by making it harder for a third editor to get involved in the dispute (see this comment by User:No More Mr Nice Guy during the previous attempt at WP:3O, requesting precisely what Urklistre is now trying to prevent from being provided - both my and his proposed versions for the disputed section).
• accusing me of violating Wikipedia policies with regards to consensus [195], even though there was at that time (nor is as of the writing of this) no consensus to yield to

Overall User:Urklistre has been extremely difficult to work with. He refuses to participate in proper dispute resolution processes, fails to address legitimate concerns raised about his proposed edits, and at the same time completely disregards evidence and explanations provided by me for my proposed version, as well as another editor's tentative approval for it [196]. His policy of "edit first, discuss later (if at all)", combined with the baseless accusations he keeps throwing around, is counter-productive to the goal of reaching consensus and indicates an overall desire to "win", rather than to collaborate. Indrek (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Promotional editing

I hemmed and hawed over bringing this here, but this is just so overly promotional that I can't entirely ignore it. Two editors Stephenat01 (talk · contribs) and Kateohichi (talk · contribs) have added about six articles to Wikipedia promoting movies and people that have no notability. They're all tagged in one form or another, but what I've noticed is that the two users are working in tandem with each other. All of the articles are related to each other, which leads me to think that the two are either one person socking or two people meat puppeting for a specific director/company. This is all so blatantly done for promotion that I just want to nip this in the bud now because it looks like they're just getting started. There's also an IP that has been removing AfD templates (as well as PRODs, but that's not technically against the rules unless it's proven that it's the article creator). (75.84.156.55) Here's a few examples of the history of the articles they've created and the articles themselves: [197], [198], M.A.R.R.A Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an aside comment: an article creator may remove a prod tag (WP:DEPROD).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A few comments:

• Editors may be blocked for spamming.
• Although there are plenty of notices on the two editors' Talk pages, no one has talked to them.
• Kate hasn't edited since August 5, and Stephen hasn't edited since August 8 (at least not using their accounts). User:75.84.156.55 has edited twice today (UTC).

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning card

Someone want to take a look at this? Article started in 2009 and seems to have been a constant battleground between COI editors ever since. Currently fully protected in an effort to dissuade the latest incarnation of an editor who is on account #4 now (not to mention all the IPs) from warring with another SPA whose deleted contribs suggest he's involved with a competing technology. Given the complete lack of references at any point in the article's history, and its obvious use as a promotional tool by multiple parties, is it worth simply nuking it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AFD, not ANI. Nobody Ent 11:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't (which is why your summary dismissal of it after eight minutes was grossly inappropriate). There is every chance that there is a notable subject in there, and deletion should be a last resort take only if we agree that the warring is completely intractable. It would be far better for a solution to be discussed which allows for the article to be developed without being constantly tugged around by SPIs. Input from the admin corps (and "experienced editors", if they're not too busy shutting threads) is welcome as to how to proceed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Severe problems with how an article is written or it's editors is not a reason for deletion. The subject looks wp:notable and enclyclopedic to me. That article has such blatant simple (= easily remedied) problems (e.g. far reaching unsourced claims of primacy, superiority, noteworthiness, prominence for particular companies, individuals, approaches and methods) that I think that a few extra experienced sets of neutral eyes could get the article in a lot better shape. Also has declared (via user name) COI editors (which is better than stealth ones which are probably also present) which could use a little help/guidance on wp:coi. I'd be happy to help a bit. (am not an admin) North8000 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD isn't just for deletions, and there has been discussion about changing the name from "Deletions" to "Discussions" for year. Often, it is the most effective way to fix an article, as the bickering parties become inspired to cooperate once it's head is on the block. Not sure if this is at that point yet, but it isn't obvious that it meets criteria either. To me, AFD is at least a viable option here, since it has exactly zero sources and only spammy looking external links and a boatload of original research. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that all of those things happen there; I've been involved in many of those decisions and subsequent reworks/rescues myself. And it would force it to pretty quickly get a few references. Then it could be nuked to the stub of what is covered by the references. But any wiki-experienced person would know that this article should not be actually deleted. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the easiest way to build something is to destroy the thing that is in its way. Takes all the arguing out of it. Forcing it to become a sourced stub and grow from there, regardless of how it is achieved, is likely the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TNT says it well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Dennis, although I've been occasionally abused at AfD for not fixing it myself. Sometimes, I come away a bit battered but the batterers do improve the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Either way I'd be happy to help. North8000 (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would send it to AfD. While there are plenty of companies selling cleaning cards, neither Google Books nor Scholar turn up anything obviously usable as a reference. An AfD would help verify whether enough sources exist to start the article again from scratch. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

About 3/4 of it is well written unsourced material. Maybe too well written. The other 1/4 is problematic in addition to being unsourced. It's a widely used product name and so would probably pass notability. No strong opinion on AFD. I nuked out the worst stuff. I'll watch the article but probably not this thread any longer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou

Esoglou seems to be suffering from WP:IDHT, growing more divisive as the conversation progesses. Originally, his argument was that the Holy See did not have a coat of arms, even giving quite the lengthy discussion about it [199]. This was easily contradicted by the Vatican's own official website [200], which is titled "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and the State of Vatican City" (emphasis added) and goes on to show only one coat of arms. An editor, Enric Naval, provided a source in Italian which he could not read [201]. That source went on to describe the arms of the Holy See and even provided an image; Esoglou rejected this source completely, text and image, because the image was a line drawing. Embattled Grady appeared with several more sources and stated he agreed with me, saying "Therefore, I tend to agree with Bellae artes" [202]. But Esoglou ignored these further sources as if they didn't exist, or, worse yet, thought they aided his argument and even began stating that both editors were in agreement with him, saying "I wonder what Embattled Grady thinks of your way of getting out of the conclusion that Embattled Grady and I drew" (even though Embattled Grady already stated he was in agreement with me as earlier shown) and "the view also of Enric Naval" (when Enric Naval merely proposed someone read his Italian source he could not) [203]. Eventually, Esoglou admitted to the fact the Holy See has a coat of arms, [204], but now contends the Holy See's arms are the same as the papal keys and is bringing in sources describing the keys in the pope's coat of arms to extend this argument long past its closure. He went so far as to quote a partial sentence from abook describing the keys used to adorn papal coats of arms, then he went on to explain how this was actually meant to be described as the coat of arms of the Holy See and nowhow the Holy See's arms are technically not drawn with keys and tiara but the emblem of the Camerlingo [205].

All in all, he he is ignoring proper sources provided to him, even the Church's own website describing its on coat of arms, and then misrepresenting the other editor's view points, ignoring consensus and putting misconceptions, myths and what-I-would-dos into the article rather than facts. I would ask an admin step in review the sources (and feel free to ask any questions needed, since I know heraldry is not a common knowledge topic), and put an end to this argument so we can get back to correcting this article and expanding it. Bellae artes (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What a series of misrepresentations! "Originally, his argument was that the Holy See did not have a coat of arms": it was the explicit statement of two independent secondary sources that led me to that opinion, which I later changed when editors (not Bellae artes) presented other sources that I consider more reliable. "This was easily contradicted by the Vatican's own official website": a reference to a press release in English (one that was inaccurate even in its description of the illustrated coat of arms as having the tiara placed above the shield, while the Italian text of the same release correctly says the tiara is above the keys within the shield), a subheading of which, "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", appears to say (but presenting this interpretation, as Bellae artes does, is a case of original synthesis) that the two entities have the same coat of arms, while on the contrary the Italian text on the same "Vatican's own official website" speaks only of a coat of arms of Vatican City State and only of an "emblem" of the Holy See, the clearly distinct emblem and the coat of arms being illustrated on both the Italian and the English pages; this Italian page of "the Vatican's own official website", quite as authoritative, to say the very least, as the English page, seemed to confirm the statement of the two independent secondary sources. When Enric Naval presented an Italian source "Esoglou rejected this source completely, text and image, because the image was a line drawing": I certainly did not; as soon as an image of a 15th-century "escutcheon of the Holy See" was identified in it, I accepted that, at least in that century, the Holy See did have a coat of arms and commented only that we lacked a statement about the present situation and an indication of the colour of the field in the 15th century. Embattled Grady then produced sources that indicated both that the Holy See has (now) a coat of arms and also information about the colour of the field in the past. According to Bellae artes, "Esoglou ignored these further sources as if they didn't exist". On the contrary, I immediately declared that contribution "quite convincing" and remarked that the information it provided indicated that the keys of the coat of arms of the Holy See are arranged not as in the coat of arms of Vatican City State but as Enric Naval had argued both on the Talk page and in the article itself (where Bellae artes promptly reverted his contribution); in that sense I remarked that, while Embattled Grady had rightly said he agreed with Bellae artes (on the present existence of a coat of arms of the Holy See and on the colour of the field even in the past), "it can be said that" Embattled Grade agreed rather with Enric Naval on the principal point of discussion: Is the coat of arms of the Holy See identical with that of Vatican City State? It is Bellae artes who is ignoring the contribution by Embattled Grady, by objecting that the "papal arms" mentioned in the book on heraldry from which Embattled Grady quoted are something different from the coat of arms of the Holy See. Esoglou, Bellae artes says, "is ignoring proper sources provided to him, even the Church's own website describing its on coat of arms". Bellae artes is presenting only one source and using synthesis to create from it support for his claim that the coat of arms of the Holy See and that of Vatican City State are identical, and it is Bellae artes who is refusing to change his conviction, as I have done, on the basis of the evidence presented by other editors. Esoglou (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Holy Wall of Text Batman. *snerk* How about both of you be brief in your points? Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor is ignoring sources that expressly state the Holy See has a coat of arms and what that coat of arms is, you can see the arms on the Holy See's own website here. Other sources have been provided, which can be found in the text above, the Wikipedia article Coat of arms of the Holy See and it's talk page. He has reluctantly given in to the notion of the See having arms, but now has continued to argue with a different baseless claim--that the colours in all of the sources are wrong--despite the official site of the Vatican, a Catholic encyclopedia, a book he himself used to verify the Holy See has a coat of arms, a book listed archived by the Italian government and other quotes from other editors, his argument that the colours are wrong is based upon half a sentence he quoted about papal emblems, unaware he is confusing two distinct (though in appearance very similiar) devices. Bellae artes (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As requested by Hasteur, I'll be as brief as I can when responding to multiple false statements.

1. The only source (not "sources") that Bellae adduces in support of his claim that the Holy See and Vatican City State have the same coat of arms is an English version of a press release that Bellae interprets as supporting his claim, although the Italian version of the same release indicates the opposite.
2. I do not claim "that the colours in all the sources are wrong". On the contrary.
3. Several sources indicate that the two coats of arms are different: those mentioned in this edit and this.

Enough? Esoglou (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Based solely on reading what has been posted here, my impression is that perhaps the discussion could have been more civil but this appears to be a content dispute with no allegations of Wikipedia policy violation other than don't be a dick. There don't haven't seem to be any allegations of incivility, just Esoglou's typical picky attention to detail which is often annoying but also often correct. Esoglou can be a pain in the ass; focus on content not personalities. I would urge admins to refer the parties to the dispute resolution mechanisms and close this thread. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Son of BOSS

Son of BOSS is in the news and needs help. Maybe protecting, maybe warning/blocking users. Jesanj (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A block has been made on the most disruptive IP so problem solved for now. Jesanj (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC) That was an old block, not a current one on the IP. Jesanj (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:FerrerFour

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

---

I would like to make a formal complain against the user FerrerFour (talk · contribs) the user has been making continued personalised attacks on users whom they disagree with on the discussion page of the Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. They have referred to myself as a liar in this comment [206] in this comment they specifically state I am the problem and that I am incompetent [207]. In this edit they are stating I have no understanding of things [208] In this edit they state "anyone with half a brain could see that" [209]. In this comment they state "I see no reason for anyone to be forced to listen to your continued insistence that black is white," [210]. Here they state "I do know what I'm talking about, whereas you pretty obviously don't." [211]. In this edit they attempt to defend their personalised comments [212]. In this edit they refer to other editors contributions as "More rubbish", "clearly nonsense" " there's people talking about policies that they know about, and then there's you" [213]. In this edit they state "I shouldn't trust your reading skills if I were you" [214]. in this edit they make numerous personalised uncivil comments [215]. In this comment they use phrases such as "Just get this through your thick head will you" and " I just think it's garbage, born out of your weird hatred of the press" [216].

Can some action please be taken against this user who is clearly making uncivil and personalised comments on other users which is getting disruptive and is getting highly offensive. Sport and politics (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• This might have gone beyond WP:WQA based on the sheer quantity of uncivil commentary. They're simply wiping out formal warnings from their talkpage. I have given them a "welcomecivil"" template, as I note they had not been advised of Wikipedia's rules formally, although that excuses nothing. dangerouspanda 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds like they need someone patient and understanding to bounce talk with back and forth for a day or two, to understand that this isn't a forum, and we discuss instead of debate. Sounds like a job for a Panda. (wink wink, nod nod, hint hint) I would rather see that attempted before we take any other action since this guy is really new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I stumbled across this yesterday after receiving a less than courteous reply from Sport and politics to a legitimate question, in which I was basically accused of soapboxing, and I'm afraid I was a little vexed at the time. It seems to me both FerrerFour and Sport and Politics appear to be embroiled in an argument that spreads across several threads on the page, and is gradually escalating, with FerrerFour clearly out of line with some of his comments. But I'm also concerned about Sport and politics, who appears to be throwing a lot of guidelines about, but not really understanding their true nature. I think they both need a bit of coaching. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• This does need nipping in the bud, but the controversies page is not exactly the most friendly page. Moreover it's not so much the personal attacks, but the oppositional attitude of which that is the symptom that creates the problem. Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC).
  

I stand by my comments. If Wikipedia cares more about the likes of Sports and Politics being offended by being told he is incompetent, rather than actually investigating whether he is indeed incompetent, then there's no hope for it as a serious project. As Paul points out, this guy is just throwing links out there all over the place on the talk page, as if he understands them, when he clearly doesn't. That's bad enough, but when you also consider he is also slashing and burning sections of the article based on this incompetence, someone has to put him through a rapid Wikipedia education programme. I'm doing my bit by giving him a bit of plain speaking wherever I see him talking nonsense, which is of course quite different from being out and out insulting or vulgar for no reason. FerrerFour (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You could just use the word "incompetent" and stay away from some of the other stuff. "Incompetent" is not an insult, it's even a guideline around here (WP:COMPETENCE). The other stuff is not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I should add here I did actually revert something he claimed to have archived because I couldn't find it there. That he didn't add it could have been a genuine error though. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That error has now been rectified I missed it off as it was the top discussion being archived when I transferred across. Sport and politics (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though to be honest there's no need to manually archive anything as MiszaBot is doing the job. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise that was occurring. Sport and politics (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:COMPETENCE isn't a guideline and it is an insult. It even said so in the essay: "This essay is often criticized for being uncivil." FerrerFour: Someone may be incompetent, but telling them so isn't going to solve any problems. If it were acceptable to just write someone else off an incompetent, then every time any of us had a disagreement we'd just say the other is incompetent. Nothing would get solved. You need to back off the insults and focus on the content and use reliable sources to back up your position.--v/r - TP 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've used reliable sources and I've discussed the content. Sports and politice rejects all of this, precisely because of his incompetence. If you don't believe me, how about you try having a logical discussion with him instead, see how far you get when it becomes clear that he has no clue about the links he keeps throwing out there. I hope you like banging your head against a desk. FerrerFour (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:FerrerFour appears to be new. (Although his claimed detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies is somewhat of a surprise given that situation.) Almost all his edits have been on topics related to the London Olympic Games. He has very strong views on some of these matters. In addition, the article where the problems being discussed have occurred, Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics, is a very controversial article itself. In my humble opinion, it is currently an incredibly bloated platform for anyone with any complaint on the Games to broadcast their whining. User:FerrerFour disagrees, very rudely at times, with me and others. Where I'm going with this post is that, while User:FerrerFour's behaviour has been less than perfect, the nature of the article he is arguing over is part of the problem. If someone with appropriate authority could lay down some firmer rules for what that article should contain, and police it appropriately, a lot of this whole problem would disappear. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have strong views about people who say things like "it's an incredibly bloated platform for anyone with any complaint on the Games to broadcast their whining", when quite clearly, this is a total lie. This is the guy who called me a "games hater" and made all sorts of other bullshit accusations about my motives, for doing nothing more heinous than pointing out what is a bloody obvious fact - being sent home from an Olympic games is nearly always considered a controversy, as can be verified in the reliable sources. This is the guy who claims incidents like this get forgotten about in a few days, then goes silent when I show him a reliable source that proves the exact opposite. I think I've been quite restrained in the face of such deceitful and disgraceful behaviour quite frankly. FerrerFour (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefaced the words you quoted with "In my humble opinion..." That you chose to leave that out does your image no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

His edits elsewhere (e.g., Talk:Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics) haven't exactly been the most polite either. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Another excellent example of what people have to face in Wikipedia when others are minded to dispute things while not really knowing anything about policy - 12 days it took me, 12 whole days, for the user I was arguing with at that page, to come up with a source to back up his claims. And even then it didn't come from the place he'd been insisting it would be found. FerrerFour (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it took twelve whole days...there is no deadline, remember. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly does WP:NODEADLINE have to do with the time it takes for one user to respond to a direct question from another? FerrerFour (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. See Talk:Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Percieved_elitism_section for Sports and politics

As for Ferrer, he does seem to know about guidelines et al pretty well for someone who is hardly a fortnight into the WP.

I would say Ferrer's responses here are not exactly helping him (reminds me of YRC's RfC ironically). Also see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#David_Rudisha, though not eactly wrong per se, its another sign of such incivility that needs to change. He starts off accusing instead of posting and then continues.

Also the content is not under discussion over here, its the WAY the discussion has been done.Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that through the entire discussion linked above I have only commented on the content of the discussion and to claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of the comments I have made. In one place I refer to another editor making more implications of edit warring and explain the whole cycle of being bold then reverting and then discussing. If there is any comments of a person nature in the section on elitism please point them out to me and I shall explain them. Though my current reading of that section can find no comments of a personal nature by myself. Sport and politics (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• FerrerFour, at Wikipedia, it takes more than "being right", you also have to get along. No one is asking to love everyone, but if you continue to be rude, you will it difficult to get others to be persuaded to your point of view, and you aren't going to have a very good time being here. As remarkable as your knowledge of Wikipedia is for such a new editor, you should also be familiar with the WP:Five pillars, the very foundation of Wikipedia, which uses a large chunk of this precious space to talk solely about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. Here's another classic example of Sport and politic's total and utter incompetence. Earlier today, he removed this from the controversies article. He did this because it defames private schools, and is a BLP violation against the British competitors from private schools. [217] You simply cannot deal with this by simply talking about content or sources, it's a basic issue of competence. If nobody here is willing to speak out against this sort of outrageously incompetent act, and is more interested in bitching at me for telling him he has no idea what he's doing, then shame on all of you. FerrerFour (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• You're right that his reasons were completely wrong (BLP violation? I think not) but ironically he was right to remove it; it's not a controversy about the games, just Moynihan making a political point knowing it'll be covered due to its association with them. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's irony? I don't think so. I think it's a case of looking the other way if the outcome of bad behaviour is something agreeable to you. Sort of like Russia ignoring the bloodbath in Syria if it means they can sell more helicopters. FerrerFour (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the latest personal comments from FerrerFour [218]. It is clear the user is not understanding that it is not how to go about contributing on Wikipedia in a civil manner. Sport and politics (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Let me rephrase it then FerrerFour: It doesn't matter if you think you are right, being rude is unacceptable anyway. His conduct is a different issue. Right now, I'm talking about your conduct, the reason for this report, which has been rude. "You two are really full of it. " "You really are a very silly man. " "You can talk as much rubbish as you like..." "More rubbish." "it's actually a lie" and other rudeness. Your demeanor on that talk page shows you digging in there like you are here, and it is a WP:BATTLEfield mentality, which is incompatible with what we are here with. Stop it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• • What you're basically saying is you're more bothered about him being upset at being called incompetent, rather than his actual incompetence. Good to know. Brilliant to see just where your priorities lie. All I see here is a system designed to encourage incompetence. And as they say, stupid in, stupid out. FerrerFour (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I'm concerned that you are rapidly working your way towards a block. Claiming incompetence without demonstrating clear and obvious proof in the form of diffs is insulting, and at this point, is bordering on a personal attack. You are trying to use your opinion as a justification for continued incivility and quazi-personal attacks, and you are about to run out of rope. If you can't admit your own methods are inappropriate and clearly against WP:CIVIL, then you have only proven Sport and politics right. I'm not inclined to be much more patient here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I have posted at least one bang to rights example in here, at 23:14. You made this accusation a full 85 minutes later. I stand by my comments, and I will not be lectured at by the likes of you about not backing up my claims, when it appears you are so lazy you cannot even see that post, even though it's barely a few centimetres above this one. Further evidence is on display at the controversy article talk page, the only skill required to assess whether I'm insane or not is a pair of eyes and an abiilty to read English. But I get the sense that it's a little bit of a stretch for you to go look, which rather ties into my theory that you're not interested in the least in assessing whether Sports and politics in incompetent, you're only interest is in nailing me for highlighting it. Rather than being concerned about me working my way to a block, your apparent aim seems to be to accelerate it, much like a corrupt cop accelerates a case by accidentally losing some of the evidence that doesn't quite fit with his theories about the suspect. You can call my claims opinion all you like, Sports and politics is busy ripping articles apart based on nothing but his opinions. I'm not getting any sense that one is considered more of an issue than the other by you, which is quite surprising given the primary purpose of this project. FerrerFour (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You posted where he deleted a section, that is a content dispute, not CIR evidence. Looking at the talk page doesn't support your claims either. Claiming I haven't looked at the diffs or claiming my motives are impure isn't helping your case, nor is the examples you have given. They don't support WP:CIR claims of competency, so either find better diffs, or drop the claims. In other words, I've seen your evidence and disagree with your conclusions, so you need to stop with the rudeness and personal comments. It isn't an escalation, I'm simply trying to tell you that you are wrong here, and you can't seem to get that. I'm trying to do you a favor by telling you that you need to back off the aggression or else you will end up getting blocked. It is just factual, not personal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
          • That's not quite right now is it? Let's tell the whole story shall we? I posted where he deleted a section because it, according to him, constituted defamation and a BLP violation. Now, let's examine that whole sequence, with respect to WP:CIR. From WP:CIR - "Factual incompetence The best good will is unavailing if basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and the cultural context is lacking". Please explain to everyone here, under what cultural context or mainstream interpretation, was that section's content defamatory? You can look up defamation if it helps, or you could just consider the fact it was printed in about a million papers. How often do you dismiss that sort of basic factual error, as a mere element of a content dispute? How many times pray tell, are editors who do know what defamation is, are supposed to put up with the likes of Sport and politics ignoring them? To quote WP:CIR again - "Bias-based incompetence Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively From his explanation for the removal, picking a random statement, "To single out individual competitors background which is something they have no control over is the same as singling out competitors race, gender, age...a non-story made up to sell newspapers" That statement is referencing the large number of news stories generated by a fact based comment from a high profile public servant which singled out nobody. How often do you overlook such obvious bias in the naive hope that the person has the ability to engage with people who don't share the same views? How often do you dismiss that sort of rhetoric as a healthy component of a run of the mill content dispute? Again, how many times are editors like myself supposed to put up with the pretence that people who hold such views, and still hold them even when they've been shown to be at the very least based on factual errors, is just a normal part of the to and fro of healthy Wikipedia discussion. I could go on, but I think I might be wasting my time if you missed even obvious examples like that. The guy is incompetent. You can either accept it, or deal with the conqeuences as the number of editors who encounter him reaches critical mass. Me, I don't much care. I don't think I'll be too motivated to contribute in future if this is the sort of environment that's considered normal. FerrerFour (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Then you take it to WP:DRN, but you don't make personal comments. That is the point I'm trying to make. You seem to think it is ok to be rude since you think he is grossly wrong. You are mistaken. It is never ok to be rude like that. If you disagree with the content and can't hammer it out on the talk page, go to WP:DRN. Again, it isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along with others. You've been told this plenty of times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
              • Why would I take an issue of competence to the DRN? How can an issue of competence not be an issue of behaviour? To illustrate how absurd this suggestion is, given the fact he claimed he removed that section as it was a BLP violation, then if I accepted your premise, I would actually have to take that 'content dispute' to the BLP noticeboard, not the DRN. Can you imagine the reaction if I sent that there? They would likely question my own competence, because there's no competent editor out there who would ever agree that that post violated BLP. Not even if applying the biggest dose of reasonable doubt you could imagine. I can accept misunderstandings and good faith errors, but it should be obvious to you by now, as it was to me long ago, that S&P still believes that was a BLP violation, inspite of being given multiple pointers to the contrary, because the underlying issue is his basic inability to understand Wikipedia. FerrerFour (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list so far of the policies Sports and politics has shown he has no grasp of, by either completely misusing them, or invoking them in circumnstances where no reasonable person would ever agree they applied:

• BLP
• NOTNEWS
• NOTE
• 30
• NOTFORUM
• RECENTISM
• NPOV
• NOR

Here's a sample of some the various actual arguments he's been making on the talk page that show that he has no grasp of the various wider issues that you need in order to have a sensible and productive discussion about current event type content and its eligibility under policies like NOT#NEWS or NPOV:

• Wikipedia using the same terminology as a newspaper is original research
• Newspaper articles are just one persons opinion
• This sort of coverage is "one newspaper"
• Not adding commentary in an article about how many newspapers didn't cover an issue, is "cherry picking" sources
• Something is not a controversy if only newspapers in one country call it one
• If newspapers have different accounts of an incident, then it's not a notable incident

I could go on and on, he is propogating this sort of nonsense in every section of that talk page for crying out loud. How much more evidence is needed that this guy is total and utter incompetent? He needs to be stopped, before he does some real damage to the reputation of Wikipedia. What is the point in creating all those policies and guidelines, if nobody is prepared to condemn the people who willfully ignore them, or stop the people who can't understand them? FerrerFour (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is highly misrepresentative and is not what is at issue here, if at all. What is at issue here is the uncivil comments and general rude and abusive nature on Wikipeida that FerrerFour is exhibiting . An exampl eof the above being misrepresntative: the Kim Collins issue is about weather it a "controversy" and not about one newspaper. An editor said it was called a controversy in a newspaper and I responded by saying that was just one newspaper calling it a controversy, where as other sources were not calling it a controversy. It is not just this article or me this user is uncivil towards. The comments being made by FerrerFour are now starting to be highly disruptive as they are preventing genuine constructive discussion from occuring. Sport and politics (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Every single item on that list comes from things you said. I dare you to deny it. And here we have another example - you claiming that because some sources don't call that event a controversy, then it's not a controversy. What you somehow forgot to explain, is the nature of the coverage in all those sources, which is 100% a description of a controversial incident. Not one of them was denying it was a controversial issue, not one, yet you chose to interpret the absence of a single word in a rather more broad fashion, to make the outlandish claim that there is somehow dispute in reliable sources about whether this is or isn't a controversy. Somewhere in your mind, once you mix in links to OR and POV and NOT#NEWS, this comes out as justification to remove the material from the article. Now, having had time to observe your mind at work, I know that explaining this to you is a waste of time, you'll only repeat the claims again and again, as if that progresses anything. But what I'm hoping to do is illustrate just how pointless it is talking to you without addressing the core issue - your total incompetence. FerrerFour (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets just close this abject dramafest asap and get back what we can do best, editing. I dint want to suggest a block all around, but it seems the same thing recurs and the counterparties don get the issue. Perhaps a short block of 12-24 hrs should give thought enough to get away from the article AND realise what it takes to avoid another block. I know it seems punitive, but its also to avoid the disruption here and on the talk page. Sports and politics seems to be partaking in discussion, but he too sometimes indicates a modicum of OWNership. A trout perhaps?

Also Blackkite, the content is under discussion on the talk page, you are encoruaged and invited to contribute to that there.Lihaas (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above comments are further demonstrations of the highly personal nature and unwarranted comments being made by FerrerFour. There is no point engaging with FerrerFour by me due to the torrent of abuse that is hurled at me. Can some action please be taken against this user to prevent this user from further disrupting Wikipeida and to prevent them form continuing their unwarranted personal tirades. Sport and politics (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The personal nature of the comments reflects the fact that the cause is a person. You are the cause of your own incompetence, not the article, not policies, not the weather, it's you. In that post I described in precise detail an example of your incompetence, and it is because you are incompetent that you have no answer to it except this whining about me. If you truly weren't incompetent, if you truly understood policies and how to make an argument with them, then you'd have been able to give a decent explanation for that sort of behaviour by now. You'd be able to outline the path of reasoning that leads us from the abscence of the word controversy from some sources, to you wanting to take the section out of the article. But you don't have this, do you? Just like you had no answer to why you threatened a user over making a FORUM post, when it wasn't one. Just like you seem to have not explained why you thought that the link I posted above was a BLP violation. Just like when you asked for a third opinion for a discussion that had already had five. Etc Etc Etc. FerrerFour (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above is just another example from FerrerFour as to the fact they are continuing with wholly inappropriate commenting. Sport and politics (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

^^^^Like I said, this guy is not able to defend his positions, which is something any competent editor would easily be able to do. It is not inappropriate to call an incompetent editor incompetent, in the same way that it's not inappropriate to call someone who is vandalising articles, a vandal. Although at least the damage caused by vandals is easy to fix. FerrerFour (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FerrerFour Is no longer worth engaging with when all they do is make unwarranted uncivilised comments towards myself. Sport and politics (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What a surprise, in your opinion, accusations of incompetence levelled against you are unwarranted. Well I never. Who would have thought it? Case closed everybody! Now, let's get down to the seirous issues - who do you suggest we contact about the very serious defamation that the BOA chief has committed on British athletes by highlighting the public school issue. Wait, no, first let's remove that talk page post about Murdoch, as it was a blatant violation of FORUM. No, I have a better idea, let's remove all the sections in the article where we cannot prove that every source uses the word "controversy". Hang on a minute, our first priority must be to scan the article for sections only sourced from papers from one country, as they will not be notable. Etc etc etc. 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FerrerFour (talk • contribs)

FerrerFour is still failing to see they are editing in a manner which is uncivil. Sport and politics (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Remind me again, S&P, am I allowed to remove your comment if I believe it defames me? Or does it fall under WP:FORUM? I am a living person, perhaps BLP applies? I don't know, we appear to be deadlocked. I know, let's seek a third opinion shall we? ........I am well aware that you find it uncomfortable to be labled incompetent, but when you keep dodging your opportunities to explain these multiple incidents that, to any ordinary reasonable person look pretty incompetentish, then I'm not the one whose failing at anything. FerrerFour (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with "defames me"; "defame" and its variants are potentially loaded words. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a sarcastic reference to the fact that Sports and politics had already accused another editor (or the living person quoted in the section they added) of defamation. I had already linked to that in here, so I'm surprised you never saw it. Perhaps that might be a better place to direct your NLT concerns? FerrerFour (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, the initator of the thread dosnt reccomend punishment because one issue is that clearly he was involved. Thats why theres the centralised noticeboard to elicit other opinion. It could turn into a BOOMERANG issueLihaas (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not recommending any action I am simply asking for some to be taken which is different. I asked for action to be taken when I opened the thread. I never suggested or recommended what action should be taken. It is for others to decide if they agree with my request for action to be taken and for others to decide on the action to be taken if they agree with my request for action to be taken. This talk is getting out of hand in my opinion. Sport and politics (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It just doesn't stop the latest comments are nothing but a tirade of a personal nature. There is little (if any) content discussion which is not layered in being highly disruptive [219] Sport and politics (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a good reason why FerrerFour has been permitted to call another editor directly as "incompetent" and "an incompetent" at least a half-dozen times right here on ANI, and yet still no block? They clearly have no concern for the WP:5P, or others. dangerouspanda 08:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• My understanding is that blocks are there to prevent disruption and damage to the encyclopaedia, but I can't honestly say we're at that stage yet. The discussion on here has died down since last night (presumably everyone's got tired and gone to bed), so I don't see a need for immediate action. In any case, I'd expect a {{Uw-npa3}} to be issued first. Although his comments to the Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics AfD have been robust, by not !voting in the AfD they can be more or less ignored. If a topic ban passes, as suggested below, and FerrerFour decides to sound off again, he can't say he wasn't warned. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"I am a living person, perhaps BLP applies?" from FerrerFour above. What sort of argument is this? Either an incompetent one, or a trolling one. IMHO. Doc talk 09:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a sarcastic reference to the fact that Sports and politics had already invoked BLP in a completely innappropriate manner as a justification for taking a section out of article. I had already linked to that in here, so I'm surprised you never saw it. Perhaps that might be a better place to direct your concerns about bad arguments? FerrerFour (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban/Mentorship proposal

After reading this discussion, it seems to me that the whole thing is being tossed around and around, with Sports & politics and FerretFour arguing with everyone without trying to reserve the issue. In trying to take a bold, decisive stab at resolving the issue, I propose a topic ban for both users: from the Olympic discussions and from each other in general. Mentorship would also be very helpful. I agree that both S&P and FF have taken some very nasty swipes at each other and other users. Personally, though I feel both users at fault, FerretFour has definitely been the more aggressive in his accusations of incompetence. Both of these editors need to cool down or this could escalate into blocks. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Ferrer four has not just been uncivil towards myself but has been toward other users and on other talk pages. Here are some more examples of FerrerFour being uncivil towards other editors on other talk pages. In this edit they state "As I suspected, the issue must be your comprehension of English" [220]. In this edit they assume bad faith and call a user a vandal by saying "we can only speculate on your motives for this vandalism" [221]. This edit sums up the attitude being exhibited by FerrerFour stating "I couldn't give a monkeys who would disagree with me" [222] On a user talk page ther directly call a user a "Liar" and state "The only way you could argue that's not the case, is if you didn't understand English, which may be the case"[223], This shows a pattern of uncivil editing by FerrerFour of multiple articles directed at different editors. Sport and politics (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading this contribution to a deletion discussion underlines that FerrerFour cannot resist another unwarranted snipe at myself and to ridicule the proposer. They state when referring to the proposer of the deletion " I think it needs to be a rule that anyone who comments on this article's merits, should at least know the subject matter it refers to. I only got as far as the first line, "This article is full of trivia, such as the security company not getting enough security guards", before I nearly fell off my seat laughing" those comments do nothing but attempt to ridicule the proposer. . Sport and politics (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

support for at least a while (olympics is over this weekend so topic ban is really futile) for mentorship. Perhaps limited to talk page not article space? See how that goes.Lihaas (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support for a short term period. I think all that's really happened here is that a few people have just got carried away and shot their mouths off a bit too much. I don't think blocks are a good idea as the problem seems to be limited to discussions, rather than clobbering content, though I noticed the key article in question, Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics has now been AfDed, so the whole discussion might be moot. I think the best way forward is for everyone involved to take a deep breath, go and look at something else for a week or two, and come back to this when the Olympics is over and the news reporting has died down a bit. One more thing I just want to mention to Sport and politics, since I don't think anyone else has done, is that you really don't do yourself any favours by continually saying "this is yet another example of why FerrerFour has been nasty to me". I think we all get the fact that the two of you don't get along, and he's been a bit uncivil, as has been well covered by Dennis earlier, but it's really not the end of the world, and all that repeating your grievances in this discussion again and again does is make him respond angrily. With a bit of foresight, you should have been able to see that coming. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note the latest diffs are referring to other editors on other pages. Its not just me he acts like this to it appears it is multiple pages edited on and any user who says something they dislike. Sport and politics (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nobody Ent 09:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support While I've had to focus on the one FF because of the digging in, it is clear that both editors have issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of us don't have the time to post here as often as some. My earlier point re the nature of the article where this all started seems to have been ignored. It's an article based on a very crappy principle, with no meaningful definitions to work from. And, FerrerFour has abused the crap out of me on that Talk page. I gave up discussing because he was displaying no rational behaviour at all. It's not just a fight between two editors. And I still wonder who FerrerFour was in an earlier life. Far too much knowledge for a two week old editor. Are there experts here who can check for past identities? HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The experts are at WP:SPI. But I disagree with the assessment -- Wikipedia's policies are written down (sort of) and FF's focus on the tree (essay) of competence while totally missing the forest of civility (pillar!) seems like a new editor error. Nobody Ent 11:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a new editor. At least not a two-week-old one. If it is, they learn policy "pointers" at an advanced and accelerated rate. Doc talk 12:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Look at his first edit. Perfectly formatted references kind of make it obvious, not to mention the wikilinking. Hot Stop 13:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. In reviewing just this topic and some of FF's contributions elsewhere, FF's conduct is beyond the pale. Their comments are belittling, sarcastic, condescending, and arrogant. I, too, do not believe they are new to Wikipedia. Their conduct is classic willful "I know best" and deflection of the discussion from their inappropriate conduct to issues of everyone else's alleged incompetence. I would block FF for persistent non-collaboration and attacks unless they promise to (1) discuss article content appropriately and (2) accept mentoring. (As an aside, I note that FF has made 59 article edits and 100 other edits since arriving here.) I have no comment on Sport and Politics.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, both mentoring and topic ban, the latter for perhaps a week or two until the Olympic coverage tails off. Then we could review the situation. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'll follow suit with Bbb23. In addition, topic banning User:Sport and Politics seems grossly inappropriate. (Think about it. Facing a stream of insults at the article Talk, she comes to ANI to get support to bring a stop to it. And as a result of her coming here, you wanna ban her. Even though her behavior here at the ANI was faultless, and the behavior of User:FerrerFour was atrocious. And further ... had she *not* opened the ANI, she would not find herself the subject of a topic ban [unless due to a different, separate event]. Had she had a crystal ball, and known that by opening an ANI for support to stop the abuse, even though her behavior at the ANI was exemplary, that she'd be subject to a topic ban as a result, ... then perhaps she wouldn't have chosen to come here at all. [So, wouldn't it be more chivalrous to offer her now: "Look, go back to the article and suffer without support re whatever was going on there before, or, elect being topic-banned. Your choice."] The whole deal here is surreal and derailed of any rationality or fairness.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there. Although FF has clearly been more blatantly uncivil, I can see evidence of ownership issues from S&P, for example here : "It does not belong on this discussion the above comments are the kinds of comments which are liable to be redacted and removed for being off topic." Also, you make a topic ban sound worse than it actually is - as stated above, I think it would be better for everyone to look at something else (why not review a good article?) for a few weeks, then come back to talking about controversies at the Olympics when it's all over, the tabloid reporting on it has died down, and everyone can look at it with a fresh pair of eyes. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see your example as an indication of ownership issues. Why do you think so?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of that is that S&P was telling someone else that discussion comments on a talk page were likely to be removed, which I can't see a justification for. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

But that would be a misinterpretation of policy, not an ownership issue, no?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see that I have probably been a little wrong with my interpretations on the issue of it being a soapbox, but I am still learning what is what. Can I please ask how I am meant to stop a user hurling abuse at me if I am to be sanctioned by being banned as well. Can I please have some evidence displaying that I have acted in such a way which merits being sanctioned in the same way as FerreFour. I will happily look at the evidence if it is presented to me. I cannot see how I have been making continual personal attacks and disrupting Wikipedia in the same way FerreFour has. Bbb23 is right how can I reasonably stop abuse. I am not behaving out of line on this ANI and I have not focused on editors and only on content. I was commenting that the issue itself was not appropriate for the topic with regards to my misinterpretation of soapboxing. I was not stating the user was anything of anything. Can it please be explained what I am meant to do to stop abuse being hurled at me if I am to be blocked as well? Sport and politics (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You weren't a "little wrong", you got it totally wrong. Three times you accused that user of having violated WP:FORUM, even though each time inbetween he told you that you were wrong, giving you every chance to realise why. Still you persisted. Even after I also told you it didn't violate WP:FORUM, you responded "Please make sure you know what your talking about" to me, and AGAIN repeated the claim that it was a violation. Only now, after a THIRD person has told you it wasn't a violation, does it seem to be permeating into your skull that maybe the issue is you after all, while making the absurd comment that you only got it a "little wrong". And I'm the one that people are trying to punish in here for highlighting this lack of competence? FerrerFour (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The nature of the personal comments by FerrerFour are highly uncivil and need dealing with. I have not made any uncivil comments here, FerrerFour just rolls them out. This is highly disruptive and FerrerFour seems unable to see they are doing anything which is inappropriate. phrasing like " permeating into your skull" are highly confrontational and uncivil. How can I reasonably stop this level of abuse? Sport and politics (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was seriously considering blocking you. A temporary topic ban is simply a formal request that you refrain from editing or discussing a specific area of Wikipedia for a short while. You'd still be free to edit other areas of the encyclopaedia. Click here to see more about what bans are. Having said all of that, admitting you might have gone a bit over the top as you've done is a good step towards avoiding a topic ban altogether. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Sports and politics & WP:CIR

Before the kangaroo court concludes, in the interests of history at the very least, I feel the need to illustrate in a separate section the precise type of editor you are trying to punish me for exposing.

• Would a competent editor call this content a BLP violation? [224]
• Would a competent editor, in a single post, make the following errors:
  • Claiming WP:NOTE applied to article paragraphs
  • Claiming that directly quoting a source is Original Research
  • Claim a 3 day old incident had no evidence of lasting notability (?) (as of today, 6 days later, the coverage continues)
• Would a competent editor have thought this talk page post was a violation of WP:NOTFORUM? [225]
• Would a competent editor be summarily redacting other users comments like this?
• Would a competent editor continue to comment in an archived section? [226][227]
• Would a competent editor have thought WP:3O was appropriate after 5 people have commented? [228]

I have restricted these examples to only those cases where the error can be seen in seconds by an actual competent editor. In most cases, even though he was made aware of his error, he has stood by these judgements, repeating the claims. Would a competent editor do that? If there is any will in here for people to investigate further beyond these simple examples, then if you read his various statements as a thread, while also looking at the content, then it becomes obvious he has similar issues with understanding policies like NPOV. And as can be seen, the incompetence ranges across all fields - content policy as well as talk page & discussion norms. This editor is a textbook case of an incompetent editor. It's appalling that nobody seems in the least bit concerned about that, and seems to only want to reward his incompetence by punishing the person who highlights it, i.e. me. FerrerFour (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an analogy for you. An editor violates 3RR. He does 6 reverts, none of which is exempted, in the space of 4 hours. He's blocked for 24 hours. In appealing his block, he says, "But my edits were correct" (and they were, actually). The admin declines to unblock him.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FF has persisted in their disruptive behavior despite a clear warning from TP. Would a member of the kangaroo court please show them to the door of Wikipedia? Nobody Ent 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. For 24 hours: thinking time. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Extended and talk page access revoked for the continuing hearing problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Well done, kangaroo. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

An NPA? dear dear..Lihaas (talk) 00:23, 11 August 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.

Personal info

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

---

There may have been an attempt to add personal info to Wikipedia that may have been harmful to living persons.[redacted] It was deleted[redacted] but could an admin remove it completely from the history? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting in the request for oversight (suppression). Matters like this should usually be escalated straight to WP:Requests for oversight, doubly as it can't be done by administrators. —C.Fred (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have used revision deletion to hide the edit, but I agree that oversight is appropriate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for warning the at-fault user. I was looking for a template but not finding one. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 10 August 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.

Shonda Rhimes

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

---

Can I have a few other admins put this article on their watchlists? A cursory look at the page history should explain everything. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, crap. I agree. Way too much vandalism. TBrandley 15:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just blocked the IP again over their personal attacks/declaration to continue edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, even though I've never edited the article outside of reverts (I don't even know who she is), I was beginning to feel involved. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:52, 10 August 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.

Television series templates

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

---

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the templates for navigating television series should be solely text, right? I reverted edits on Template:Grey's Anatomy, Template:Private Practice, and Template:Awake (TV series) using the show's title image text in PNG and SVG as a template heading rather than text as not meeting our image guidelines under WP:NFCC#9, but was reverted by major editors to both TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) and TBrandley (talk · contribs) (who has reverted and understood my concerns per the results of this discussion) because the logos are public domain. Even then, I argue they shouldn't be used because template navigation should be textual, not illustrative if not needed, so I need clarification on this issue if I cited inappropriately because I assumed logos meet NFCC. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:24 also used the logo until TBrandley reverted. Also, the logo is in the public domain per not meeting the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's already noted above in the main lead. TBrandley 03:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a big deal, and will also be wondering. Doesn't meet NFCC, as it is not "non-free". Is there another policy/guideline that the images meet? Thanks, TBrandley 03:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone can see images (blind people, those on certain limited browsers.) Key navigation and browsing elements must be text-based. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In the future I should cite WP:ACCESS for issues like this in hindsight. Thanks for the clarification on this issue; we had dealt with it a couple years back on some other templates and NFCC#9 was cited at that time, but those were on clearly NF images (show intertitles are PD in most cases outside of copyrighted image representations), and I think readability should be paramount over beauty. This can be closed then, thanks for the understanding, TBrandley and TRLIJC19. Nate • (chatter) 06:38, 11 August 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:SHEKHAR GHANTALA

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

---

SHEKHAR GHANTALA (talk · contribs)

The user in the heading has repeatedly written unencyclopedic articles about himself which have been speedied twice and AFD'd once (by yours truly - well, the AfD). I was unsure If I should report in AIV, so I've come here. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 15:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You want someone blocked because they (poorly) wrote two autobiographies? It sure is not vandalism. I have left them a template that explains why autobios are bad. Nothing more to see, hopefully. dangerouspanda 16:18, 11 August 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.

Partial unblock of Peter Damian

Transferred to the main administrators' noticeboard. Previous discussions have mostly occurred there, note. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you leave a link behind when you move ongoing discussion plz?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Limited_unban_request_for_Peter_DamianNobody Ent 22:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfair treatment by Adminstrator, Qwyrxian

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

---

• Qwyrxian

I need some help here. I'm a new user in English Wikipedia. I'm not a native english speaker. I can not express my intention to english well. Please understand this.

Here is my problem. I disputed with one Adminstrator.

Qwyrxian is an Adminstrator. He/She have much more power and authority than me. This Adminstrator involved on Korea/Japan disputed topic. Problem is his edit is very biased on Korea/Japan disputed topic. Adminstrator pushing his/her Pro-Japan biased POV.

As a new user, It is really hard and almost impossible against to Adminstrator's unfair treatment/POV. As a newbie of english wikipedia, it is too risky move against to administrator's completely biased editing.

I want more neutral Adminstrator intervention here.

According to Wikipedia:Administrators,

Wikipedia:TOOLMISUSE

"Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal. Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:

Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins."

He/She is a Involved admins. He/she keep using Administrators Tools such as "Reverting" and "Deletion" to my edit. I need help from independenced and neutral administrators. I think i need judge and guidance to this. I want fair treatment by neutral Adminstrator. See Rusk Documents. Administrators keep deleting very important cited material on Korea/Japan dispute. --Ejwcun (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

From a review of the page history of Rusk documents, it does not appear that Qwyrxian has used any administrator-only tools on this article. I know this may be confusing to a new user, but the methods he has used to revert your edits do not involve the "deletion" or "rollback" tools that are available to administrators. Therefore, unless I am missing something, the "tool misuse" policy that you are citing does not apply here.

Qwyrxian has suggested that you and he discuss your disagreement about the sources you are seeking to introduce into the article on the reliable sources noticeboard. This is a page that was created for the purpose of discussing these types of disagreements and getting input from other editors. His suggestion that you discuss the issue there is a good one, and the best plan would probably be for you to follow it. After a few days of discussion, a consensus will hopefully emerge as to whether your source and material should be used in the article or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is almost impossible against to Adminstrator. I just need unfair treatment and unbiased judge. --Ejwcun (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazing, you are a new user and are using links to pages where I have never heard from. Are you really new or did you just take another account? The Banner _talk 18:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I used foreign language wikipedia. I searched this kind of appeal page, and i found it from HELP. --Ejwcun (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't believe you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truesight The Banner _talk 18:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What? I'm shocked. I want favor communication with you.[229] suddenly you treat me i am a wrong guy. I really shocked. I feel this treatment is also unfair, i feel bullying to me. I should not say anything ? I want edit and dispute resolution and unbiased judge. Suddenly i become a bad guy to you? Check me if you want, but i am not. ah.. Come on, (face palm). What is wrong ? --Ejwcun (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I was formally request someone's help. Is that the bad impression to you ? seems like a no one care about me. I feel like this is group bullying. I feel very unfair treatment. I need help from administrator like you. I requested some help and guidance, unbiased judge, suddenly i become a bad guy. Is it really impossible anything agaisnt to one administrator's POV edit --Ejwcun (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Fake pidgin English. The SPI report is convincing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

^^ VolunteerMarek 20:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a native english speaker. --Ejwcun (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The above sentence, at least, is perfect English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you are or not, but I'm pretty sure your "bad English" is fake bad English. I edit in an area where there are quite a number of ESL users and I used to make some money on the side proof reading papers written by ESL grad students and I know what "bad English" looks like. Basically like bad English of native speakers + pronoun, indefinite article and tense confusion. Not like this "speaking like an American Indian in a 1920's Western movie" stuff.VolunteerMarek 21:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As a note to those viewing it, Ejwcun attempted to "withdraw" this report by blanking the section out entirely. User:Tiderolls restored it while I was preparing to do so. rdfox 76 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I withdrawed because feels uncomfortable, like group bullying. Just feel like nobody care about me. I need a help.--Ejwcun (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

When you filed the report, you requested people to look into a situation you were involved in. That meant, by necessity, that they would look at your edits too. Certain editors noted patterns in your edits, which led to the sockpuppet investigation.

Or, be careful when you throw sticks. Sometimes they loop back to hit you, just like a boomerang. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Really ? I feel this impression. I formally request police's help. police suddenly says "you are bad guy. whatever, you are guilty.!" I contact with police because i need a help. Everyone blame me. I really shocked about this. because i did nothing wrong. This was a unexpected shock, really. Is this culture of english wikipedia ? --Ejwcun (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You were receiving help well before you came here. You are either unable, or unwilling to realize this. I see no substance to the claim of being the victim. Tiderolls 21:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

After Edit war, I only recieved a suscpected check user in here. I request help against to POV biased Adminstrator. As a new user, It is really hard and almost impossible against to Adminstrator's unfair treatment/POV. As a newbie of english wikipedia, it is too risky move against to administrator's completely biased editing. I want more neutral Adminstrator intervention here. [230]--Ejwcun (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're not going to get what you are asking for. Qwyrxian has not been using any admin tools here and has no more or less power than you on this article. I am a neutral administrator and I strongly suggest that you resolve this on the article talk page. No admin action warranted here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Revert is not an admin tool ? He did revert everything I did. [231][232][233] --Ejwcun (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And you reverted Qwyrxian. Are you an administrator? Please, let this go. Tiderolls 21:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggested we need to go dispute resolution. He reverted everything because he claim cited material does not meet WP:RS which was not.[234] --Ejwcun (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TOOLMISUSE

Misusing the administrative tools(Reverting, Deletion and undeletion, Block etc) is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal.

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required: Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins. --Ejwcun (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverting, undoing, rollback are not admin tools. Many non-admins have rollback privilege, and the other two are common editing tools. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADMINTOOLS --Ejwcun (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Reverting" is NOT an admin tool. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what admin tools were misused here? I don't see any evidence that any were used at all. You've made your claim in WP:RSN - somebody will get round to answering it at some point. In the meantime, may I humbly suggest you drop the stick before it comes back at you. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ejwcun is either a sock of Truesight or someone with a POV completely indistinguishable from Truesight; either way, I don't see any value to keeping Ejwcun around. I'm blocking per WP:DUCK. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 11 August 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.

Verbally abusive, rule-violating new user

The following discussion is closed. 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 Lecale42 (talk · contribs) has used this edit summary: "why in flaming fuck do you need a citation for Dan Ackroyd's appearance. It is verifiable by watching the film cunt slobs)" here. He then restored a reverted edit without discussion by using an uncited OR here

He responded to those requesting citations by writing, "those who can be arsed doing more than just adding pointless citation requests to the article here, and he reverted an editor who signed that unsigned response by claiming he doesn't have to sign his talk-page comments, here (though WP:CITE says, in boldface, "Sign your posts."). All this is as recent as 22:50, 9 August 2012. He's belligerent, foul-mouthed, verbally abusing, refuses to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and clearly doesn't belong here.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Already being dicussed here. He's new, he doesn't seem to understand policies too much yet, hopefully a friendly talking to at WP:EA will get the message through. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The substance of Lecale's edits is being discussed at EA, not the incivility. I might add that despite several very experienced editors trying to help Lecale, xe doesn't seem to get it, at least not yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Although his language isn't exactly polite, he does seem to be arguing (albeit badly) against policies rather than actually attacking anybody per se. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The "flaming fuck" is okay. Calling other editors "cunt slobs" is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• See, I think that should be "why the flaming fuck". I'd never heard "cunt slob" before--it's an odd compound noun and I wonder if this was thought through properly. Since I'm grammatically involved I'll leave further commentary to others. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting a grammar block? I are in trouble then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Best I can tell from that edit-summary, "Cunt Slobs" is a documentary movie that has information about the works of Dan Ackroyd. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if he were as polite as my grandmother, bringing up the Aykroyd appearance is undue weight. As IMDB shows, there were lots of cameo appearanes by various actors in that film. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And if he's basing it on his own viewing, that's OR. In this case it might be clear it's Aykroyd, but many times people have claimed that so-and-so did an uncredited cameo because someone looked like that actor/actress but it actually wasn't. That's why we require cites for claims of uncredited roles. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like he's drunk as a skunk. "Cunt slob" is the kind of thing you hear out of the mouth of someone who has had a few too many. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Viriditas. Arkon (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Bacon also seems to have an issue with signing their posts. Although signatures are not strictly required, I remember an editor was blocked for this. Blackmane (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The precedent there was that you can be blocked for saying "I won't sign my posts and you can't make me, nyah nyah!" If Canadian Bacon is just serially forgetting to sign their posts, then we can just point them towards turning on autosign. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

He did say that, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Misspellings in edit summaries don't count, and a typographical claim is not a valid defense per WP:SUREITSATYPO.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 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.

Users:186.105.97.116, 186.10.138.138 and 186.10.7.250 (Chilean unregistered IP 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.

---

The subject IP editors all have one only edit on WP which are identical, [235], [236], [237] they are changing the photograph of Draža Mihailović in the infobox to a much younger one. I and one other editor have been reverting these edits on the basis that the older (wartime) photograph is the most appropriate based on the period Mihailović is most notable for [238]. We have started discussion on the talk page [239] and have attempted to engage with this editor (which we are currently assuming is one and the same) and have attempted to get them to follow WP:BRD to no avail. It appears this is editor is using a dynamic IP address, is there anything that can be done to block them from the disruptive editing? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can't do anything about the IPs, but I've semi-protected the article for a couple of weeks. It has a long history of disruption anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:26, 12 August 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.

Verbally abusive, rule-violating new user

The following discussion is closed. 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 Lecale42 (talk · contribs) has used this edit summary: "why in flaming fuck do you need a citation for Dan Ackroyd's appearance. It is verifiable by watching the film cunt slobs)" here. He then restored a reverted edit without discussion by using an uncited OR here

He responded to those requesting citations by writing, "those who can be arsed doing more than just adding pointless citation requests to the article here, and he reverted an editor who signed that unsigned response by claiming he doesn't have to sign his talk-page comments, here (though WP:CITE says, in boldface, "Sign your posts."). All this is as recent as 22:50, 9 August 2012. He's belligerent, foul-mouthed, verbally abusing, refuses to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and clearly doesn't belong here.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Already being dicussed here. He's new, he doesn't seem to understand policies too much yet, hopefully a friendly talking to at WP:EA will get the message through. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The substance of Lecale's edits is being discussed at EA, not the incivility. I might add that despite several very experienced editors trying to help Lecale, xe doesn't seem to get it, at least not yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Although his language isn't exactly polite, he does seem to be arguing (albeit badly) against policies rather than actually attacking anybody per se. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The "flaming fuck" is okay. Calling other editors "cunt slobs" is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• See, I think that should be "why the flaming fuck". I'd never heard "cunt slob" before--it's an odd compound noun and I wonder if this was thought through properly. Since I'm grammatically involved I'll leave further commentary to others. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting a grammar block? I are in trouble then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Best I can tell from that edit-summary, "Cunt Slobs" is a documentary movie that has information about the works of Dan Ackroyd. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if he were as polite as my grandmother, bringing up the Aykroyd appearance is undue weight. As IMDB shows, there were lots of cameo appearanes by various actors in that film. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And if he's basing it on his own viewing, that's OR. In this case it might be clear it's Aykroyd, but many times people have claimed that so-and-so did an uncredited cameo because someone looked like that actor/actress but it actually wasn't. That's why we require cites for claims of uncredited roles. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like he's drunk as a skunk. "Cunt slob" is the kind of thing you hear out of the mouth of someone who has had a few too many. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Viriditas. Arkon (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Bacon also seems to have an issue with signing their posts. Although signatures are not strictly required, I remember an editor was blocked for this. Blackmane (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The precedent there was that you can be blocked for saying "I won't sign my posts and you can't make me, nyah nyah!" If Canadian Bacon is just serially forgetting to sign their posts, then we can just point them towards turning on autosign. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

He did say that, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Misspellings in edit summaries don't count, and a typographical claim is not a valid defense per WP:SUREITSATYPO.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 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.

Users:186.105.97.116, 186.10.138.138 and 186.10.7.250 (Chilean unregistered IP 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.

---

The subject IP editors all have one only edit on WP which are identical, [240], [241], [242] they are changing the photograph of Draža Mihailović in the infobox to a much younger one. I and one other editor have been reverting these edits on the basis that the older (wartime) photograph is the most appropriate based on the period Mihailović is most notable for [243]. We have started discussion on the talk page [244] and have attempted to engage with this editor (which we are currently assuming is one and the same) and have attempted to get them to follow WP:BRD to no avail. It appears this is editor is using a dynamic IP address, is there anything that can be done to block them from the disruptive editing? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can't do anything about the IPs, but I've semi-protected the article for a couple of weeks. It has a long history of disruption anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:26, 12 August 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:Debresser taking unilateral action against consensus due to his unique interpretation of wikification

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

---

8 days ago, I started discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify#No more wikify template about taking two actions. Expanding WikiProject Wikify to cover all templates that address an issue covered by WikiProject Wikify and later deprecating {{Wikify}} because all of its uses are covered by other templates. The first involved internal category creation in order for the first issue to be addressed on our end. (We need a way to know what the project backlog is and dated categories so we can address them month by month in our drives). The second issue is external and was brought to TfD. Upon seeing the TfD, Debresser, an editor who has shown no experience with Wikification or WikiProject Wikify, decided that he didn't like this idea. He recently unilaterally removed the category from pages for which no opposition was given within the project. He has decided on his own that the consensus in the project wasn't enough, but he never showed consensus for his reverts. I'm at a loss as to what to do if someone feels that they can modify internal project categorization with absolutely no support when that categorization does not accept the reader or a single other editor outside of the project. Ryan Vesey 20:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am actively participating in the discussion, so I see no reason to be "at a loss" or to take this here. Adding a new maintenance category to some 10 templates and a bunch of category pages on his own initiative, definitely falls outside the Wikify WikiProject. Even in the discussion there this specific action was not discussed. Ryan Vesey did this on his own initiative and merely informed other editors there. Now his bold edits are reverted in order to establish consensus. I repeat that in all of this, I see no reason to come here. Nor do I understand what "interpretation" of mine he is referring to, or why an experienced editor of over 5 years who has done a lot of work on maintenance categories (see User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia) needs to show his active involvement in this specific WikiProject for his opinion to be of worth to an editor of 1.5 years. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand and say that his edits did not fall in the range of use allowed by Wikipedia:Rollback. The edits were clearly made in good faith and the only loophole would be "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". I was clearly not misguided, and there is no indication that that anyone thought the edits were "unhelpful to the encyclopedia". Instead, Debresser used standard rollback solely because he disagreed with this. Ryan Vesey 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I used Rollback just to save time since this involved many pages. If I offended you with this, please accept my apology. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be clear that I don't think your opinion is not of worth. However, your five years here do not mean that you can't have a misunderstanding of Wikification. In this case, you do have that misunderstanding and have acted on that. I welcome discussion, but you have yet to provide an example of where it was used incorrectly, despite multiple requests on my part. Ryan Vesey 20:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll also mention that the bold, revert, discuss is designed to be used outside of the article space. In this case, the proper action would have been to continue discussion and engage with my questions prior to reverting. I'll also add that User:Magioladitis added the category to the fully protected Template:Wikify showing that Debresser's opinion that consensus was not for the addition is not shared by everyone. Ryan Vesey 21:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You have still to point to my "misunderstanding". What I do clearly understand is that you are adding a category related to WikiProject Wikify to a large number of templates and category pages that so far had nothing to do with this WikiProject, without any discussion, apart from merely informing a few people on the WikiProject Wikify talkpage. In view of this, your job now should be to open some centralized discussion, not complaining about being reverted. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding is your statement that those templates have nothing to do with this WikiProject and you have failed to produce any reason why they do not other than one earlier comment you made ("Wikifying has always meant adding internal links") that you admitted was incorrect. Ryan Vesey 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a content issue, and I am actively posting on the discussion. So why did you come here? Debresser (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a content issue. This is all behind the scenes work. Your comment that you are actively posting on the discussion is not entirely accurate. While I understand that this is a volunteer project and people may be busy, it is generally desirable for someone to stick around if they are going to make allegations against another editor. Yesterday, you stayed around just long enough to make 2 comments [245] [246] that I have misplaced ideas and leave a note on my talk page asking for clarification. I replied, but you did not respond. Today, you commented on the TFD, left a single note on the project talk page, left a single note on my talk page, and then preceded with the reverts. I think it is fair for me to consider you an inactive, if assertive, participant in that discussion. Throughout the entire thing, you refused to detail what was wrong with the additions stating only that you did not like them and they shouldn't have been made. Ryan Vesey 23:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You say yourself "Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify has expanded its scope to all of the templates that cover aspects of Wikification." Well, you can not just decided on your own to change the scope of a whole WikiProject and expect that to pass without protests. Please somebody explain to this editor the basics of consensus building on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is my opinion in brief:

• A WikiProject can decide which templates/issues to cover by forming a local consensus.
• Everyone can participate in a WikiProject and this includes both Ryan Vesey and Debresser
• {{Wikify}} tag should not be the only interested of the WikiProject Wikify
• Even if I disagreed in the beginning it seems there is a consensus that wikifying is not only adding wikilinks to a page
• Independently of all these, I think that the borders of discussion in the WikiProject wikify haven't reached yet and I think the subject should not come to ANI. I think both Ryan Vesey and Debresser could discuss the matter further in the WikiProject and there was a lot of participation in the discussion there already anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

IPs adding Amazon external links

In the past 30 minutes or so I've come across at least 3 IPs adding external links to mostly music albums that link to the Amazon listing for that item. I'm fairly certain this violates WP:ELNO. I've undone the edits from those 3, which all geolocate to the same area around Seoul, South Korea. What's odd is that all 3 are on totally different IP ranges (2 separate ISPs from what I can tell). What's more is that I think I had seen earlier examples of this that I didn't act on (until I saw the obvious pattern). I don't know how many other IPs are involved in this (or if it's just one person or part of something larger).

I haven't notified the IPs because they seem to be inactive. I just wanted to bring attention to it in case anybody else has noticed this, or can shed some light on it. All of the links are to the UK version of the Amazon store too, which I find particularly odd.

Link to diffs are here: [247] [248] [249] [250] [251]. Shadowjams (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick perusal of an amazon forum makes me suspects these are all affiliate links. I think the "tag" parameter of the link identifies the vendor. Added request to User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList Nobody Ent 10:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Slow EW

The following discussion is closed. 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 took this here because it neither really fits the 3RR board (slow EW), SPI board (probably unintentional/legitimate), RFPP board (other IPs active at the article). I have not checked whether there were problematic edits by either IP/account elswhere.

• Article: Goths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Issue: inclusion of an 'new' illustration to the lead against talk page and edit history consensus [252]
  • 21 Jul by 71.190.79.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 2 Aug by 96.224.40.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 4 Aug by 71.190.65.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 5 Aug by 96.224.32.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 5 Aug by Bldon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 10 Aug by 96.224.47.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 11 Aug by 96.224.38.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 11 Aug by 68.173.88.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 12 Aug by 68.173.88.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Notified Bldon2 and last IP. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:17, 12 August 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:RPP backup

Would an admin please help out over at WP:RPP as there are about 16 items awaiting attention, thanks. Jusdafax 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Felipito1.966

Felipito1.966 (talk · contribs)

This user has been performing largely unconstructive edits throughout his edit history, mainly changing US spellings to British in defiance of WP:ENGVAR and adding Spanish diacritics to non-Spanish names (such as geographical and biological names in the Philippines). He would stop at nothing, even turning a working link into a red link (see this and this). His blatant defiance WP:MOS has been pointed out numerous times (see his talk page's history, especially his removal of comments) and he replies extremely rudely (including a very uncivil e-mail to me). With this long history I concluded that he was beyond final warning and nevertheless posted a Level 4 warning. Then today he did a similar edit again. He had been warned by so many editors, yet he called every recent poster of his talk page "dictators". His British English supremacism needs to be stopped. HkCaGu (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked his responses to Alphathon just now and they smack of arrogance. So what if you're an English teacher?--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment There's also a report been filed at WP:AIV. -- Dianna (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1. One of the discussions should be closed (and a trout for that), 2. can you provide he diffs of all thats alleged? The one diff doesnt indicate wrongdoing.Lihaas (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The AIV report has now been closed by another admin. -- Dianna (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of his edits are about changing ENGVAR spellings. Just look at his talk page's long history and compare indicated articles. He even changed others' spellings in talk pages! HkCaGu (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst I agree that the user was unnecessarily incivil in his conversation with Alphathon, this isn't as simple as that. Just looking down his contributions, a lot of his changing spelling from US to GB spelling is on UK or English related articles (i.e. Beeching cuts, English language in Europe, Robert Grabarz, G4S) which of course is correct per ENGVAR. There are a few that are debatable (Ruby Wax), a few that are clearly wrong (but mainly because they broke links rather than being wrong per MOS or ENGVAR) and a few that were just incorrect and should've been simply reverted. In this particular case, considering that HkCaGu issued a vandalism warning for this edit a WEEK after it was made - which is frankly ridiculous - I'm not entirely surprised he reacted poorly. You should've just reverted it and explained the problem that it broke a link. And I'm certainly very unimpressed with your bolded "If you do any further unnecessary WP:ENGVAR edits again, I will get you blocked" on his talkpage. Don't do that again. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see any issue here beyond a bit of mild POV pushing. It's quite common for British people, particularly those who work in academia or schools, as this guy seems to be, to feel quite strongly about use of US versus British English, particularly if they're on a US hosted site. Frankly, it's exactly what I'd expect a new user with his background to do, but as long as he follows the manual of style, there's no issue. And I agree that threatening to block a user when you've got no real rationale to do so isn't particularly civil - watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • His attitude may have been ENGVAR, but the edits are more disruptive than POV pushing. The -ize/-ise issue is an internal UK issue which means it isn't that wrong even in UK English. I don't think he can be called a "new" user. He's been around for three years, and had accumulated numerous warnings, many of which he had removed. Me slapping a Level 4 isn't very rude. I have been much less active on Wikipedia in the past two months, and he doesn't edit a lot, and we don't cross paths too often, so I don't see why issuing warning after a week is anything wrong. The e-mail he wrote me was even more rude and racially charged, but I won't post it here. HkCaGu (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that the boomerang is a fish, this time. And I think that someone needs to bring this up in a much more polite way with the Felipito1.966. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, no, what needs to happen is that Felipito1.966 needs to respond in a more polite and open way to the numerous warnings he's been given. WP:AGF doesn't mean that we assume that the editors who bring up problems are jerks for doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Being a pedant is fine, but one needs to be correct often when pedanting around the project. One can't be a grammar nazi (note: hyperbole, figurative speech, etc!) and then make statements like "The (old French) gallon introduced into Britain, no longer has legal status and it is no longer possible to buy liquid quantities in that unit. Some people may use them in conversation but may no longer be used in commercial transactions." Then again, it's not vandalism to be wrong or irritating or I would have been indeffed ages ago. I propose that we move on, that we correct their corrections where necessary, that we take their pedantic grandstanding with a grain of salt--and that we not seek admin action against everything and everyone: one gets the feeling, doesn't one, that this appeared out of nowhere as if an editor had been waiting for the right moment to slap that template on that talk page. Let's celebrate our differences, y'all. What's the proper British equivalent of Kumbaya? Drmies (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Just between us, I think it's time for us to recognize the differences we sometimes fear to show; just between us, I think it's time for us to realize the spaces in between leave room for you and I to grow. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You weren't even born when that record came out! (Yes, I have it on vinyl.) So, Canada is the mediator between these two so different linguistic worlds? Drmies (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Narm ate. Weardya think theboom arangcaim from inther furstplace? Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• So why is it wrong with me to wait to slap a Level 4? This is a registered user that I had warned twice already, not counting numerous others. I then came into monitoring after he had shouted at an editor assuming good faith. And he opened fire on just not one editor. Why should I still talk nice expecting any different outcome? (And what he emailed me after the Level 4 was essentially [paraphrasing]: "We English are in charge of the English language. I'm not going to take orders from non-Anglophone foreigners like you.") And I came here to report him after that e-mail and after another violation. Does every "bad editor" get four chances with EACH "warner"? If so Wikipedia would be like a tagger's paradise. Any of you who feel like you can "convert" him, go ahead. But obligating me to this diplomatic effort is unreasonable. HkCaGu (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That you think that you "slap" boilerplate text with "levels" is in part what's wrong. You are not a robot. But you are currently indistinguishable from one. Don't fail the Turing test on people's user talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • When an editor with 3 years experience continues to change US to Brit spellings in a manner contrary to ENGVAR, and is uncivil in responding to comments on his talk page, then the course of applying progressive boilerplate warnings, followed by progressively longer blocks, seems quite appropriate. Some responses to the complaint here ignore the disruption that can be caused by a campaigner for one style of English, and have the tone of "boys will be boys, what's the harm. it's understandable for a Brit to be riled up when he sees non-Brit spellings,move along, trout the complainer." I just cannot agree with letting such an uncivil spelling warrior continue unimpeded. Edison (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • No, the "course of applying progressive boilerplate warnings" is not appropriate. You aren't a robot, either. You shouldn't be tacitly encouraging other people to act like robots when handing out warnings. And you're conveniently overlooking what Black Kite pointed out above. Most of this was not contrary to "ENGVAR". Some of the talk page edits were poor. But do you know what? I managed to fix them without using a single administrator tool. It's amazing what one can do once one shrugs off the constricting and misleading mindset that all that one ever does is "slap" people with "levels" of pre-written boilerplate and entirely fail the Turing test. Uncle G (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

User:One beat wonder repeatedly creating "Earthquake weather" 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.

---

The user's created Earth quake weather multiple times, resulting in it being deleted five times, and then salted. He's also created IvanTheGreatlaw, and added the contents of both (identical) pages to Earthquake weather. This has been discussed on his/her talk page, though s/he seems to be quite set on becoming famous for predicting earthquakes. They seem to not get the point. I'm not quite sure if this is vandalism, but it sure seems disruptive to me... Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 04:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

His contributions seem to show he is not here to contribute constructively.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a sock, User:Monsterbeats, User:Ivanthegreat, User:IvanthegreatLaw. Someone else is filing an SPI right now, I believe. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 05:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir you have it all wrong I am not lokking for fame not one bit, I have the abilty to help ssave lives sir. I am Monster beat records I have music that I use to get famous. earth quake weather is a way to save lives. www.reverbnation.com. and yes i can predict earthquakes by the weather im not the first person and I will not be the last to believe in earthquake weather. predicting earthquakes is a way to save a life and if i can save a life i deseve my fame to be in a position to save a life.--One beat wonder (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IvanthegreatLaw. Shearonink (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

repeated copyright violations by User talk:Sadiq Khan.M

The following discussion is closed. 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's ability to understand / willingness to follow wikipedia's copyright standards is below the level needed to participate in a net positive way.

see for example the history File:Renigunta Movie poster.jpg where they have repeatedly claimed that they are the copyright holder to release the film poster [253] , even following a final warning [254]. the user has also again uploaded File:Panneerselvam Director.jpeg which was recently deleted from File:Director panneerselvam.jpg which if i recall had the same questionable claim of self creation. (as a positive, the user seems to not be doing cut and paste text copyright violations anymore.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 12 August 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.

Involved admin Bbb23 having possibly made a decision inappropriately

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

---

Bbb23 (talk · contribs)} I'm sorry to have to bring this incident here, and frankly am skeptical of it receiving an unbiased hearing amongst co-administrators who rely, in some cases and to some extent, on mutual "back-scratching" for their continued survival. However, I feel strongly that the dispensing of Wikipedia discipline should not only actually be fair and untainted by personal prejudices, but should be seen to be so.

This incident concerns this sudden decision by User:Bbb23 to close a 3RR case as "declined" whilst still partaking, and clearly exasperated, in a dispute with me, the filer of that 3RR report, over closely related issues at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto.

This decision was I feel, unwise in the circumstances, and may be seen as having been influenced by the course of the other dispute in the SPI discussion. This is especially the case in the light of the clear definition of the 3RR and the fact that 4 reversions clearly occurred with 24h in the case.

Please investigate this decision thoroughly and with an open mind, paying attention to the facts and not to the personalities involved, and particularly not to the hats or the stripes worn. 82.132.249.198 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I will go into the history of this in detail if necessary, but for the moment, I'll just say two (okay, maybe three) things:

1. Per WP:INVOLVED: "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area".
2. My decision to decline the 3RR report was not "sudden".

That said, any admin who believes my 3RR decision was wrong is free to change it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You were involved other than in a "purely in an administrative role". You contributed to the discussion here.

It's not whether your decision was right or wrong (although the evidence was clear-cut) it is that you should not have gotten involved. 82.132.249.200 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I endorsed Bbb's close on the EW noticeboard. Although I'm not an admin, you seem to have problems with admins, so perhaps it's for the best. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You miss the essential point here. See my longer explanation below. 82.132.249.197 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23 clearly acted correctly there. I don't know what you're talking about. Besides WP: INVOLVED, there is also WP: IAR. Electric Catfish 18:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You miss the essential point here. See my longer explanation below. 82.132.249.197 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant by "involved"; I did NOT mean "involved" in the article over which the 3RR dispute took place, in the sense of WP:INVOLVED. What I meant wast "involved" in an ongoing and closely related dispute concerning the same personalities.

It seemed like a bad judgment call to close a 3RR that was raised by "user a" against "user b", to the benefit of "user b", whilst concurrently arguing against "user a", thus effectively in favor of "user b", in the other closely related dispute. Forget WP:INVOLVED, or any other "rule", they are not relevant - this is a question about the judgment of acting as an administrator in one dispute, whilst simultaneously participating in the discussion in another dispute involving the same users and involing the same article and involving the same points. 82.132.249.197 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 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.

I need help for solving the dispute.

The following discussion is closed. 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!

The dispute is continually taking place between me (Lassoboy) and the user Aspects on my talk page. Now I am trying to solve this problem with the selected (by me) arbitrator, who might be the user Koavf and who could solve the problem (if he agrees with this task).

Can some administrator or experienced user be the observer for this dispute? Or if Koavf cannot be the arbitrator, then suggest us another arbitrator (if Koavf also cannot do this)?

All the dispute material is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lassoboy

The letter for the user Aspects is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aspects#Arbitration

The letters for the user Koavf is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koavf#I_need_an_arbitrator_for_the_discussion.

Thank you. Lassoboy (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation I'm not really equipped to mediate or arbitrate here, but you might want to talk to users from WikiProject Conert Tours. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will try this page, but after having seen the history of that page, I am not sure, if this helps me at all. Thank you anyway. Lassoboy (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that is currently being discussed on Lassoboy's talk page and therefore there was no reason for a section to be started here on ANI, especially since he asked for an arbitrator and could not even wait for that arbitrator to respond before starting a discussion here. Now that Lassoboy has started a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Concert Tours, I propose that this section be closed. Aspects (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• This issue can be resolved at user and/or article talk, or at the project, but beware of getting involved in possible edit warring. If all else fails for resolving the issue, take it to WP:DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Editor drawing his own comparison

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

---

On the article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, an editor named Talknic decided to draw his own (incorrect, but not relevant) connection between a United Nations resolution and a statement by Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

Diff: 1

The book he/she links to is clearly not a reliable source ("The Case for Palestine"), but furthermore, it's only to get the text of the UN resolution, and then Talknic himeslf draws the comparison and puts it on Wikipedia.

I reverted, and explained here.

Instead of asking for clarification, he/she reverted me here, and opened up a section on the talk page, where all he/she did was try to prove there is a connection. Whether he/she wants to believe that is up to Talknic - but it doesn't mean that Talknic can make his/her own comparison and put that into a Wikipedia article. I explained it in more detail what is wrong with taking a UN resolution and an editor making his/her own comparison to something else with it and putting it in an article. Talknic did not listen, and instead tried to prove a similarity again, which I explained is irrelevant, as it's his/her own comparirson. I've tried explaining again, but haven't gotten a response yet. I also asked him to self-revert. He hasn't done that, although I would've expected he'd know his edit was wrong, since he has joined in December 2010, but I could be wrong.

All that I really want is for the page to be reverted as soon as possible. I don't know whether Talknic should get any sanctions, that's for an admin to decide, although he has been banned for 3 months from the Arab-Israeli conflict in the past, was also banned for 6 months in the past on the topic area, and was recently banned indefinitely from all I/P areas, although I'm not sure whether that also includes all Israel-Arab conflict areas.

Thanks. --Activism1234 20:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks.

Recommend moving this report to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK moved. Thanks. --Activism1234 22:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The Glee Project and User:Tyler george6

The following discussion is closed. 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 aformentioned user User:Tyler george6 is constantly making the same disruptive edit to The Glee Project. Please get him to stop. Thanks. --Mblumber (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not really a matter for this board, but I'm looking into it (and I'm closing this). Drmies (talk) 03:49, 13 August 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: Modern Warfare Dude

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

---

I was just recently attacked by Modern Warfare Dude, who was on the same IP Address as me. First he vandalized Call of Duty 2: Big Red One, calling it 'the best damn World War II video game', and then he goes off on me for undoing it. Then, he creates a really profane article called 'The Crappiest Wikipedian Ever Is...' which calls me the crappiest wikipedian ever! He got blocked, and because I had the same IP Address as him, I was autoblocked. Sorry about the lack of diffs but I must admit that I'm not a very experienced Wikipedian.Jayemd (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 August 2012‎ (UTC)

• ...I'd suggest looking out for the incoming WP:BOOMERANG, as this looks to me very much like a classic "good hand - bad hand" sock... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• I assure you that this is legitimate and that he's coincidentally on the same IP Address as me. --Jayemd 04:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, and on my talk page, he actually answers his own question to make it appear as if i'm a sockpuppet. --Jayemd 04:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC) of each other

And coincidentaly your posts are within within minutes of each other. Jayend, please read WP:Guidance for younger editors. Cry-babys or not, I see too much baby talk all round. No further admin action necessary (at this time and over this incident). Over and out. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 13 August 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.

Cross wiki POV push

User Hannover95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) went cross wiki in a nationalistic struggle, and pushed pro-Kosovo map in almost 20 wikipedias. That kind of behavior is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia:ARBMAC final decision. User was not warned about ARBMAC, but this is like WP:NOTHERE to me. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please post links to his other accounts that are also POV-pushing on other WMF sites? Electric Catfish 19:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the same account name, Hannover95. Or you are talking about something else? --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Global contributions. However, I don't think en.wiki can do anything about other projects. Sadly, not the first time I've seen this sort of sweeping global map change. CMD (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: WhiteWriter failed to notify Hannover95 of this complaint. I'm off to bed now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now done that. And I'm off to bed too. De728631 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, i did! But where! Can someone please delete this... I informed non-existing user... --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• User:Hannover95 appears to have made around 36 edits to Balkan related articles in this encyclopedia since 4 August.[255]. User:User5 has not edited since 2006 and the edits were unrelated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened there. Other Wikipedias are not our concern here, but feel free to leave messages on them if appropriate. That said, User:Hannover95 has been notified of this AN/I, let's wait and see if they respond. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• What's so "pro-Kosovo" about that map anyway? It's a map of Kosovo. Kosovo topics are often subject to pov-pushing - as WhiteWriter is surely aware - but what's so wrong with this map? bobrayner (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked it against the surrounding countries maps to see if the border lines have been moved? I cant look at the original atm so if you have, apologies and ignore this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The example from commons of a disputed territory

The nationhood itself is disputed. See the image from Commons - a map of the disputed area which is used as the exemplar of this type of map. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

Request for 24-hour block of User:Yaniv256

The following discussion is closed. 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:Yaniv256 has been canvasing here and here for what he claims is a move consensus in his pet RM. His efforts largely ignored, he has turned to an escalating pattern of disruptive talk page posting, here, here, here, here, here, here and especially here, here, here, here. Given this user past incidents, here and here, I believe a 24-hour block would allow him to cool down and due process to take its natural course. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 06:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocks applied solely for the purpose of cooling down a disgruntled editor are not permitted, as they tend to exacerbate situations rather than diffusing them. But given the circumstances, I'm sure plenty of people would be happy to entertain your request, notwithstanding the obligatory "WTF". Kurtis (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but is this you, Yaniv256, asking for a block on yourself? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Either he's made a monumental newbie booby or he should be looking to do more content work. Close this - I can't see anything for more admins to waste their time on here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Something's not right with the editor alright ... their behaviour here was bizarre, and definitely not policy-based dangerouspanda 09:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I ask this as a rhetorical question — is that link even necessary? Their behaviour here was bizarre, and definitely not policy-based. Kurtis (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rhetorical or not, providing additional proof (or as we like to call "references" on articles) is never a bad thing dangerouspanda 11:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hence my use of the term "rhetorical"; the reference you've provided gave broader context into this user's behaviour patterns, despite the fact that their posting here was enough to convince anybody that something about this editor is off. Maybe I should have phrased it differently, as I had no intention of debasing your contributions to this section. Kurtis (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Could the account have been compromised? Maybe we should do him the favour and block for more than 24 hours. De728631 (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be compromised - I've asked the editor on their talk page to explain what's going on. GiantSnowman 10:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, I was posting the very same thing on their talk page at the exact same time, which is why the subsection I added came less than a minute after yours. Kurtis (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No harm done! GiantSnowman 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I requested a block of myself, but I don't see how this is relevant. The fact is that my actions were disruptive. In fact, this very post is disruptive, if only by disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Why don't you guys follow proper procedure and execute whatever sanctions you deem fit? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 15:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv, I must ask you, is this intended as some sort of public spectacle to attract attention? I ask this because — and I'm not pulling any punches here — this whole situation is batshit strange. Kurtis (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe it can all be summed up with this edit. Calmer Waters 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC) link fix Calmer Waters 15:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Calmer Waters - that's the diff for the original post. What are we meant to be seeing that's new / enlightening? GiantSnowman 15:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

fixed. Had the copied the wrong indexing. Thank GS Calmer Waters 15:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - but I'm still no wiser GiantSnowman 15:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

He apparently believes that unless a block is involved, admins are not interested in taking any quick actions (ie. the RM). Sooo he presented a block option to advance our attention on this. Calmer Waters 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha. Well it ain't worked. GiantSnowman 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like Yaniv256 just got a bit snarky out of frustration - it's no big deal, and no action needed. Time to close this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

IP editor inserting misogynist rants into archives

The following discussion is closed. 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 posts predominately via User talk:58.7.138.14, but who has also used User talk:120.151.106.44 and User talk:58.7.217.204 has a history of disrupting talkpages with long, tangentially related additions - see [256], [257] and [258] has come off their most recent ban and begun editing a talkpage archive - [259] and [260]. I've rolled back these two, but don't want to violate 3RR, hence bringing it here.

I'm not sure how to go about notifying someone who edits through multiple IPs, so I've placed the notification script on all three talk pages. Euchrid (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is long-term abuse, and the IP self-identifies as an internet troll. We could really use some admin action here. These IP edits are not acceptable. The talk page history shows the user has received many warnings and many blocks with no change in behavior. Temporary semi-protection of all relevant talk pages might help. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yuck. I have to go wash my eyeballs after even reading some of those diffs. I've protected the referenced archive (full, which maybe I should change down to semi?) - what other pages are in question? Franamax (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

His other favourite haunts are Talk:Portrayal of women in video games, Talk:Samus Aran, Talk:Women and video games and Talk:Anita Sarkeesian - see a pattern? Euchrid (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Talk:National Organization for Women and Talk:Lesbian_utopia. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

All three IPs mentioned above blocked for one month - they seem to be static, and it's obviously the same person. Are there any others? JohnCD (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Full protection of archives seems fine to me - nobody should be editing them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You could only full-protect the not-in-use ones, else the bot couldn't archive to it (unless you want to give MizaBot admin rights). Semi would work though dangerouspanda 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi is better. Sometimes it's help to anchor to a particular section of an archive. Nobody Ent 13:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The page in question looks to be manually archived (I did actually check that) but you have a decent general point ESL. And you too NE. I'll drop it down one notch. Also note I've protted for 3 mos only, unless someone else wants to dial that up. Franamax (talk) 13:46, 13 August 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.

Legal threat by User:Akulatribal

The following discussion is closed. 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 repeatedly attempted to insert a registered trademark symbol (®) into the American Tribal Style Belly Dance article. After being told repeatedly not to, they responded with this[261] response. It's more of an implied rather than overt threat, but I figure better safe than sorry. It's entirely possible that it wasn't intended to be a legal threat, but my experience with editors such as this attempting to "protect" their intellectual property is that it never ends well. Trusilver 17:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to notify the user of this discussion. I went ahead and did it for you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, got sidetracked. Thank you. Trusilver 17:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it falls short of a legal threat but certainly an attempt to scare other editors. Let them talk to whomever they want. It won't go anywhere.--v/r - TP 18:01, 13 August 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.

AndyTheGrump

The following discussion is closed. 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 was blocked for two weeks for personal attacks and harassment. He has admited on his talk page to block evasion[262] and also continues with personal attacks against another editor.[263][264] I believe talk page access should be revoked and the block extended. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Magog the Ogre blocked him for an additional two weeks for block evasion but unless firefox is showing me missies then the details have been expunged from the records so attempting to go back down that road will be unlikely and may boomerang on you -You are also trolling on his talkpage looking to be attacked - just leave him alone and go improve some of the projects crap content - Youreallycan 18:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, he hasn't been reblocked, YRC. Nothing has been expunged from his block log as far as I can tell. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No there is nothing to see now - but I saw it earlier - Two week extension User:Magog the Ogre - block evasion - did I imagine it then? Youreallycan 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion on his talk page is quite sufficient for now, and I am sure many here watchlist that page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I consider that Darkness Shines has not posted this in good faith - I ask that he explains why he has become involved. As for the substantive issues regarding 'block evasion' (How does telling everyone exactly what you are doing while you do it qualify as evasion? One for the philosophers, I suspect), and 'personal attacks', I recommend a little further investigation of the background, and suggest that the SPA User:IjonTichyIjonTichy's relentless POV-pushing should be taken into account. This is clearly the root of the problem, as multiple contributors have made clear: see Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement and its long and tedious archives for the details.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing while blocked qualifies as block evasion, whether it's disclosed or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Just because you own up to it doesn't make it OK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Off topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Bugs, weren't you banned from AN/I? Why are you back here? VolunteerMarek 18:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC) No, I was told to cut back at ANI, and I did. So what's your excuse? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment' - No matter what the transgression, talk page access should not be revoked. If it offendeth thee, read it not. Free speech should be regarded as a basic human right and AtG is an established Wikipedian, not a vandal. Carrite (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "Freedom of speech" has nothing to do with anything here. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • And "basic human right" =/= "constitutional right". If you're going to play lawyer on the Internet at least be accurate. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
      • No matter how you nitpick it, your argument is based on a false premise. There is neither a constitutional right nor a "basic human right" to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked users should only be using the talk page for appealing the block or similar. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not true. Unless that is added as an extra sanction, blocked users can use the talk page for anything Wikipedia related. The block is to prevent them from editing the mainspace and Wikispace, not to prevent normal communications. I've debated this plenty of times at WP:BLOCK and nothing anywhere on Wikipedia supports that notion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits to article space and wikispace (see andy's comment above) have occurred as a result of comments etc on the talk page. What falls under what is allowable? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And an admin may revoke Talk page access if they feel it is merited. Dennis was just correctly disagreeing with your broad statement about what the Talk page may be used for during a block. Of course, Carrite's statement above is not correct, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a conversation that I wish we didn't have to be having. The edits he reverted were bad edits, and deserved a rollback. Unfortunately, he did it while a) blocked, and b) engaging in wildly over the top personal attacks. At this point, I'm not sure that an extended block will help the case at all. Not that it is in any way OK, but I don't see the block another block as either able to provide corrective action or stopping more harm from occurring to Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 01:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There's always indef... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And it's getting that way. Even editors who are in the right in every single individual case of dispute must respect our social norms or else poison the community. There is no need for AtG to act in this manner and he certainly has no right to do so. In the rather absurdly unlikely situation where AtG genuinely didn't understand that "users are permitted to use alternate accounts so long as they aren't doing so deceptively" is subordinate to "users who are blocked are not permitted to edit" then he does now, though for such a genuinely intelligent and clueful editor to be thus ignorant strikes me as unlikely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Carrite's statement is perfectly correct if you regard "should" as aspirational, rather than an injunction. Rich Farmbrough, 11:30, 13 August 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.

Proposed Code of conduct for the South China Sea

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

---

Due to ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea between Beijing, Hanoi, Manila, and others, nationalists (almost all from Vietnam or the Philippines) have rampaged almost unchecked replacing 'South China Sea' with 'East [Vietnam Sea'] or 'West[ern Philippine Sea'], driving out other claimants in favour of their own country in infoboxes, or otherwise describing the common name of the sea as being "so-called by China". It is high time that the community began cracking down (with extreme prejudice) on those nationalist SPAs clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. There should be a code of conduct instituted at WP:China, WP:Vietnam, and WP:Philippines (the three WikiProjects), similar to what was done with the Sea of Japan, and possibly an edit notice installed at a multitude of pages. The exact wording of the code of conduct will be etched out later, but here are the proposed sanctions:

• 31-hour auto-block on sight for first violation (as described in my first sentence above).
• 10 day auto-block for second violation.
• Indefinite for third violation for registered usernames and 3 months for IP addresses.

Please vote as a response to this initial post. GotR ^Talk 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support both code and edit notices as nominator. GotR ^Talk 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocks without a warning should only be used for egregious violations of policy, which this is not. All the sanctions purposed are overly harsh, and ignore the need for discretion to tailor sanction on a case by case basis. It may be that something should be done about the topic area, but this proposal is clearly not it. Monty₈₄₅ 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Question — are these all IP users? If so, that's tricky. But if you're dealing with more established users, I would be curious whether there has been any attempt to reason with these folks or pursue dispute resolution. Homunculus (duihua) 15:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Drive-by IP edits have been quite a significant problem lately, and there isn't enough that can be done about blatant cases until they actually trigger 3RR or something. Within the past few months, such edits have become much more frequent, and I don't think it will cease anytime in the near future. Note that I am referring to all sides - IP editors from mainland China, the Philippines and Vietnam have all been engaging in non-constructive edits in the aforementioned articles. Attempting to engage in dialogue with such editors is usually fruitless as well. If all editors are doing are CTRL+F name replacements, order switchings and mass blankings, they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 proposal hasn't even lasted 20 minutes; isn't cutting it like this a bit too hasty? "Feel free to discuss ways of revising the proposal to make it viable." Can't we do that here? That's what discussion and consensus seeking at ANI is for, right? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I archived it to stop the vote, which is useless because the specific form of the proposal is impossible -- not to cut off discussion. Looie496 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I understand now. So we can continue the discussion? I wouldn't mind if the proposal was rewritten a bit. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the type of issue that is going to be resolved by any proposal. Present the problem, offer an opinion, let the administrators determine what a solution is, be it page protection, warnings or nothing. We generally don't vote for resolutions, as Wikipedia is not a democracy Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What is being proposed is a variation on Discretionary Sanctions which gets imposed by Arbcom and enforced at WP:AE. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the imposition of those to improve your request. Generally it takes an arbcom case to get them imposed. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As evidenced from my post at Horologium's talk, I am fully aware of that, and unless someone can demonstrate that a solution at ArbCom will come out within 7–10 days of posting, I'm not going to go there as it is an exhaustingly lengthy process and we are dealing with what are effectively outright vandals, not "good-faith" editors. GotR ^Talk 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I will be frank: what I see from the proposal is not a "code of conduct" for editors to restrain themselves, but rather a mechanism for ultimately placing anonymous under a blanket presumption of bad faith, which is completely unacceptable and runs contrary to the values that we're supposed to be standing for. I hate vandals as much as the next guy, but a 31-hour block on sight, plus punitive punishments of increasing magnitude, will not solve the problem. If ever, it could make the problem worse: not only do we lose potential new editors (who, in this case, should be motivated to write in a manner conforming to the rules of Wikipedia), but we also risk the proposal backfiring: people will have a greater incentive to perform even more brazen acts.

If we want a "code of conduct" on editing articles on the Spratly Islands and the South China Sea (or, if I were to espouse a more "nationalistic" point of view, the Kalayaan Group of Islands and the West Philippine Sea), this should take place beyond the framework of a naming convention on the Sea of Japan, as far as I'm concerned, and with significantly less impunity. There does need to be a level of restraint when approaching this issue, but while you can expect established editors to restrain themselves, anonymous editors have less of an incentive. That lack of an incentive, however, is no reason why we should be coming down so harshly on them just because they are unaware of Wikipedia policy. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this proposal would result in the loss of potential new editors (it is 3 strikes, and I am willing to modify it to 4; the two shorter blocks allows a window of constructive contribution after expiry) or in a "greater incentive to perform even more brazen acts" (if anything, a strongly-worded edit notice listing clear consequences could deter SPAs from dropping their bombs). "That lack of an incentive, however, is no reason why we should be coming down so harshly on them just because they are unaware of Wikipedia policy"—the not-unexpected lack of policy awareness isn't the point...anyone who dares to engage in an almost vandalistic manner has a deficit of maturity in editing and should have a time out. GotR ^Talk 18:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions is basically the most draconic set of rules that get applied to articles on Wikipedia. Your proposal makes them look tame in comparison. Even more amazing is your need to get it enacted in 7-10 days. I don't think impatience is a good compliment to lack of perspective. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is (a) the kind of thing that gets decided by ArbCom as a rule (see WP:ARBMAC as an examble), and (b) even if it's imposed otherwise (like the Sea of Japan issue or the Indian caste decision that gets brought up from time to time), this is not a matter for AN/I and should be closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 13 August 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.

Aminur Rahman,Khosru

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

---

Collapsing long screed

I am drawing the kind attention of Admins about above mentioned Wikipedia Article.After I have submitted the Biography which was about the youngest commander of operation jackpot of Bangladesh Liberation war of 1971. Its to be noted that the above said biography is written on commander Aminur Rahman ,Khosru and the naval commandos of Bangladesh who destroyed 6 ships in operation of Mongla on 15th Aug,1971 under the command of Aminur Rahman,Khosru.As per regulation of Wikipedia Military Persons Biography which could be prserved in wikipedia which says that a military persons biography can be saved as Wikipedia Biography article,if the person has commanded an operation which remarkable.Its the clause no 5 of Military persons Biography prservation regulation of wikipedia. After submission of the article the article was very soon posted in Wikipedia. I was editing factual mistakes of Bangladesh Liberation war and I was noticed by Future Perfect at Sunrise not to Edit article without sources on 25th JUly,1971.I was blocked for 31 Hours by FutPer at Sunrise.After my block was over after 31 hours,I was editing another article,Operation Jackpot.Here I would like to say all my edit were with sources and references of books with ISBN Number. I was given further 48 hours block.In the mean time Article Aminur Rahman,Khosru was tagged as PROD by Futuperf at Sunrise with a Limitation of deleting the article with in the 6th Aug,2012.Since I was blocked that time neither could I refer any thing to that article nor I could edit any article.So I could not give sources and references to that article.My block was overon 6th August2012 at 16.00 Hours.Just on 16.05 Admin Futper at Sunrise deleted the article Aminur Rahman,Khosru from Wikipedia. On 9th Aug,2012,I went to his talk page and requested him to reinstall the article. I also appeal to reinstall the article in Un deletion page. Today I saw that my appeal was reviewed by Admin Graeme Bartlett at 16.00 hours and he reinstall the article Aminur Rahman,Khosru at 6-20 A.M.Right after that Admin Future perfect at Sunrise went to article Operation Jackpot at 6.27 and changed the whole article Operation Jackpot brought back the article Operation Jackpot to the Edit of May 2012.He did this very intentionally,as he have seen Article Aminur Rahman;khosru is again been reinstalled and as he has seen that many references of Article Aminur Rahman,Khosru is refered from Operation Jackpot so he immediately decided to revert the operation jackpot to previous Edit and Admin Futperf at Sunrise at once re deleted the whole content of the Article Aminur Rahman,Khosru,which was reinstalled through an appeal by Admin Graeme Bartlett today. Not only that Admin future perfect at Sunrise,immidietly tagged the Article Aminur Rahman,Khosru as article which is without reliable source,poor article and deleted the content of the article very intentionally and changed article content from top to bottom.Not only that,he has written singel line article himself , its also written by him about a new port in Bangladesh as Bangla port,I am sure there is no sea or river port in Bangladesh in the name he quoted in article Aminur Rahman,Khosru. This mornning Admin Graeme Bartlett reverted the article to the original version following this the article has again been reverted by Admin Future perfect at Sunshine in Singel line which is not at all a part of article.He has further Tagged the article for deletion and allowing any one to edit.But while I am trying to edit he is rverting the edit to that singel line article which is written by him. I am drwaing the kind attention of honourable Admins to revert the article to orginal version and protect the same. It is more than impossible that Futperf at Sunrise shall allow any article in the name of Aminur Rahman,khosru as he asked me whether I am Aminur Rahman,Khosru or I am his relative etc? Admin Future perfect at sunrise intentionally reverted the Operation Jackpot with an intention to delete the article Aminur Rahman,Khosru . It all together means that an article,after appeal and reinstalled by another Admin can be very well be changed by the same admin who deleted the article first.Then my question is what is the necessary to Appeal?This type of activities of Admins clearly proves that there are Wikipedia regulations but these can be over ruled by the Admins like Futpef at Sunshine at any time. It also mean directly that Wikipedia regulation and guidelines are for poor editors like is applicable till last dot.It further mean that all guidelines are for readers and editors. I would request to all honourable Admins to look into the matter and take possible steps in order to stop such activities once for all.I very much fear that Admin Future perfect at Sunshine shall find some way impose block on me for Indefinite time. But as reader and editor of Wikipedia on Bangladesh Liberation war I think its my duty to inform the Admins to stop such practises. we expect lot of good examples from Admins like many other Admins who are really helpful and contribute a lot to the new and old editors.I would like to remain wikipedia for these good admins whoes helping attitude attracts many editor like me. I would like to thank all reader and editor and all the Admins of Wikipedia for their contribution. --Frankfurt55 (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Holy WP:TLDR, Batman. And paragraph break please! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Executive version: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aminur Rahman,Khosru. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I have seen the note of Fut Perf at SunShine.The article is said to be BLP and thats why it is being reverted.But if it was BLP then why Admin Graeme Bartlett reinstalled the article.We have seen current notetion of Admin Fut Perf at Sunshine where he claims that Commander Aminur Rahman,Khosru was a soldier.This is not correct. He was commanding Mongla port during liberation war of Bangladesh :its very well known war in the world where 3 Million people were killed and 200,000 womens were raped. In this war Bangladesh,India and Pakistan were involved.And cold war between USA and the then USSR continued for long time on Bangladesh issue.In that war a person commanding 260 soldiers and under his command 6 Ships were sunk is not a notable person?How many books wrote the matter is not important,important if the book is well sourced and have isbn number? Both the above mentioned requirments are fulfilled by the book.Further more, as per wikipedia Military Persons Biography,Clause no 5,Commander Aminur Rahman,Khosru was a notable person and due his Military carrier and other social and political actvties which were covered in more than 100 Newspaper in England and Germany make him more notable.If Necessary we would present the newspapers for further discussion and references. Beside this the original Biography has been reverted with the blame of BLP.But let the editor discuss the original biography and if the editors and other admin find it is unsourced,it will deleted. Main point is here the content of the article has been changed with the intention of misleading the reader and editors. If this continiously happen then reader and editor shall only read falls article content like here. I would request to Fut.Pefec. At Sunshine to display the original biography and let the editor discuss about that. Beside this all other actions shall only lead the reader to read a false biography which writter did not write. A real discussion can only take place on real article does not matter whether it is BLP or original or unsourced. Let the editor and other Admin deceide that.If all were BLP then how come Admin Graeme Bartlett allowed to reinstall the article. It all mean that Admin Graeme Bartlett does not understand any thing about article and without knowing any thing he undeleted the article.I do not know,what is going on.I am sure it needs a wide check up by an independent Admin,who might determine whether article to deleted or undelet.A person who has already deleted an article and have reverted many edits to hide the matter,will of course again delete the article.Due to the above mentioned advanced BLP blamed deletion of an original article before editor discussions proves that Admin.Fut.Perf. at Sunshine shall again show all kinds of reasons to delete the article. It might put many other writer in Panic like me. It is there fore necessary to check the article through other Admin otherwise the article will be eliminated by Fut.Perf. At sunshine Regards,--Frankfurt55 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 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.

198.102.153.2

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – Not a bot. 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

198.102.153.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Unusual behavior for an IP - lots of formatting edits done at a high rate of speed. I noticed it as they were making a change to a closed AfD discussion. The edits themselves individually that i have checked appear legit, but in total they raise questions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped a couple hours ago. Unauthorized bot maybe? From Sandia National Labs, no less? I recall an incident like this in the past where the IP editor was legit, explaining that the edits appeared rapid due to having many tabs open on the browser which he would dispense with in rapid fashion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

what makes you think I am a bot? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it could well be someone who has edited under an IP for a long time. It could also be someone experienced in code who has done a search for various html markup in the code. That being said, it looks like they may be using a computer program of some sort for this. Would it be appropriate for them to have a bot account approved to make these edits? Ryan Vesey 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

given the number of thank yous on my talk page, I would say that experienced is a logical and correct conclusion. I also have Greasemonkey installed to provide me with a regexp search and replace popup. so why does this qualify as an "incident", why not just ask me directly? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It doesn't seem necessarily automated to me. 198 is definitely not new here, but this speed could be accomplished simply by searching for inappropriate template transclusions and editing them out. Nothing that suspicious to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with 198's explanation. It was brought up here, 198, because Doom was concerned you were an unhinged bot. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is an incident, but I'm curious, why don't you create an account so you can get AWB access? I'm sure that would make this a lot easier for you. On another note, could you be sure to provide edit summaries when you are making these edits? Ryan Vesey 19:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I will try to remember add more edit summaries. I usually don't when the change/reason is obvious, but I could start. as for AWB, no thank you, it's horribly bloated and a simple Greasemonkey script is easier for me to use. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit summaries are more useful when viewing the history of the changes in a watchlist or recent changes. Something as simple as Fixes using Greasemonkey would be helpful. Thanks for your assistance, I'm sure you've had the "you should create an account" spiel 1000 times before, right? Ryan Vesey 19:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, and even when I do use an edit summary, I frequently get this from the drones. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears to have been a mistake and is cleared up. I totally support IP's editing rights, but I really think you'd find an account useful, primarily for the watchlist function. In addition (and sadly) reverts like the one that just happened are less likely to occur. Because of the relatively high vandalism rate from IP's, many editors assume an IP edit is vandalism if they don't know what it is. Ryan Vesey 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to err is human. I notice Ryan left the patroller a message about that. 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 13 August 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.

Bella922323

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

---

Bella922323 (talk · contribs) has had numerous pages CSDed, sandboxed, and was given a final warning by Kudpung earlier today. I have just caught them vandalising Wikipedia:Article wizard and Wikipedia:Redirect. I suggest an indef block. Who agrees? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Boing! said Zebedee does, as he's just indeffed. 28bytes (talk) 19:42, 13 August 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:BabbaQ and User:WesleyMouse causing possible disruption

Pages involved

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mullans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suntribe
• User talk:Bleubeatle

Users in dispute with:

• BabbaQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Witnesses/Participants:

• Status (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LibStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BenTels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sang'gre Habagat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spa-Franks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CT Cooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Many others involved)

A situation got out of hand that I don't know how to handle well after I requested both articles for closures here. Wesley Mouse then left a canvassing template at my talk page. I serious sign of frustration might have occurred here and out of that tempers have flared. BabbaQ seems to be showing the same kind of behavior. Just now Wesley Mouse also notified another user that's not involved in this discussion at all. I need some assistance from non-involved neutral administrators to help me out with this situation. I'll get back to you guys later and provide some diffs when I have time. For now just check out the contributions by the users involved. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hold on a second. I notified CT Cooper on a greater matter at large not just this dispute over AfDs. The wording of my post to CT Cooper shows that. I raised a concern with CT Cooper, a fellow member of WP:EURO about a sudden mass-deletion nomination for Eurovision related articles, and asking his opinion on the matter. How is that related to this? I will cover the other points shortly once this question has been answered. I would like to point out too that I am on a busy schedule at the moment with Games Maker duties at the London Olympic and Paralympic Games - so may not respond as swiftly as some would hope. Wesley Mouse 13:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Its related to what is mainly occurring at the AfD discussion pages.Bleubeatle (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No its not. As it is clear that a lot of Eurovision-related articles have been nominated for one thing or another lately (increasingly more than normal) then I was raising this concern to CT Cooper who I regard to be more experienced on the project in case there was something that needed to be raise to the project as a whole in the manner of a request for comment. Wesley Mouse 13:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another way for Bleubeatle to cause further meta-debates it seems. Not interested in being accused of baseless things and also being brought into a discussion by a user only out to get never-ending debates. Bleubeatle tried to influence the closing of the Suntribe and The Mullans AfDs with a baseless accusation of canvassing while doing canvassing himself minutes later, simple as that. It is my only post a this non-discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaving a request on "Requests for closure" isn't trying to influence the closing of an AFD. Canvassing claims do not close AFDs. Quite a claim, saying Bleubeatle was canvassing. Care to share? Statυs (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have retracted the canvassing template on Bleubeatle's talk page as a courtesy. Thanks to Status's explanations, there could be misunderstanding/misinterpretations into what Bleueatle was trying to request. The comment perceived a canvassing-tone to it, especially with subsequent comments that followed across other talk pages. But in hindsight of what Status told me, I feel that canvassing may not have occurred now. There is a clear confusion surrounding Eurovision-related articles, and this is a matter that would benefit from more in-depth discussions between project members and even a wider community - to establish what steps need to be taken to prevent these situations arising in the future. Wesley Mouse 14:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - lost count. This canvassing issue has gotten out of hand. Upon review of the issue, the message left by Wesley was non-neutral, which with regret I have to say does go against WP:CANVASSING. However, I will say it could have been handled a lot better, with a polite note and some friendly advise with no further comment being required - its not that much of a big deal and this back and fourth really is not needed. The message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure by Bleubeatle was an inappropriate response to the canvassing issue, as discussions are not closed early due to canvassing issues, but it wasn't canvassing in itself.

On the implied canvassing on my talk page, I already knew about the AfDs since I watch the talk pages of several involved users and keep an eye on Eurovision related AfDs since that is an area of interest, but I have been too busy till today doing hard labour for Queen Elizabeth Country Park to have the energy to dive in, though after seeing today how far things had gone downhill - clearly more fresh opinions were needed. Wesley's message on my talk page didn't mention any particular AfD and he is aware that I have come down with a view leaning towards merging in similar discussions with him before - so I don't see it is anything close to canvassing. Wesley frequently leaves requests for advise and help on my talk page, for which he is welcome to do so, so I don't see any problem to be resolved there.

If a non-involved admin wishes to get involved they can do - although I don't see any need to further escalate this, and any intervention should be to calm everything down, not add fuel to the fire. Those involved could potentially calm this themselves. CT Cooper · talk 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is starting to look like this has started to resolve itself amicably. I am discussing advice with Status in regards to several grey areas and matters that may be confusing to new users. During the AfD discussions several guidance links had been provided, and those alone caused contradictions with each other and made a situation more complex than it needs to be. Also it has just been noted that project goal #2 at WP:ESC is explicitly permitting acceptability for a user to create a new article for every participant/song of the Eurovision contest; when it may be a case of non-notable and premature creations. Not too sure if this would mean a possible reform of the project and its goals in general, and I feel slightly uncomfortable in being overly-bold in initiating reform discussions on a project that I have only been a member of for 12 months. Advice on whether I am permitted to open project reform would be truly appreciated. Wesley Mouse 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether there is a grey area between simple notification and canvassing or not, the comment in the diff above is unambiguously canvassing anyway, and that's something to take on board. WP:ESC has historically overreached in terms of its relative coverage, so an overview of that would most certainly be welcome. It's also very important to remember that no matter if an article is deleted, it is trivial to bring it back in future and the lack of a time limit here means that in the end nothing worth keeping will be lost. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussing it at WT:ESC seems appropriate. This aims were introduced a long time ago without any significant discussion, and my guess is it was thought that such articles would pass WP:NMUSIC easily without any thought to other issues such as WP:BIO1E, and other contests that the project covers in which such guidelines are even less appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 17:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

CT Cooper, I didn't mean to initiate a RfC simply because of the canvassing allegations. I did it because the AfD is getting way out of hand right after BabbaQ and Status were beginning to argue with each other so I felt that some intervention was required. The RfC filed was not purely based on the canvassing allegations alone. Bleubeatle (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late reply. I'd just like to state most of the problematic diffs here:

• BabbaQ: [1], [2],[3], [4], [5]
• Wesley Mouse:[1],[2],

Wesley Mouse and I have already sorted this 'canvassing dispute' at my talk page but I'd like to advice you, BabbaQ, to please refrain from this kind of behavior as well. I don't find them helpful and is quite disruptive. If you have some doubts then leave a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to discuss them with you rather than throwing a direct accusation such as the one you just wrote above in this section and along those diffs. Also, Wesley Mouse please don't be offended if I nominated The Mullans for deletion . Trust me, I already tried to look for sources in hopes of expanding it further but I could not find any. Bleubeatle (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ohyeahman7

The following discussion is closed. 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 demanded to have his article ,Glaro7, which was tagged for speedy deletion put back up, stating on the talk page that "If you delete this I will hunt you down and chop your balls off" and "Put this page back on. I will hunt you down. Don't test me." To me, this constitutes a threat. AutomaticStrikeout 00:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also vandalising pages. [265]. Given a 4im for NPA, but wouldn't object to an indef per WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The threat is no longer visible to non-admins since the page has been deleted, but if it is confirmed, this unequivocally requires an indef, at the very least. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Confirmed and indeffed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 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:BabbaQ and User:WesleyMouse causing possible disruption

Pages involved

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mullans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suntribe
• User talk:Bleubeatle

Users in dispute with:

• BabbaQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Witnesses/Participants:

• Status (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LibStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BenTels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sang'gre Habagat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spa-Franks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CT Cooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Many others involved)

A situation got out of hand that I don't know how to handle well after I requested both articles for closures here. Wesley Mouse then left a canvassing template at my talk page. I serious sign of frustration might have occurred here and out of that tempers have flared. BabbaQ seems to be showing the same kind of behavior. Just now Wesley Mouse also notified another user that's not involved in this discussion at all. I need some assistance from non-involved neutral administrators to help me out with this situation. I'll get back to you guys later and provide some diffs when I have time. For now just check out the contributions by the users involved. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hold on a second. I notified CT Cooper on a greater matter at large not just this dispute over AfDs. The wording of my post to CT Cooper shows that. I raised a concern with CT Cooper, a fellow member of WP:EURO about a sudden mass-deletion nomination for Eurovision related articles, and asking his opinion on the matter. How is that related to this? I will cover the other points shortly once this question has been answered. I would like to point out too that I am on a busy schedule at the moment with Games Maker duties at the London Olympic and Paralympic Games - so may not respond as swiftly as some would hope. Wesley Mouse 13:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Its related to what is mainly occurring at the AfD discussion pages.Bleubeatle (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No its not. As it is clear that a lot of Eurovision-related articles have been nominated for one thing or another lately (increasingly more than normal) then I was raising this concern to CT Cooper who I regard to be more experienced on the project in case there was something that needed to be raise to the project as a whole in the manner of a request for comment. Wesley Mouse 13:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another way for Bleubeatle to cause further meta-debates it seems. Not interested in being accused of baseless things and also being brought into a discussion by a user only out to get never-ending debates. Bleubeatle tried to influence the closing of the Suntribe and The Mullans AfDs with a baseless accusation of canvassing while doing canvassing himself minutes later, simple as that. It is my only post a this non-discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaving a request on "Requests for closure" isn't trying to influence the closing of an AFD. Canvassing claims do not close AFDs. Quite a claim, saying Bleubeatle was canvassing. Care to share? Statυs (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have retracted the canvassing template on Bleubeatle's talk page as a courtesy. Thanks to Status's explanations, there could be misunderstanding/misinterpretations into what Bleueatle was trying to request. The comment perceived a canvassing-tone to it, especially with subsequent comments that followed across other talk pages. But in hindsight of what Status told me, I feel that canvassing may not have occurred now. There is a clear confusion surrounding Eurovision-related articles, and this is a matter that would benefit from more in-depth discussions between project members and even a wider community - to establish what steps need to be taken to prevent these situations arising in the future. Wesley Mouse 14:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - lost count. This canvassing issue has gotten out of hand. Upon review of the issue, the message left by Wesley was non-neutral, which with regret I have to say does go against WP:CANVASSING. However, I will say it could have been handled a lot better, with a polite note and some friendly advise with no further comment being required - its not that much of a big deal and this back and fourth really is not needed. The message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure by Bleubeatle was an inappropriate response to the canvassing issue, as discussions are not closed early due to canvassing issues, but it wasn't canvassing in itself.

On the implied canvassing on my talk page, I already knew about the AfDs since I watch the talk pages of several involved users and keep an eye on Eurovision related AfDs since that is an area of interest, but I have been too busy till today doing hard labour for Queen Elizabeth Country Park to have the energy to dive in, though after seeing today how far things had gone downhill - clearly more fresh opinions were needed. Wesley's message on my talk page didn't mention any particular AfD and he is aware that I have come down with a view leaning towards merging in similar discussions with him before - so I don't see it is anything close to canvassing. Wesley frequently leaves requests for advise and help on my talk page, for which he is welcome to do so, so I don't see any problem to be resolved there.

If a non-involved admin wishes to get involved they can do - although I don't see any need to further escalate this, and any intervention should be to calm everything down, not add fuel to the fire. Those involved could potentially calm this themselves. CT Cooper · talk 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is starting to look like this has started to resolve itself amicably. I am discussing advice with Status in regards to several grey areas and matters that may be confusing to new users. During the AfD discussions several guidance links had been provided, and those alone caused contradictions with each other and made a situation more complex than it needs to be. Also it has just been noted that project goal #2 at WP:ESC is explicitly permitting acceptability for a user to create a new article for every participant/song of the Eurovision contest; when it may be a case of non-notable and premature creations. Not too sure if this would mean a possible reform of the project and its goals in general, and I feel slightly uncomfortable in being overly-bold in initiating reform discussions on a project that I have only been a member of for 12 months. Advice on whether I am permitted to open project reform would be truly appreciated. Wesley Mouse 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether there is a grey area between simple notification and canvassing or not, the comment in the diff above is unambiguously canvassing anyway, and that's something to take on board. WP:ESC has historically overreached in terms of its relative coverage, so an overview of that would most certainly be welcome. It's also very important to remember that no matter if an article is deleted, it is trivial to bring it back in future and the lack of a time limit here means that in the end nothing worth keeping will be lost. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussing it at WT:ESC seems appropriate. This aims were introduced a long time ago without any significant discussion, and my guess is it was thought that such articles would pass WP:NMUSIC easily without any thought to other issues such as WP:BIO1E, and other contests that the project covers in which such guidelines are even less appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 17:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

CT Cooper, I didn't mean to initiate a RfC simply because of the canvassing allegations. I did it because the AfD is getting way out of hand right after BabbaQ and Status were beginning to argue with each other so I felt that some intervention was required. The RfC filed was not purely based on the canvassing allegations alone. Bleubeatle (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late reply. I'd just like to state most of the problematic diffs here:

• BabbaQ: [1], [2],[3], [4], [5]
• Wesley Mouse:[1],[2],

Wesley Mouse and I have already sorted this 'canvassing dispute' at my talk page but I'd like to advice you, BabbaQ, to please refrain from this kind of behavior as well. I don't find them helpful and is quite disruptive. If you have some doubts then leave a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to discuss them with you rather than throwing a direct accusation such as the one you just wrote above in this section and along those diffs. Also, Wesley Mouse please don't be offended if I nominated The Mullans for deletion . Trust me, I already tried to look for sources in hopes of expanding it further but I could not find any. Bleubeatle (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ohyeahman7

The following discussion is closed. 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 demanded to have his article ,Glaro7, which was tagged for speedy deletion put back up, stating on the talk page that "If you delete this I will hunt you down and chop your balls off" and "Put this page back on. I will hunt you down. Don't test me." To me, this constitutes a threat. AutomaticStrikeout 00:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also vandalising pages. [266]. Given a 4im for NPA, but wouldn't object to an indef per WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The threat is no longer visible to non-admins since the page has been deleted, but if it is confirmed, this unequivocally requires an indef, at the very least. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Confirmed and indeffed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 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.

Users Still-24-45-42-125 and The Four Deuces - Section Blanking at Conservatism

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

---

Reporting a pair of disruptive section blankings at article Conservatism, in violation of WP:PRESERVE, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:VANDALISM. Two editors are guilty, both are claiming an imaginary consensus to support unilateral blanking, even though there are clearly other editors who both (1) object and (2) are willing and have been making efforts to correct issues.

This problem is aggravated by the fact that this is a political topic and the editors involved are divided along political lines. This is unfortunate because just some simple cooperation would go a long ways here.

Here are diffs of the offending edits: [267] [268]

Here is a link to the ongoing discussion: Talk:Conservatism#Compassionate_conservatism Note that there are three editors in favor of keeping the section, and three against. There is no clear consensus either way, which requires that the section be kept and fixed. Thus, these were disruptive edits.

I am requesting that an admin deliver some user education on the topics of policy and Wikietiquette, and in particular a caution against claiming consensus when no consensus exists. Belchfire-TALK 07:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"requires that the section be kept and fixed" What? really? News to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at the talk page, where we've tried to find some sort of citation that might support inclusion of this section but haven't yet. There's already an article for Compassionate conservatism so nothing is being lost but a summary. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In a situation like this, I would lean towards default inclusion until a stronger rationale for removing it emerges. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm rather apathetic about this issue. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The way I look at it is that as an encyclopedic topic, compassionate conservatism is part of the historical narrative. The question remains, how much space should it be allotted? Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it has its own article, so we should only summarize it here. The version I removed was too big, particularly since it's not clear how important this slogan is to conservatism in general. As a rule of thumb, the summary should be no larger than the lead of the summarized article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the best ways to approach this is to stick to notable figures associated with the concept. That forces editors to stick within a framework dictated by the sources, and avoid undue weight. The strange thing, however, is that the majority of "compassionate conservatives", the people who actually practice the concept, have been pushed out of the Republican party. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's really just the one. And you're right that the concept is no longer current within the GOP. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can find sources that note this change, it could be a win-win for both sides. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources are already in the main article.[269][270] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I appreciate your sudden interest in the article's content, but I doubt this is the place to discuss the merits. Veriditas, thanks for acknowledging that the blanking was improper, that was helpful. Beyond that, I don't see much that addresses the policy violations we are here to discuss. Belchfire-TALK 07:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And Still-24, that's a very interesting comment you just made, considering that you just posted not 10 minutes ago that the were no citations in the section. [271] Belchfire-TALK 07:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you already know, I don't consider it "blanking" nor a policy violation. It might be best to keep this discussion on the talk page and try to negotiate a solution. As I said, I don't support outright removal because the rationale is too weak, but concerns about undue weight are legitimate. Still, there isn't any hurry to remove it at this time, so I recommend filing an RFC. I'm not seeing anything for an admin to do, but others might disagree. We should reserve the admin boards for issues needing admin attention. Since this is a content dispute involving edit warring, you know where to go. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, we're requesting citations to show the relevance of compassionate conservatism. These two citations show its unimportance, stressing that the GOP has moved past even talk of compassion in its conservatism. So, in short, the citations I just found serve only to undermine your argument, not support it. Please be more careful in the future with regard to misunderstanding the content of citations.

Viriditas, I have no idea why this was reported, much less why it was reported here. I agree that this is not the place for it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, no disrespect intended, but I didn't come here to get your views on this. And I disagree.

Illegitimate blanking is vandalism. See Blanking, illegitimate "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense." Similarly, Refusing to get the point is disruptive editing. When an editor looks at a Talk discussion where there is clearly a 50-50 split and claims he has consensus to do whatever he wants, RFC or DRN isn't likely to achieve results. This editor, in particular, has a recent history of disregarding 4-1 and 5-1 consensuses against his edits at DRN. In light of that, I'm not inclined to waste my time pursuing lengthy processes that seem likely to be blown off. I believe admin intervention is both necessary and appropriate. As I specified above, education is needed, from an authority figure. He won't listen to other users, and voluntary compliance isn't working so far. Belchfire-TALK 07:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it isn't "blanking", it's called a content dispute involving talk page discussion and edit warring. "Blanking" has a specific definition and this isn't it. There's nothing for an admin to do here except block everybody who participated in the edit war. If that's what you want, then ask for it. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The key phrase here is "without any reason". There are good reasons for that section to be removed or at least significantly cut down. As such, you should not have bothered coming here to complain. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas that this is a content dispute and not "blanking", and I see no cause for admin action. Admins cannot make judgments in a content dispute - if a discussion on the talk page does not yield a consensus, you all need to consult WP:DR and follow the steps there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 14 August 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.

A suggestion

I've read through the discussion on the article's talk page, and these are my observations:

1. The central issue of the dispute is whether or not the main conservatism article should contain a subsection covering compassionate conservatism.
2. There are two opposing viewpoints on this issue: one side argues that the term is not in widespread use, and is entirely irrelevant outside the U.S. (possibly even the Bush administration), while the other side reiterates their understanding that the main conservatism article should cover all concepts branching off of the conservative political doctrines (including its various different interpretations), and not just a limited definition based on the ideologies of famous classical conservatives such as Edmund Burke.
3. There is not a firmly established consensus on the article's talk page, and the dispute has resulted in an edit war.

So, bearing all this in mind, I've come to the conclusion that the best way forward from here is to try and establish a clear consensus one way or the other. To do that, we will probably need more people participating in the discussion. Therefore, my suggestion is to open a request for comment on the article's talk page, following the instructions laid out here, and listing it under the Politics, government, and law category. That way we can get a much broader perspective, hopefully establishing a clear consensus and alleviating the confusion caused by this situation.

Thoughts? Kurtis (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what was basically said in the last post of the thread and the close - no need to make comments outside of a closed thread. WP:DR includes RFC's, etc. dangerouspanda 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, I had typed this up prior to the thread being archived, and decided to post it anyways. More importantly, I've gotten the discussion started at the article's talk page — though, unfortunately, it seems as if the situation has only gotten more exacerbated since then. And I think being more specific as to which aspect of dispute resolution ought to be used in this case is important; I can't see 3O being especially useful here, as this content dispute would need an even broader consensus than what would be gotten there. Kurtis (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

201.81.2XX.XXX

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

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

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

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

The edits are all inflammatory remarks in articles relating to former Yugoslavia (ARBMAC). User was warned about adding personal information, but has continued (these revisions and edit summaries should be deleted immediately). Most of his comments should also be deleted per personal attacks, NPOV, defamation, etc.--Zoupan 12:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hunt the Jew?

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

---

In the articles Siege of Sidney Street and Tottenham Outrage, every source used which mentions the perpetrators' ethnicity states that they were Latvian. Not a single source asserts that they were Jews. Despite this, one recently-created account has repeatedly removed their description as "Latvian", adding an unsourced assertion that they were "Jewish immigrants". Among other edit summaries, the user has stated that "They were not Latvian" and "Latvia did not yet exist", though it doesn't seem to occur to the editor that by the same logic they should not be described as Jews either. I have posted on both talk pages[272][273], but the user has not responded there, and continues to make the same unsourced edit. The editor's behaviour is more disturbing when it is noted that all of their other edits consist of reverting my own edits, and adding unsupported or weakly-supported ascriptions of Jewish ethnicity to other historical figures. Could someone please assist in drawing this new editor's attention to the importance of reliable sourcing, and the unacceptability of unsourced and irrelevant ethnic tagging. RolandR (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This source clearly states that those involved in both incidents were Jewish, so this hardly seems to be an issue. The source also describes them as Russian rather than Latvian (as Latvia was part of the Russian Empire at the time). Number 57 16:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That source was not cited in the articles. In both cases, the editor was using several reliable sources describing the perpetrators as Latvian, to describe them as Jews. This report is about editor behaviour, not about content. RolandR (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

ec2(And incidentally, other reliable sources state explicitly that they were not Jews.[274][275]) RolandR (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking about behaviour, why did you simply revert, rather than check that they might be right? It took me about 30 seconds to corroborate their edits after Googling. You also accused them of inserting untrue material. Combined with giving them a warning template and reporting them on here, this looks a little WP:BITEy. Number 57 16:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You only posted on those talk pages today! This is a content dispute really. This says 'misplaced antisemitism' was triggered by the Tottenham outrage, which might imply that they were thought to be Jewish but were not. The Jewish chronicle says we don't know how many were Jews, but some were. Calling them Latvian seems to be difficult as Latvia didn't exist at the time. Edit warring over Jewish vs Latvian doesn't bring out the complexity. They were anarchists from the Russian empire, presumably not religious. Did any of them identify as (ethnic?) Latvian? Did any identify as (ethnic?) Jewish? Secretlondon (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the JC does not say that "some were" Jews. It says they were identified as Latvian, but that "it is a safe bet that some were" Jews. RolandR (talk) 17:00, 14 August 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.