Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735

Review of User:Dolovis diacritics AN/I topic ban closure requested

I recently closed the User:Dolovis topic ban proposal on AN/I. Dolovis has requested a review of this as he believes the closure and subsequent clarifications of its scope are too broad. Community input is invited at WP:AN#Review requested for topic ban closure. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Block review/unblock proposal

Resolved

 – Both users unblocked

• Bless sins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These accounts were recently blocked for socking, after an SPI report. The report was perfectly reasonable, and the CU check gave a "Technically indistinguishable" result, and both were blocked - User:Bless sins for 2 weeks and User:Vice regent indefinitely. However, Bless sins has offered a plausible explanation, that Vice regent shares accommodation and uses the same computer. And CU confirmed that both accounts only used one computer in common - there was no evidence of overlap with any other computers they used. I know the "little brother" excuse is routinely dismissed when dealing with vandals, but these are not vandals - they each have thousands of of productive edits. The details of the case can be found at the SPI report, and at User talk:Bless sins, where there has been quite a bit of discussion, with User:Doc Tropics telling us that he has had interaction with Bless sins for some time and has good reasons to disbelieve the socking charge. To sum up, here are what I consider to be the salient points (trying to present them as fairly as I can)...

• They are not vandals, are not disruptive, and have made thousands of productive edits over several years.
• They have edited some articles in common, but those are a small proportion of their total edits - and they openly claim to share interests in articles related to Islam. It appears they have edited over 4,100 unique pages and only overlap on 183.
• Checkuser confirms they only shared one computer, but have used others - that would tie in with the claim that they share a home computer
• Bless sins has had a small number of blocks, but until the current one the most recent was in 2008. Vice regent registered during one of those blocks in 2007 - 14 hours into a 36 hour block. But Vice regent did not continue the same edits, and edited articles unrelated to Bless sins' block.
• Here, Vice regent replied as if they were Bless sins, and that was one of the key pieces of evidence against them - but it genuinely is easy to leave home computers logged in and accidentally use the wrong account.
• Doc Tropics, who is an editor in good standing and appears to know Bless sins pretty well, has opined that they are different people.
• Doc Tropics has analyzed some of the two accounts' contributions, and has uncovered consistent style differences between the two.
• User:Elinruby has had dealings with Vice regent, and says "This is consistent with a young relative, for example, using an uncle's computer. I know when my daughter was using my laptop she constantly left herself signed into her Facebook and Gmail accounts" - see SPI report.
• I have myself examined a number of contributions by both accounts, and I also detect consistent style differences - I generally get the feeling that Vice regent is a younger person than Bless sins.
• I do not believe it is plausible for one person to continue to maintain two accounts and edit with consistent stylistic differences over such a long period of time, and I don't think such sockpuppetry is feasible here.
• Bless sins has admitted being in breach of WP:SHARE, but suggests that was not in force at the time.

That's probably enough points for now, but generally, I think we have two people who have been caught in the "little brother" trap - while it is a common excuse used by vandals, we're not looking at vandals here, and it simply is not true that different family members never use the same computer and that everyone who claims so is automatically a sock. So, please, could you have a read over the pages indicated and see what you think - I'll add a "Proposal" section below, so people can add comments and/or challenge my arguments here, and !vote in the proposal separately... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have notified everyone who has commented on the SPI and the Talk pages (with the exception of one blocked open proxy) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

User: Bless sins and User:Vice regent should both be unblocked, on the condition that they both disclose their connections with each other on their User pages, using the {{User shared IP address}} template.

• Support as proposer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support as an involved checkuser. The tiny reservation I might have - related to the creation of the second account during a block of the first - is outweighed by WP:AGF.  Frank  |  talk  17:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Haven't done any research myself, the above should be sufficient. Well done! HandsomeFella (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Boing! said Zebedee failed to mention some additional facts that support the sock hypothesis, such as the fact that both accounts went dormant at the same time earlier this year (details on BS's talk page). Or that even if we're dealing with 2 people, it's an obvious case of meatpupptery , somethign BS has done in the past, too, and led to his meat puppet being indef'ed. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• support per reasoning above and my (and others) comments on BS's talk page. And someone should CU or otherwise take a look at 71.204.165.25 William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Wavering Support with WP:ROPE, and the caveat that they really should never edit the same sets of articles. I would also be concerned about !voting situations (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• support per what Boing! said Zebedee has said. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I've read both the arguments here and on Bless sin's talk page and they are pretty convincing. Consistently maintaining different editing styles over such a long period of time and number of edits stretches the imagination. Socks are usually too emotionally involved in the subjects they edit to avoid slipping up and giving themselves away. Yworo (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Entirely feasible that these are two separate individuals and I'm inclined to AGF. I see no indication that either editor has attempted to evade questions or deceive others, but has taken responsibility for errors made. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I've looked at the two editors, and there are differences not only in style, but also in name space usage stats. In dubio pro reo, and here there is plenty of dubium. I also find it implausible that one editor could maintain two long-term productive accounts like that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I'm willing to assume good faith in this case. I also think the accounts should abide by Bwilkins' proposed caveat(s). Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This sequence [1] supports either Boings! analysis; looks like editor posted, realized logged in under wrong account, reverts that edit, and then post using proper account. Nobody Ent 19:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as the initial accuser. They both appear to be constructive long-term contributors, so it'd be good for Wikipedia itself that they were both unblocked. Do support disclosing their connection on both userpages, don't support editing ban on articles the other has edited, do support not voting where the other has voted. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support as an involved CheckUser. The creation of the account and the voting incident which has been fully acknowledged are outweighed by everything else. Similarly per Bwilkins though, it can't hurt for these accounts to keep their distance from each other. If there is anything Bless sins and Vice regent think I should know that would be in their favour, they can e-mail me in absolute confidence in my capacity as a WMF functionary. WilliamH (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Boing's original proposal; do not support BWilkins' additional caveats. If these are separate people, editors, the simple fact that they use the same access ought not limit what they are allowed to do or edit. They ought to be wary of voting situations, and be careful editing areas they are both interested in, but certainly no formal restriction that would not be appropriate if they happened to be two editors with separate computers. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support as someone who has interacted with Vice Regent, I feel an indef block would be unfair and to Wikipedia's detriment. I'd also like to note that this was in a very heated discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, in which Bless Sins did not participate at all. So I suggest that making them check the history of each page they edit is excessive; they already apparently refrain from acting as one another's cheerleaders. Furthermore, Vice Regent was unfailingly courteous in his arguments to editors who were patronizing him in a scathing manner, and showed a good grasp of Wikipedia policy and process. Some of his sources, while reliable, made me think he might be high-school age, or perhaps a freshman, which would support the "relative" contention. In any event, we have many problem editors in Wikipedia; why indef block one who is not? Elinruby (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

By me. Max Semenik (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Caveats

Thank you for the unblock.

• I have indicated at User:Bless sins that I share an IP. Shall I make it more explicit?
• I haven't voted on the same proposals as Vice regent for 4 years, and I intend to continue that.
• I would like to note the difficulty in avoiding articles Vice regent has ever edited: because of our similar interests, we often come across the same articles. Busy articles, such as Islam, get numerous edits a day. How am I to know that Vice regent hasn't edited an article 2 years ago? I would have to check the entire history of every article every single time I make an edit. I think there should be a time frame imposed: for example, I'm allowed to edit an article Vice regent hasn't edited in more than 30 days.

Bless sins (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't make it difficult for yourself, there's been no agreement that there should be an editing ban at all. I think you should just take extra care when edits get controversial and when it may appear to others that you're acting as meatpuppets. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have not engaged in the same discussion or same edit war as Vice regent (except that incident 4 years ago), and I intend to continue that. And when in doubt I'll reveal to editors that I share an Ip with Vice regent.Bless sins (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the unblock has not actually imposed editing restrictions, so I'd say just exercise sensible caution -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you also keep a direct link to this discussion handy in case you ever need to reference it. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

USA International Business Publications isn't reliable?

I am trying to use USA International Business Publications for a citation and another editor has repeatedly refused to allow me to to cite them but won't explain why they aren't considered reliable or provide a link an article explaining why.

What's more a number of articles cite USA International Business Publications.

If there is nothing wrong with the group I'd like to report this person's behavior. --CatholicW (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct place for this question is at the reliable sources notice board. N^oformation ^Talk 08:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

possible hijacking of a retired/vanished user

Resolved

 – Katarighe indeffed by Salvio. 28bytes (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Katarighe (talk · contribs) claims on their userpage to be the re-incarnation of a "vanished" user. The two accounts dfo not share any interests, Katarighe shows an extremely poor understanding of the English language while the vanished account had no such problems, and when questioned about it his replies [2] [3] smelled strongly of WP:BALLS. Up until this point I hjad thought this user was just a bit misguided in that they seemed a little too focused on looking ready to be an admin, but this is different. I do not believe them to be te same user. And now, as I write this, he is trying to have all his talk archives deleted. Something is rotten in Denmark. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I was actually related in computer discussions. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

See what I mean, everybody? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Katarighe: it would be in your best interests to start speaking honestly right now. 28bytes (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beeb's assessment, here. Katarighe claims he lost the password to the old account and, yet, their very last edit on that account apparently falsifies this claim. I believe it's high time Katarighe (talk · contribs) were blocked for WP:CIR. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My brother actually used this account before. Not mine. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Brother"? Wrong answer. Indef block for trolling and/or CIR, please. 28bytes (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I lied at this mistake. I'm not really trolling for this. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How could you not know if you lied or not? I agree, time for a competence block, combined with the manifest bad faith action of trying to take credit for someone else's work. Exactly what we do not need here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And now he's blocked. Thanks for the decisiv action Salvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indeffed. If anyone thinks I was involved, you are welcome to undo. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with block. Thanks, Salvio. Goodvac (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This user did a lot of editing on the "Suspected copyright violations" page today [4]. It might be a good idea if anyone who knows the ins and outs of that page were to double check the items that K marked as resolved. Thanks ahead of time to the editor(s) who take this task on. MarnetteD | Talk 01:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good block - should any of the faked user pages and faked talk archives be deleted? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'd say yes to that - by claiming them as his when they're not and re-using them, isn't he violating the licensing of that content? Or something along those lines? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Outright lying is enough of a reason to undo anything he did to suggest they are the same user. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• This apparent draft of an RfA made me chuckle. I think he was plotting to take over the wiki. I think all the subpages should be deleted, we should bare in mind that it is possible the previous user could someday return. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Administrator note I have blocked 184.145.14.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for one month for block evasion. S/he attempted to place {{retired}} on Katarighe's talk page and requested speedy deletion of all of Katarighe's subpages. Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Just noting that he has just retired his accounts at Simple and Commons. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

After consulting Salvio, I've deleted a bunch of pages that Katarighe created: impersonators are meant to damage the encyclopedia by causing disruption, so I considered his creations G3-able. However, we've got a bit of a problem: K did some reviewing at WP:AFC, tagged a bunch of Bambifan socks, added wikiproject templates to talk pages, and even welcomed some new users. What do we do with the AFC reviews? I suppose that I could revert the other contributions as vandalism, but it would definitely go against WP:IAR, so I'm confidently going to leave them alone. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with this course of action. Those pages you deleted were all unhelpful to various degrees and it's a good thing they're gone, the other contributions you refer to can be safely left alone (with the exception of the one Katarighe made to the CCI page: there we need to make sure everything is correct, so I'd highlight them for review). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Moonriddengirl for help with the CCI; there may be a better person to ask or a better process to follow, but I'm not aware of it. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've relisted all the SCV days he's touched and slapped them with MRG's notice. There aren't that many of them (about 13 additional days). Please delete Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Katarighe as this is a malformed and out of process CCI. MER-C 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The AFC tags seem to have been good, as I just stumbled on this through his work there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alt accounts

Not sure if these need to be blocked, but the user had created some alt accts. I didn't see any worthwhile contributions, but I didn't check every one. --64.85.216.114 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't check any contributions, but alternate accounts of indefinitely-blocked editors should always be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've checked them all and blocked them, as it is the user who is indef blocked, not one specific account. (Two of them were called xxxBot and had made no contributions at all, and that appears to violate the naming rules too) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• This redirect also needs fixing. Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Done. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible sock of banned user?

This looked kind of suspicious to me [5]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

He isn't OSUHEY (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

ONE PERSON with 3 USERS

This users: user talk: 46.196.147.187, user talk: 46.196.33.96, user talk: 88.247.101.165 are THE SAME PERSON. I'm very frustrated about this situation, Because i was complained about this person and he got some warnings and two of this users are blocked for only one week. How do i know that this 3 users are the same person? because they edit the Same things, stating an edit wars about the SAME things and they always don't answer to my messages. I tried to explain to him why i know for sure that he put some wrong things in some articles (especially Ben-Gurion airport) and i wote to him that if he thinks that i'm wrong he can add his proof and show to me why. He always undecided, He delete things,add seasonal operation and delete again. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HELP ME!--Friends147 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you notify him/them of the discussion here? It looks like an editor using a dynamic ip; while frustrating that's not against policy, unless they pretend to be different people. Nobody Ent 19:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All this users that i mentioned here are the same person that pretend that they are a different people.Every time I complain about this person, he changes his IP address.--Friends147 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs showing where they are intentionally creating the impression that they are different people rather than a switching IP? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And you haven't notified them of this discussion - I've done this for you. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very simple, It's not possible that three IP addresses arguing with me about the same things, , would not answer me when I ask them about the changes they made, everytime they being blocked or gets a warning-> a different IP address Immediately starts edit the same thing, and all the IP addresses I mentioned are from Turkey and edit the same articles.--Friends147 (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is it that they're doing that's so bad? Where are the diffs indicating this? Are they edit-warring? Vandalizing? Without such diffs and an explanation of what they are doing that's against policies and guidelines, there is nothing here that an administrator would or could do. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

2 of them have been done for EW already, third currently operating. I suppose it could be a block circumvention if we timed the edits. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to tell you all the time is that I have really serious argue with him through the edits. I'm trying to contact with him all the time but he's ignores me. I've known this person for last summer, His user name called KARPARTHOS. He's Vandalizing some articles Especially Ben Gurion Airport. He's changes things without attaching proof (or attach proof that not prove his point). And to avoid the punishment he gets, he changes his IP address. --Friends147 (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• 88.247.101.165 - Active October 19 2011 - December 28 2011. In this period exclusively editing airport articles. No talk page edits.
• 46.196.33.96 - Active from November 26 2011 - January 2 2012. Exclusively on airport articles. No talk page edits.
• 46.196.147.187 - Active January 7 to present (currently not blocked). Exclusively editing airport articles. No talk page edits.

It is difficult to assess whether it is impersonating different editors, because none of them has made any edits to talk pages and only few edit summaries, all have resorted to edit warring. So it does seem like an IP-hopping edit warrior. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection for a week or two and words of advice if we can get the IP to engage? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if semi protection for a week is the right thing to do because one admin tried this and it didn't work.--Friends147 (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89

People involved in this childish drama need to stop talking to each other, stop talking about each and stop rising to the bait or I'm going to get my bit back and start blocking people. Thank You. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

History On December 26, here, as part of a closely related ANI issue, I brought User:Purplebackpack89 (PBP) before ANI, and no warnings were issued.  As reported in the "Metro Walk" ANI thread that is not yet archived, PBP used the grace period to WP:HARASS User:Luciferwildcat (LWC), whereupon the issue came back to ANI.  MelanieN reported that PBP was the first case in which he/she had ever yelled at Wikipedia.  As the discussion progressed, I saw PBP offering evidence of his/her inability to engage in WP:CONSENSUS.  Spartaz then closed the thread, closing against unanimous support for MelanieN's proposal that included LWC.  Spartaz has since given User talk:MelanieN a barnstar, and in doing so identified both PBP and LWC as a problem (diff), but still no warning has been issued to PBP.  I hoped that Spartaz knew something.  New attack But instead, PBP is back in attack mode, this time against me here.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC) What "attack"? He's unhappy and complaining and not being scrupulously polite, but how does this add up to an attack? -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC) What Hoary said. There's a little too much "mommy he hurt me" going on here when there isn't even a scratch on the knee. I just read through half of that atrocious "discussion" higher up on this page, and can only agree with Carrite's last comment (at least the first half of it). Unscintillating, why poke around again in this pile of shit? The problem with LWC and PBP is that both have more passion than restraint. LWC's knowledge of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines is, to put it mildly, on the slim side, and PBP clearly has poor manners, as his behavior toward MelanieN showed. I have a suggestion as well: we leave these two to it and let them figure it out. In other words, we give them some rope (yes I know, I should rewrite that essay for this purpose). Drmies (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC) As per our article on the topic, the four-letter word for excrement that you've used "is an English word that is usually considered vulgar and profane in Modern English."  Unscintillating (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Which is why it is the correct word to use for this pile of stinking poo. Then again, Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia...I prefer citing Chaucer, "And shame it is, if a prest take keep, / A shiten shepherde and a clene sheep." Drmies (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Are you done playing with excrement?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Also, one question...how is explaining why an article was written poorly an attack, but creating four different ANI threads, mostly based on not liking my edits rather than any violation of policy isn't a personal attack? And I'm sorry, but impoliteness isn't a crime. You know how many threads around here we get about mops being impolite? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Crissy Moran - low-level edit war, block evasion

Resolved

• Dbiela8293 (talk · contribs)
• Dbiela1 (talk · contribs)

There appears to be a prolonged, low-level edit war on Crissy Moran, the biography of a former porn performer, replacing a rather tame upper-body portrait (file:Crissy_Moran.jpg) with a cropped version of the same (file:Crissy_Moran_cropped.jpg). I would not bother bringing this up here, but a new user, User:Dbiela1, has inserted a link to a Facebook page purported to belong to Moran. User:Dbiela8293 was previously indef blocked for repeatedly inserting unsourced information about the real name of Moran, which makes me wonder about the authenticity of the Facebook page. Note also the similarity of usernames. Perhaps semi-protection of the article is in order, if nothing else? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've resurrected this from the archives because it's still going on. The debate over the picture is of little concern. The posting of the allged facebook accont of the subject is a much larger issue. I've asked for the page to be semi'd, but from the technical standpoint I don't know if that will stop the registered editors Dbiela___ or not. Full protection (minus the problematic facebook link) might be advisable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the user links, above - and will have a look. No objection to a brief semi, if that will result in discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since it's a block-evading sock, the user should be indef'd immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reverting the user who is inserting the Facebook link unless notified to do otherwise. Calabe1992 14:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it - though they added that as I notified them not to do so again, so they get a mulligan - one more such edit would be a block. I also notified them of this discussion. Is the similarity in names and edits enough to pass WP:DUCK? Because I seem to hear a quacking sound... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they've got five six reverts in less than 3 hours, which is also enough to put them on ice. They've already been warned several times, under both known user ID's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• cu. Calabe1992 14:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand, I blocked indef already. Any lingering AGF went right out the window when the new account repeated the old account's edit with the subject's real name. Confirmation of any sleepers wouldn't hurt, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

CU was declined, so we'll just have to keep an eye on the page. Watchlisted. Calabe1992 16:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious - no reason for checkuser. If more socks start popping up, then it will probably be worth a look. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics usage on hockey team articles

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

---

Djsasso has breached an agreement at WP:HOCKEY, concerning non-usage of diacritics on All North American hockey articles. This breach has occured at the article Portland Winterhawks. I've tried to get the editor to agree with the compromise, but he refuses to respect that agreement. What should be done? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I used WP:BRD to revert your change. As such I followed policy. At this point we perform the D part of BRD and discuss. Running straight to ANI seems to me to be a bit backhanded. Especially after you called me a dick for reverting you. You and Dolovis have spent the past year making sure that the hockey project has been told over and over again that it can't have such a compromise. So either we have one or we don't have one. You can't pick and choose when it suites you. I have no problem if the discussion at that page says to remove them. But the key being we have to have the discussion. This report seems a bit pointy to me. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to respect WP:HOCKEY's compromise or not? GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We are going to have the discussion at the talk page, as is part of BRD. When a consensus is clear whatever that may be I will follow it, as I always do. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're not going to follow the compromise, unless it favours your PoV? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

First revert yourself at Portland Winterhawks & then a discussion can be had at WP:HOCKEY. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you here. You know where the proper place is to discuss it. Feel free to join me there with anyone else that is interested. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Shall we consider this ANI report closed? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is up to you, you made the report. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Then closed it is. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Featured articles/Make Featured Article leaders elected (RFC)

Admin attention is needed following the above attempt to disrupt process through a poorly framed, discouraged and preemptive RfC (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Tone_of_the_conversation). The editor concerned, User:TCO, has been disrupting the featured article process for some time now, as is likely well known to many here. Has the community had enough of this yet? Geometry guy 06:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hum...change is needed at FA but not precisely those suggested by TCO...I don't see any evidence provided here that TCO has been "disrupting the featured article process for some time now".--MONGO 06:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Geometry guy, can you clarify what admin action you're looking for? 28bytes (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I am primarily drawing attention to a problem, and problematic behavior: Special:Contributions/TCO. However, an admin view on the (il)legitimacy of this RfC, and removal of notifications from WP:CENT and other fora (see TCO's contribs) would be a good starting point. Geometry guy 06:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I can usually sense when I'm out of my depth, and that appears to be the case here, so I will leave it to an admin better qualified to gauge the legitimacy of TCO's RfC to decide how to proceed. 28bytes (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any admin action is necessary, actually. The RfC is going down in a chorus of 'real' opposers and those who oppose the RfC as-worded. There's another one being drafted that will present the issue much better anyway. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I leave the issue with the admin community to decide that. Geometry guy 07:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked through his last 300 edits and nothing jumps out...what specifics do you have?--MONGO 07:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, he caused the recent three-ring circus at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive53#FAC spends too much time on trivial_topics. I'm sure there is more, but I haven't been watching that page closely as of late. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's really much admins can do at this point, short of a possible SNOW close when it reaches 100 oppose to 1 support. --Rschen7754 07:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we close this? I just got up and haven't yet read the specifics of what he wrote (I was aware of what he was going to write) but there's plainly nothing to be done here. Presenting someone's contributions and hoping someone will got through them and find something is inappropriate. Suggest close.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the background suggestion that someone is not permitted to open an RFC to discuss what they think is a good idea runs contrary to all that is Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Some proposals should be allowed to crumble under their own weight. That's the only way to know where WP:CONSENSUS stands. I see nothing particularly disruptive about this RfC. An early closure may be warranted at some point, but much sillier RfCs like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hentzer have been given their month in the sun, so it's probably best to let this one expire naturally. People may be stimulated by it to make FA-related counter-proposals that are more likely to succeed, so in that respect it's not totally useless. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A look deeper into TCO's contribs, FAC talk, and TCO's talk page should reveal several issues.

After being warned for his "leaking pussy juice out of its nutsack" comments in a paragraph that mentions me by name twice here,[6] he entered a long diatribe that was redacted by Carcharoth[7] at WT:FAC.[8] That's only a few days' worth-- the entire history would take much longer to put together.

There was one RFC already in planning stages at FAC, due to be launched Monday, when TCO's mentor Wehwalt launched a snap RFC at WT:FAC (not prevailing), which this new RFC repeats, related to the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign. This is now the third RFC (forum shopping since he's not prevailed so far). The RFC is not presented neutrally and it's canvassed to places TCO believes will support his view. Most of the basic information in the RFC framing is inaccurate: for example, I resigned as FAC delegate before this RFC was launched, FAC has never been short of delegates, and more. Leaving the RFC to run its course is unlikely to result in a different outcome, but it has been canvassed, the canvassing is in several places (like DYK and GOCE, where he perceives I am disliked, but not to GA, for example, where TCO perceives it won't prevail), and it is framed with incorrect data, which is on the Centralized template, poisoning the well for the RFC that was already in progress.

Independently, TCO recently made his first-ever appearance on Richard Nixon to back his mentor Wehwalt in edit warring, with the edit summary of "crufy rule monger",[9] in a case btw where they both falsely claimed the issue had been recently reviewed at FAC. Whether TCO should be topic banned from FAC might be considered at a later date, since there is a long history. Harassment, edit warring, canvassing, forum shopping-- all by an editor with a block log showing a history of disruption. Can admins think of no action needed in such a situation? For his mentor Wehwalt to ask that this thread be closed, during the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign is also iffy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've struck an error above: although TCO did NOT list GAN as being notified in his list on the actual RFC, his contribs shows that he did notify there. My mistake was from reading the RFC (another error there), which differs from TCO's contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The RfC demands many formal words describing its incompetence, the least of which is stupid, and I say that without trying to violate NPA. TCO has proven to be interested in a self-serving mission that is unclear to editors who are not TCO. He certainly has no interest in improving processes associated with article quality. He refuses to heed the opinions of editors with much more experience than he, preferring to depend on ill-formed confidence and oddly unscientific data that he manipulates with his own ends in mind. Those ends all point to the same direction: disrupt FAC. He was asked by Johnbod (talk · contribs) [10], Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) [11], twice by me [12], [13], and by other editors not to post his RfC, because it would inevitably be more about him than improving FAC. Mike Christie (talk · contribs) had already planned an RfC that would be neutrally and competently worded to solve the problems apparent at FAC.

This is where it must start. TCO is a disruptive editor. He does it slowly and deliberately, mostly working within the approved channels Wikipedia creates. The disruption, however, is there, and is profound. He brings a level of drama to one of the only forums on this site that is mostly dedicated to article quality, insisting on changing it for reasons that are spurious, and again, stupid. FAC has its faults as anyone will be glad to tell you. I was remiss in not bringing this to ANI in November when TCO insulted regular members of FAC with his sham of a study. This is apparently the first hoop that has to be jumped through for the community to realize TCO's actions do not improve this site in any way. He has had an earful from editors at FAC and remains steadfast in his resistance to listen to reason and logic. No one at FAC has been able to get through to him. Perhaps the community at large will. However, if anyone else here is unable to do so at this point, this matter will return. You can expect me, at least, to come back for the record. --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• The RfC has been withdrawn by TCO, so it seems no immediate action is needed. For the record, Wehwalt seems to have responded here and here to the numerous allegations made by Sandy about "Wehwalt for FA director" (which I think was a phrase posted by someone else, not Wehwalt). There is a long history between Sandy and Wehwalt, which it is probably best not to go into here, but stating in numerous places that someone is running a political campaign when they say they are not, starts to look like just another stage in a long-running dispute that erupts every now and again. Hopefully things will settle down at FAC soon. Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I know it's hard to keep up with, but Wehwalt has multiple times in multiple places refused to say he is not part of the "Campaign for Wehwalt as FA director", and more importantly, it is TCO's disruption that should be looked into here. Is understanding content, understanding disruption, taking admin action for anything beyond the simple curse word too hard for admins? It's astounding that admins here will overlook edit warring, what looks like tag teaming, and personal attacks so as not to have to do the work of looking into the issues. As to your "long history", TCO is now the second editor who has disrupted FAC and been supported by Wehwalt (the first is now indeffed, but not after support from Wehwalt), so yes, there's a history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not running a political campaign. I am not playing a political game. I understand that in some circles, and from my experience in writing articles on politics, that even a denial is seen as coyly politicking. Such things are utterly foreign to me. I do not understand why you resigned, Sandy, but if you are now saying it was caused by some Machiavellian plot by me, I'm totally lost. I write about people like Murray Chotiner and Mark Hanna. I do not, however, channel them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Denying that you have campaigned for FA director, while turning a blind eye to the disruption visited upon your mentee TCO, would be very easy to do. You haven't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

But he just, uh, did. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Clintonesque semantics-- he denied that he's "running" a campaign, or "playing"-- parse it however you want, he didn't deny that he wants to be FA director, as those with whom he acknowledges he is in off-Wiki contact with have stated, and he has turned a blind eye to the disruption caused by his mentee, TCO, at FAC, just as he supported the last editor who was indeff'd after similar behaviors. Off-topic anyway, admins will do nothing about TCO, we'll end up at ArbCom as we did in the last case, agree no point in continuing here with semantics. The obvious is ... well ... obvious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You read much more between the lines than me. I'd be interested in knowing why you think TCO is his 'mentee', though – I haven't seen evidence for it, and I'm curious because TCO doesn't seem to follow many of the same ideas as Wehwalt. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ummmm, because Wehwalt said he was ... I suppose we can take Wehwalt at his word on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a diff? I guess I missed the comment or I wouldn't have started this line of conversation. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with comments and evidence above by Moni3 and SandyGeorgia above that this incident is part of an ongoing pattern of disruption by TCO, but think we need to focus on the individual problem of his impulsive and abrasive editing, rather than tie it to a more complicated wider picture. Unfortunately, disruption is difficult to deal with, as telling comments by admins here indicate. There is even a suggestion that editors have a right to to be disruptive as long as they don't make a personal attack. Has civility enforcement become so problematic because it is the one of the few issues the community is still able to tackle?

Such wider questions aside, after a chorus of protest, and unanimous opposition, the RFC has now been withdrawn. Hence I concur with Carcharoth that this particular disruptive incident is over, and I do not object to this thread being closed. I also accept the implicit comment that before further action can be considered, some work is needed to compile and document the disruptive behavior. Unfortunately that takes time and effort by editors who are not responsible for the problem. Nonetheless, I won't be surprised if we find ourselves back here before too long. Geometry guy 18:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur, and agree to close, but recognize that based on history, we'll be right back here (and noting once again the irony in the failure of admins to do a single thing, while if someone had used a curse word, someone would already be blocked). Yep, close it; nothing we can expect from ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You should start Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TCO or take it to ArbCom. ANI is not suitable for dealing with patterns of less than incredibly obvious disruption. The discussion above about who is or who isn't stealthily running for some awesome wikijob doesn't make the disruption at all apparent to non-insiders. However, it does make the factionalism plain obvious. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears to be unsuitable even for dealing with incredibly obvious disruption, unless that disruption is obviously uncivil. And the definition of incivility here doesn't even include trampling over the views of all other editors and starting a preemptive and biased RfC in the midst of consensus efforts to frame a productive one, because there were no personal attacks or rude words involved. Geometry guy 22:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I resigned as an FAC delegate in part due to FAC disruption by TCO. I did not have the energy to deal with that, nor did I have any confidence that the community would be able to handle it until I (and others) had been through a long and exhausting attempt to reign it in. I've done that before for several other disruptive users; I don't have the energy left to do it again. TCO is setting a tone that is driving people away from FAC discussions. In my eyes, his behavior has very clearly crossed the line into disruptive editing, but no one is willing to take a stand and deal with it until many other editors have likely been driven away from processes or WP as a whole. Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Politician editing own article?

I have come across what looks like a classic case of a politician editing his own article, but would like others to have a look at it before proceeding. I recently found the Jean-Paul Floru article, which looked a little suspicious, particularly due a big puff about a book recently released and also linking to numerous blog posts written by the subject (see old version here). The user in question Hayekuk (talk · contribs) is named for an economist admired by the subject ("He became a supporter of classical liberalism after reading Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom"), and has added things to the article that look very much like the kind of thing that only the subject would be able to say about themselves (e.g. this). I asked the editor whether they were indeed the subject, but their response was simply to blank the section (take that how you want). In the meantime the article is tagged as COI. Number 57 16:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a typical puff piece. I don't know if being a councillor in Westminster automatically means notability, but for the most part, he is a wanna-be politician who despite a wall of text in the article didn't get elected. I suggest you drop a line on the BLP noticeboard, or maybe even put him up for deletion--he's not that notable. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  Looks like an old version was already deleted some time ago. I've PRODded the current version. Calabe1992 18:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally, when such things happen, they wind up embarrassing the person who did it. We are not as insulated from the real world as is sometimes thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Since he's already been PRODded and AfDed, I declined the PROD and immediately re-nominated it at AfD. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Sathishanandsanthanakrishnan

The above user new user has been editing Vairamuthu and appears to have a serious conflict of interest with the article. I have issued advice on this but have just noticed that he Has turned his user page into a full article self biography of himself which given the tag at the top may have been a previously deleted article. Thought it best to get administrative help re this. Not sure if there was somewhere more appropriate to place this.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIR would seem to be relevant here; I don't think this is someone who we really need to keep around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The user page was deleted and has been immediately been recreated.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. for incompetence and spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

User:La goutte de pluie and Singapore-related articles

Resolved

 – La goutte de pluie indefinitely blocked by NuclearWarfare. Can be revisited if/when La goutte de pluie is unblocked

• La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · logs)

A1 Current context:

• Wikipedia:BLP/N#Grace Fu and User:La goutte de pluie : permalink
• User talk:La goutte de pluie#Your edits on Grace_Fu : permalink

A2 Also see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/La goutte de pluie
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie
• User talk:La goutte de pluie#You were wrong about something

A3 This user has a history of tenacious editing on Singapore-related articles and has disregarded Wikipedia's policies on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in the process. I encountered La goutte the day before while editing a BLP on a Singaporean politician – Grace Fu, subsequently, I tried to reason with the user with regard to her inclination with putting undue weight on less prominent events, and later reported the incident on the BLP noticeboard. The issue is not resolved as of yet. An uninvolved admin and other users have asked La goutte to take a break from editing articles under this topic (Singapore politics), but the user has disregarded this suggestion. She does not appear to have an interest in increasing the quality of the content of these articles but only appears to insert critical commentary wherever she can. I stand opposed to this whole-scale corruption of our articles and the vilification campaign.

A4 Grace Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — La guotte version 1, La goutte version 2, La goutte current version Grace Fu has received media coverage recently for certain remarks she made on her facebook page. La goutte's style of selectively picking up phrases and quoting them on article pages is very disturbing. According to WP:BLP, Wikipedia is not a tabloid and biographical articles on living persons should be written conservatively and dispassionately. She later makes a POINTy addition to the article: [14]

A5 Young PAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [This article was created today.]

Quote: Lee's goal was to "keep the PAP as the sole...only main political party in Singapore" such that "when the people think about the government of Singapore, if they think about the future of Singapore, then they will think about the PAP".

La goutte has paraphrased Lee Hsien Loong's comments and then linked "only main political party" to the article on Single-party state.

Quote: Lee also said that the youth wing would be a channel in which the youth could communicate dissent, in which otherwise they might be "tempted" to vote for the Opposition and bring the PAP government down.

Again, I am disconcerted by the use of selective paraphrasing and quoting out of context. Quoting from the source:^[15]

"Indeed, BG Lee reflected the concerns of the leadership generally by pointing out the dangers that might lie in store if the Party did not work actively to involve the nation’s youth. Young people recruited into the new Youth Wing would find they had a tailor-made mechanism through which to voice dissenting opinions and be heard. Without such a mechanism, young citizens might grow frustrated with individual policies over the course of time; rather than working with the PAP to let their views be heard, they might be tempted to vote for opposition candidates instead, even though they might actually agree with the PAP fundamentals. And if enough young people felt that way, the PAP government could ultimately be brought down."

Under the section on "Internet presence", La goutte writes:

As part of the "dual strategy on the internet" in 1995, as usage of uncensored internet messageboards became more popular, the Young PAP began regularly commenting on the Usenet group soc.culture.singapore.^[16]

This constitutes original research, and though the material retrieved from Google Books mentions a "two-pronged strategy", it does not make a direct reference to the Young PAP, and therefore not relevant for the article; also "as usage of uncensored internet messageboards became more popular", is just another addition which La goutte has inserted all by herself.

A6 Central Executive Committee (PAP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Makes a reference to an "inner circle" in the lead paragraph, which is uncited. The rest of the article is pretty much unreferenced.

A7 George Yeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - recent edits

Quote: As an enticement for joining the YPAP, he said people joining the YPAP could take positions different from central party leadership.

Uses the word "enticement" to describe the George Yeo's actions.

A8 Lee Hsien Loong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – recent edits

This edit includes the same type of selective and out of context paraphrasing as demonstrated for the article on Young PAP.

This edit is not only a grammatical change, but it changes the meaning of the subject's words when quoted out of context.

Lee quickly rose through the civil bureaucracy as a brigadier-general in the 1980s and was one of the key leaders in the mid-1980s leadership transition. [17]

This assertion is unreferenced.

Lee was regarded as one of the next key leaders in the People's Action Party leadership transition that was taking place in the mid-1980s, as Lee Kuan Yew had declared that he would eventually step down as Prime Minister in 1984. Following the Singaporean general election, 1984, all the old Central Executive Committee members had resigned on 1 January 1985, except for Lee himself. ^[18]

This is entirely a false use of a JSTOR reference. The linked article does not contain these assertions.

A9 Population control in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – recent edit

La goutte had initially created this article as – Eugenics in Singapore, it was later moved to Family planning in Singapore by some other user, and then moved to Population control in Singapore by La goutte. This article still bandies eugenics in Singapore prominently, frequently making references to "government eugenics policies" rather family planning or population control.

I request uninvolved administrators pay urgent attention to this issue, and recommend a topic ban for La goutte de pluime as it is clear that they cannot contribute to Singapore related articles in a constructive manner. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We've been down this road so many times with LGDP. Many of us have observed and commented, but I'll only speak for myself: I've observed protracted, problematic edits and interactions over the past 6-7 months on Singapore-politics related articles and more recently, China-politicsrelated articles. I think this has to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

La goutte's response to A1, A2 and A3: I fear that Toddst doesn't appear to have much expertise in the subject, when he decides to accuse me of biased editing, when I am reflecting mainstream consensus on the subject. I am also very hurt that he thinks I do not have an interest in increasing the quality of the content of articles. I want readers to understand how Singapore came about, how it came to be, how it is governed, etc. etc. which is why I have been writing articles on Singapore since 2004. Unfortunately, Toddst has conveniently overlooked my contributions to those articles. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Nuclear Warfare's suggestion on your talk page, not Todd. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

La goutte's response to A4: That's not pointy. That was a genuine attempt at compromise. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Experienced users (including former administrators) are not expected to leave HTML comments like that within article space. But this isn't just it. There are quite a few threads on your talk page where other users have repetitively warned you against abusing {{cn}} tags on articles, but you still continue doing so. (relevant: NW's comment. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

HTML comments can guide edits; I don't get how the use of citation tags is relevant here -- I am simply tagging statements that do not comply with WP:V. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

La goutte's response to A5: Um, most political scientists agree that Singapore is a single-party state; if it is not one now, it definitely was in 1980s. You can look this up. I did not think this was contentious. I merely summarised the essence of what the YPAP themselves said on their website. Again, I don't think this was contentious, and if it was so, I apologise. Tell me how to fix it. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit Wikipedia according to your personal understanding of events, in the event you quote someone, please mention whom you're quoting and do not quote them outside of the context. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should I say, my understanding of the mainstream consensus of events; we all edit with limitations on our knowledge. I did not quote Lee Hsien Loong out of context -- in fact, I explicitly said the quote came from him. Lee was the Chairman of the YPAP, and he gave several reasons for the purpose of the YPAP. You haven't shown what context I am not showing. I have tried to faithfully represent all viewpoints as far as possible. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free)

The YPAP's own website bolded those comments. How is it quoting out of context to pick up on them? Can you explain what the context is? Lee is saying, the youth should be encouraged to join the PAP via the YPAP, otherwise dissent will be voiced through other means. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to get into a content dispute with you on the noticeboard. I believe other users are competent enough to judge these edits. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe other users are competent to judge that these were quite reasonable edits. The only pitfall is that they may not read the original references in which they came from. Have you read them? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am summarising the narrative of the article. Did you read the whole chapter? It is rather slanderous of you to insist I am making up references because, the book does make a reference to the YPAP. Please read page 259. And FYI, you can start getting informed on the issue by reading Censorship in Singapore. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The author does not say that the YoungPAP began to comment on online message boards as a part of PAP's "dual strategy on the internet". Also, the author has used the words "two-pronged strategy" and not dual strategy. This again, is not a mainstream view point, and does not warrant creation of an article, which I believe is what you wish to do, going by the fact that you have created a redlink to the page. Your recent edits on almost all Singapore politics related articles show that you have attempted to put undue weight on particular viewpoints, rather than striving to achieve NPOV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the preceding pages. I present to you the section header on page 256: The government's dual strategy on the internet. If he uses two-pronged strategy, it's unnecessary argument over semantics. As the author explains, the strategy is to 1) monitor citizens 2) reply to dissent. What is the mainstream viewpoint? Do you have an in-depth analysis that says otherwise? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

La goutte's response to A6: I planned to cite this soon. In any case, this is not a biography, so sourcing is less urgent. You can mark uncited statements if you want. I was planning to update that article later. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

One citation here (From the Straits Times ). Another source here to the "three orbits of leadership". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on a small oversight which I corrected elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 23:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Singapore-window re-posts copyrighted material from other sources and is not an authoritative source. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I meant to say Straits Times; singapore-window archives historically significant articles from it. In any case, I don't see how this supports a topic ban. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to continue your disruptive behaviour by revert-warring on the admin noticeboard? I request that someone else please restore the discussion above. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 01:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

La goutte's response to A7: My language reflects the author's own wording. The author had said George Yeo had "offered the inducement of". (footnote 35) I don't think this is very contentious. To paraphrase the YPAP's worries if you read the source, the young have been shying away from the YPAP. Therefore, allowing dissent in the YPAP, will entice them. I think this is neutral wording. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between inducement and enticement, but I am sure that you understand that. To entice is to lure, to induce is incentivize. — Nearly Headless Nick {C}

There is no practical difference. Please WP:AGF. Are you saying I used "entice" instead of "induce" out of my diabolical plan to portray the YPAP as a seductive group ensnaring the young? Maybe I was simply using my own words to avoid a copyright violation? And how does this affect the topic ban proposal? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

La goutte's response to A8: What? I am simply reflecting his role as a government leader in the 1980s. Do you know the subject? Please read the Library of Congress countrystudies, which looked at his influence in 1989. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this. The extra "the" was redundant -- that's why I removed it.

When you are quoting, mention whom you are quoting as a part of the text, and quote verbatim. The extra "the" was not actually extra. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It does nothing to change the meaning -- you could dispute this and I can change this, but certainly I don't know why this is being used as evidence in support of a topic ban. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't; it's sourced through the Library of Congress references.

This is a misrepresentation of the source. The article does not mention "civil bureaucracy", but "bureaucratic and political responsibility". As a matter of rule, while writing lead sections for BLPs, try quoting sources verbatim or appropriately paraphrase the content within context. But I don't need to tell you this, surely you understand that better. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This affects WP:V and WP:NPOV how? I paraphrased the content within context to the best of my ability. We have to balance conciseness as well-- I was merely summarising large amounts of text into single statements. Considering we do this for BLPs I see no reason why we can't apply the same summarising strategy in other articles. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. Did you read the whole article? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it doesn't. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read leadership transition in the People's Action Party where I used the same JSTOR source, plus more sources. I also used that source in Tony Tan Keng Yam. In any case, I believe the 1 January 1985 political transition event is well-documented; if I messed up, I am sorry, but I did not do that systematically and you are free to correct the error or point it out on the talk page. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

La goutte's response to A9: The Singapore Democratic Party and many other political analysts have referred these policies as eugenics policies. Even the Library of Congress has analysed these programmes like so. I am afraid that people have not been doing their research. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources used on the article pertaining to the Library of Congress mention the word "eugenics" even once. – [19], [20]. You are using Wikipedia as a tool to advance your political agenda. I am alarmed by your brazen disregard for NPOV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I messed up; I used many references in that article -- as you can see over 25. Here are some references that use "eugenics":

• Chadwick, Ruth (2000). Ethics, reproduction, and genetic control. Psychology Press. pp. 165. ISBN 978-0-415-08979-1.

Eugenics on the Rise: A report from Singapore

• Wong, Theresa; Brenda Yeoh (2003). "Fertility and the Family: An Overview of Pro-natalist Population Policies in Singapore". ASIAN METACENTRE RESEARCH PAPER SERIES (12).

. As such, population policies have been categorized into three main phases: the anti-natalist phase (1966-1982); the ‘eugenics’ period (1983-1987)

• Mui, Teng Yap (1995). [ http://www.un.org/Depts/escap/pop/journal/v10n4a3.htm "Singapore's `Three or More' Policy: The First Five Years"]. Asia-Pacific Population Journal 10 (4): 39–52.

"The last point mentioned has been the most controversial because of its eugenic implications." Note that this study comes from the United Nations.

Btw, from the second LOC ref:

“ The leadership's conviction of the state's vulnerability to manifold dangers and of the self-evident correctness of its analysis of those dangers resulted in very limited tolerance for opposition and dissent. ”

Do you dispute this? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please reformat the complaints and responses sections? Right now, the section above me is so irredeemably confused that I can't tell what's a complaint, what's a response, and what's a response to the response. Indentations and signatures with timestamps exist for a reason; please make use of them. No comment on the proposal until that's done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Holy moly, where does one start? I wish someone had hit rollback the first time LGDP started ping-ponging here--I think it's their responsibility to clean this up, or maybe competence is an issue here. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just cleaned this up. I find it hard to believe that a former administrator cannot even properly comment on a thread without creating a mess which others have to clean up. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe WP:POINT and sowing confusion are part of her editing style? I recall [21] and see a repetition with [22]. So a topic ban from whatever area she disrupted now (Singapore, China?) won't be enough. She reminds me of User:TreasuryTag in that respect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to insinuate that, nor is it entirely her fault, just that I can't consider arguments for or against a topic ban when I can't even tell who's saying what above. I don't think anyone's trying to be deliberately obfuscatory. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: La goutte de pluie is topic banned on Singapore politics related artices

• Support: as proposer. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - absolutely time for this. From my experience, the User is apparently unable to edit the BLP articles in Singapore related articles from a WP:NPOV compliant position. I have no experience of the China topic area but I fully suspect as per Todd's experience, that the same is true of the users contributions in that topic area. Youreallycan (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have always sought to use appropriate sourcing. Can you please tell me how I have violated NPOV policy? I use the sources at my disposal, and I find my sources primarily through Google. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I go away for four months and still nothing's changed, I see. The previous efforts have failed and it is time to ratchet it up from a simple 1RR to a topic ban. Support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have used high-quality third party references and high-quality books. I am puzzled. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose see nothing wrong with the edits in questions. they seem to have references etc Bouket (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If the basis for this is simply "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", you should probably review the evidence produced above in more depth rather than simply saying you "see nothing wrong" because the edits "have references", considering that the charges include that said references are a fundamental part of the problem. It's not a question of whether she's referencing her edits, but rather how she is doing so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh Strange Passerby, yet Toddst has yet to show what is really problematic with the references nor how they were improperly used. Has Toddst provided a sample survey of the literature to show that I am cherypicking references or distorting weight? Do you know why? Because he can't; he doesn't know what he's talking about; he hasn't looked at the academic literature, and I have cited a liberal amount of viewpoints, and in fact, I have no stance on the matter. I am merely interested in the facts -- and who said what.
    • Oh it's also ironic that you say that, considering that the above three votes are political in nature, based on friendship, and not based on sound logic. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And do you have any argument to back your stance up? No? Didn't think so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Ironic, as you, Strange Passerby did not provide any form of argument in your !vote either. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Don't believe I need to — I referenced the fact that "nothing's changed", indicating my stance to be similar to prior discussions on this issue, which are readily available at the very top of the main thread in Nearly Headless Nick's links... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You could do without putting words in his mouth; he'll respond if he wants to, and if not the admin masochistic enough to close this will weigh it accordingly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what?

And what did I do with China politics-related articles? The only thing I did was oppose the requested move from China to Chinese civilization. Since 2005, I have an interest in Chinese history. I am not out to push a POV. I did not selectively quote. Nick seems unhappy that political scientists online have not been entirely favourable to the Singaporean government. However, I am out to reflect mainstream consensus of the subject. I do not cherry pick and always seek a balanced view of the subject. I sought to thoroughly include many sources in my editing: a reader can read through population control in Singapore and note the diversity of viewpoints.

I am not sure what my crime is. I have thoroughly and painstakingly researched many of my articles, ever since I joined Wikipedia. I wrote PAP-UMNO relations, Battle of Singapore, much of History of Singapore (which still bears my language), many of the places for Singapore geography, and laid the foundation of many Singaporean articles. In these articles, I have sought references which explained and analysed historical events. Nick appears to be a newcomer who takes objection to any viewpoint unfavourable to the Singaporean government. Nick appears unfamiliar with much of my old work.

I would also like inquiry to Toddst's inappropriate use of admin tools to block me in a dispute, which was brought up earlier in an ANI thread. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction. I've struck the china articles from the proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, "slap a bunch of accusations and see what sticks". This is convenient. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lgdp, whatever content contributions you've made in the past is irrelevant to your current spate of editing behaviour on Singapore politics-related topics. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, those claims against Toddst were completely unfounded and the complaint was thrown out, just for clarity's sake. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

this is a real question. has an admin ever been mentioned here recently and people felt action should be taken against them? Bouket (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In both cases here, I see no plausible reason for blocking whatsoever."
• " In brief, Toddst1 was involved and the block was a disproportionate response to the conduct in question." [23] elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I note that Toddst is canvassing for votes to support his proposal, if you look at his contributions. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not canvassing to notify with neutral wording possibly involved users or interested users of an ANI discussion. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is if he is cherry picking users to notify. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking - my ass. I notified the admin that unblocked you.[24] Toddst1 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Still irrelevant to topic at hand. Take your complaint about Toddst1 to a new section please Bouket. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this admin was also involved with incident here [25] which i cant find in the archives can someone find it? because of this instance where i spoke up against hid friend i was ordered an interaction ban here[26] despite that other people found me helpful and i was just trying to help out like this person said [27] and he also changed his comments on my talk page when i said they werent helpful [28] and never AGF despite telling me i should AGF for him. he also was stalking me on wikipedia here [29] and here [30] and here [31] and ill probably be blocked for talking about him now. Bouket (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you would be interested in a user conduct RFC. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 00:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Bouket, your edits do not belong in this topic. Just because you have a complaint about an admin doesn't mean that you can complain about that admin in an unrelated topic. You're just adding unnecessary clutter here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) sorry bbb23 i just thought that the admin was acting extremely rashly recently so wanted to mention it. he would make very fast edits without thinking about them and used lots of words that show anger or annoyance as well Bouket (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing disruption

User:La goutte de pluie is now stalking my edits to alter articles on my contribution history. – [32], [33], [34], [35] and also hiding my comments without my permission and revert-warring over them. It's very exasperating dealing with her. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 01:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I simply note that you take a rather excessive interest in Ahmedabad (as a member of one of its schools) and was worried about your neutrality, which is why I have tagged Ahmedabad for neutrality issues. I think you should find my edits reasonable. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 02:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

I note that NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now blocked La goutte de pluie indefinitely for the above disruption. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Since this is the 2nd time NW blocks her, I guess we will soon hear that he is another admin with a grudge on her... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

He missed the last 3 meetings. Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible whelwarring over offensive off-topic post

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

---

As an uninvolved administrator, I removed an offensive off-topic text at WP:RD/S (with pertinent edit summary), which was immediately reverted by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here. I asked them at user talk:Beeblebrox#No wheelwarring, please to undo the revert, but was refused on the grounds that this wasn't wheelwarring. Now, we may disagree on the exact legal interpretation of WP:WHEEL, but I think the intent of that policy is clearly stated thusly: "Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." Am I misunderstanding this?

I would like to achieve three things with this post:

1. Get the offensive off-topic post removed;
2. Better understand the intent of WP:WHEEL;
3. Learn how I can help keep Wikipedia a place that we all can be proud of - without being reverted by another admin. — Sebastian 20:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are misunderstanding WP:WHEEL, which only refers to administrative actions. Continued reverting would be an edit war, however. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the context of the comment in question, I'd say it's not that huge a deal. I'd be inclined just to leave it alone; if you feel that strongly about it, ask the user who made it to reconsider. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point; in this case the editor may very well be fine with the removal. However, just asking generally: Do we really have to tolerate here any and all offensive off-topic remarks - can't that be left to the discretion of an uninvolved admin? Where has that been decided? — Sebastian 21:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In most places really egregious material can be removed by an uninvolved admin, but most of the time, if people do anything with it, it can be hatted or collapsed; that leaves it there without it being in plain view. The Reference Desk is something akin to an alternate universe in this regard, though, I don't know how they operate over there. I would suggest talking about it at WT:RD, but my somewhat limited experience there is that those conversations don't get too far. It's worth a try, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is offensive is of course highly subjective. For example, I find it offensive to be dragged to ANI for wheel warring by an admin who does not even understand what the term means. People get desysopped for wheel warring, it's no joke and is something I take very seriously. Except that it did not happen in this case. And the remark that started it was harmless enough anyway. I've been dragged to the drama boards before on some pretty slim pretexts, but not by another admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wait--a Wikipedia editor citing policy without knowing what's in it? What is this world coming to? Drmies (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox was correct to revert removal of the comment, it wasn't a personal attack, merely editors bantering Shakesperean style comments. See WP:TPG. Nobody Ent 21:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm also a little disturbed at the language in his posts here, specifically "we may disagree on the exact legal interpretation of WP:WHEEL." Surely any of us understand the difference between WP policy and law? Especially an administrator, right? Sebastian asks me to respect his decision to unilaterally censor a remark two days after it was made and the thread had gone stale. Well, I don't respect that decision as it has no basis in policy.I mean, really, the discussion was about how long it would take to walk from the earth to the sun, and due to the rather silly nature of that question it drew some rather silly replies. And then two days later the civility police swoop in and censor some of those remarks. Not cool. I assume we can let this go now that it has been made clear to the user starting this thread that there is no basis for what they did and even less basis t their accusations of wheel warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add onto what Reaper says. Yes, WP:WHEEL only applies to administrator actions, which this was not. But even if this did involve administrator actions, this would not be a case of wheel warring. WP:WHEEL is very clear. Administrators can revert another admin's actions. That's not wheel warring. Wheel warring begins when the reverted action is restored. In other words, with red being wheel warring: admin action, revert, revert, revert... Also, we shouldn't pin this misunderstanding solely on Sebastian; a significant portion of administrators clearly think any reversion of an administrative action is wheel warring (I've witnessed in multiple times in the few short months I've been a sysop). Swarm ^X 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi all! Relax, nice cup of tea, we were just being silly. The wheel thingy is not very important, we all have a common goal here: improving Wikipedia. Much love, Von Restorff (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Help needed

Can someone please delete this AfD? I nominated the article with twinkle, the script froze, the process somehow reset and this ended up happening. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Just for future reference, you can simply tag such pages with {{db-self}}. :) Swarm ^X 22:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was possible for someone to qualify as an "author" of an AfD with the authority to request deletion. Thanks for the advice. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, or when in doubt, another option is {{db-g6|rationale=Accidentally created page, etc.}} Swarm ^X 00:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mobile Payments in India

Could an admin review this article, especially as edited by User:Priyabhar? The problem is repeated addition of WP:OR and WP:SOAP, as seen most recently in this edit. Although virtually all of the content appears to be original research or opinion, see in particular text such as "generally, new technology solutions tend to have their own evolutionary paths,so I would rather not make any predictions. Nevertheless there is a tremendous sense of optimism with the prospect of having the ubiquitous mobile phone with the ability to transfer money" and "only banks which are licensed and supervised in india and have a physical presence in india will be permitted to offer mobile payment services to residents of India"; this edit which suggests that the editor is acting on behalf of an organisation to advance a pov ("I have entered the details which was approved by MPFI") and all the pictures the user has uploaded without any license info, such as File:Previously Proposed Architecture.png, File:Evolution of teledensity.png, File:ProposedDesignChanges.png and File:Teledensity.png. I have attempted to engage with the user and encourage them to read the appropriate guidelines both on their talk page and in my edit summaries on the page but they persist in adding the text over and over again. They have now received a level 4 warning, though as this is not vandalism per se I have not taken this to WP:AIV. Note also that they have also edited this article once as Special:Contributions/117.193.177.161. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In its current state it seems to me more of a case of close paraphrasing/verbatim copying without crediting the sources. Observe this huge chunk (which includes the material you quoted above) as well as these two biggish chunks. All that material can and should be deleted as a copyright infringement. – Voceditenore (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've blanked the page with {{Copyviocore}} and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 January 9. I suspect virtually all the rest of the article is composed of copied sentences from multiple sources, which makes it much more complicated. It will probably require a complete rewrite. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch; thank you. Those documents also appear to be where the images the editor uploaded came from. They also explain the weird use of tables that put outlines round some of the text - it appears it was to emulate the breakout boxes in the source. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth keeping the page on watch for the next 7 days. I've just reverted an IP registered to Indian Institute of Technology, Madras who had removed the blanking template [36]. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And again [37] (reverted by another editor). Voceditenore (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Hamill

why is his page gone? he was very funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.117.29 (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you mean Aaron Hamill, who appeared in a programme called The Man Show, an article on him was deleted in 2009. The discussion which led to the deletion is here.--Kateshortforbob _talk 09:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor is advocating for linking to pro-pedophilia sites on a talk page

Resolved

Radvo (talk · contribs) has linked several times to sites that advocate for pedophilia, notably MHAMIC (Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors information center) and IPCE (International Pedophile and Child Emancipation) as well as helpingpeople dot info, on Talk:Rind et al. controversy ([38], [39]). I have repeatedly removed them [40], [41], [42] and stated in no uncertain terms that linking to these sites is never acceptable - they are not reliable sources, and they are far, far, far too partisan for an illegal act to ever be convenience links. Despite this, Radvo is still arguing for the sites to be considered [43]. May I request the community have a look, and perhaps stomp, hard? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Pedophilia this should probably be reported directly to arbcom. N^oformation ^Talk 02:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Report per WP:CHILDPROTECT Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, done via e-mail to arbcom, will follow-up further tomorrow morning. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above advice looks like it was given mindlessly. If WP:CHILDPROTECT came into play, it should, by all means, be reported without any discussion. However, I don't see where that policy comes into play— how is this user trying to advocate pedophilia in any sense? This diff looks like a good faith effort to seek a third opinion on the disagreement. If these links advocate pedophilia in any way, they should absolutely not be used. If they repeatedly try to insert such links into articles, action would probably be necessary. But I certainly wouldn't say this user's behavior warrants a report to arbcom in the interest of child protection. Just MHO. Swarm ^X 03:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Historically, the general rule has been to tread with caution on this subject. Generally we don't even have discussions about it, we send it to arbcom, they either block or not and that's the end of it. N^oformation ^Talk 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've already e-mailed arbcom, but it would be very helpful if you provided that third opinion, or at least further demonstration of the community consensus that linking to these sites is flatly unacceptable. The IPCE, MHAMIC and helpingpeople dot info sites do indeed advocate for the legalization of adults having sex with children, I did just enough research to confirm that fact. From a research perspective, they're totally unacceptable convenience links, they're never going to be reliable sources, and the page contents are for the most part worthless - the scholarly sources are plentiful and well-documented, as well as easy to turn up via google scholar and pubmed. There is simply no reason, good or bad, to link to them - and a multitude of reasons not to. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how that is at all relevant to my above comment. Swarm ^X 03:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, user Radvo also linked to the Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center and the International Pedophile and Child Emancipation sites on his userpage (he removed it, but it's in the history). As you might imagine, these are pretty sketchy sites, and while linking to them on one's userpage doesn't prove anything about the linker, it's also reasonable to wonder what the person is about. (And it's arguably possible that those links on one's userpage are technically instant-ban offenses.)

How cautious the ArbCom wishes to be is up to them, but beyond that, the user (and another, who arrived at about the same time...) is being tendentious (of the fringe+prolix variation) at Rind et al. controversy around this fraught issue and I think that everyone would be happier if he was contributing to those websites instead of this one. Sooner or later (if ArbCom doesn't act, which they might not) some sort of resolution is going to likely be required. Herostratus (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeing. Just opining that, frankly, we shouldn't rush to label someone a pedophile, and report them as such, unless such is clear. Swarm ^X 06:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree we can't hasten to label anyone a pedophile, but I think there's something problematic about this user. Previously his sandbox contained what appeared to me to be a re-write of the Rind et al. controversy article, a very POV rewrite (see diff ). I think he might have an agenda and I think it needs looking into. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 10:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Swarm, my reply was in part to you and in part to the editors suggesting this be reported to arbcom. The part to you was in response to "This diff looks like a good faith effort to seek a third opinion on the disagreement." I'm not advocating for a block of Radvo - I'm saying s/he needs to learn, quickly, that these links are not and will never be acceptable on wikipedia. That requires attention from outside the current page participants, because apparently Johnuniq's wasn't neutral enough (nor was Legitimus' apparently [44]). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

While WLU's concern is understandable, and he has been very careful to avoid the direct statement, discussions about individual editors and WP:CHILDPROTECT should always be had off-wiki, as they will inevitably always come across as accusations. Arbcom are watching the situation, and will certainly take action if deemed appropriate. WLU - or indeed any other editor - is welcome to continue to email their own concerns to Arbcom. I'd be grateful if that part of this discussion that risks directly addressing Radvo's motives could be closed down. The 3O request, and discussion of sources is not problematic at the moment, and I am watching. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Have left a note on Radvo's talkpage. Please don't hesitate to let me know if he continues to add the problematic links. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest posts have not included these links anymore, and several editors have commented on the talk page. The remaining issues are behavioural, and should be addressed elsewhere, so I consider this resolved. Thanks to arbcom and others providing comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Teabagger" vandal is back

Я русский (talk · contribs)

Я русский, a vandalism only account that has edited under many user names(the one I remember most recently is Dhajkfljk) and ips seems to be back in action. I don't want to violate the 1rr restrictions on the Tea Party movement article and am heading for bed now. The vandal usually changes all references to the Tea Party to "Teabaggers" and when an editors reverts, he/she vandalizes their page and refs to that user as a teabagger. One diff. Thanks Dave Dial (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He was indef'd a minute before you posted. Sometimes them admins are fast as a bolt of lightning driving a Porsche. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

1RR and 3RR do not apply when reverting blatant vandalism or edits by banned users. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cikgu Jasmin Airways

78.101.101.192 (talk · contribs) has added this airline name to about18 airport ages, but it does not appear to exist. Their other edits seem unreferenced, but may be correct. I have asked the editor for an explanation on their talk page. I am unsure what, if anything to do now. --220 of ^Borg 13:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor informed here --220 of ^Borg 13:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have also informed WikiProject Airport here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. --220 of ^Borg 14:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not again..

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

Interaction ban enacted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Frankly I am just sick to death of having to put up with this user's hostility so I'll just report this right away. User:Timbouctou (even after being warned and blocked for a week for exactly that sort of behavior) once again arrived on a perfectly amiable discussion between myself and a third user and immediately started intensely revert-warring, threatening [45], and insulting my intelligence by implying I do not know my own language ("perhaps your Croatian might not be perfect" [46], he of course knows full well I am a Croat). I mean this sort of stuff just ruins the discussion right then and there and you know there is no chance of an amicable agreement from that point on, its one-post instant disruption.

When I asked him to stop, he just replied with "yeah yeah, spare the usual rants". Bearing in mind the two previous ANI reports about this user's flaming [47][48], and my previous experience with him, I don't even want to wait for this to escalate to the point where I'm called a "psychopath". It seems the user "got over" his block and its just business as usual all over again. I honestly feel this person's "out to get me", attempting to provoke me into another one of his conflicts to then try and get me blocked in retaliation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in commenting your distortions and rants. The matter is explained quite clearly at Talk:Zoran Milanović#Atheism and I would have reported you here for editing against consensus and violating WP:3RR anyway ([49], [50], [51], [52]). And all this in the very same article where you had violated WP:3RR and started an entire drama involving half a dozen editors over which image should be used in the infobox ([53], [54], [55]) two months earlier (and were even accused of harassment over it by the image uploader, twice). Looks like getting blocked eight times for edit-warring did not do the trick. Hopefully a ninth one might send the message more clearly. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rants", right.. As I said twice before, Timbouctou only ever tries to attack me in response to being reported himself, trying to prove I really do deserve his treatment. This has happened time and time again, and here as well, a discussion is a "drama I started", some new user's uninformed accusation of "harassment" is brought out, as well as everything I might have done over six years on Wikipedia. (As far as I can see, those four edits took place over the course of several days. And while I am sure Timbouctou would not mind to get himself blocked as well only to get me blocked for a longer period, I will point out he neglects to mention he reverted three times [56] [57] [58].) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, DIREKTOR's first three reverts occurred at 13:23, Jan 3, 18:24, Jan 4 and 21:35 Jan 4. Following the third one I reverted warning him that he had no source for his insertion and that he would be reported for edit-warring if he continues. He then simply reverted again on 05:21, Jan 5. And as has been pointed out in the thread at article talk page by User:GregorB and then by me, DIREKTOR's insertion about the politician's beliefs is unsupported by the source provided. DIREKTOR hasn't got a source and he hasn't got consensus. His modus operandi consists of writing up essays on the nature of atheism, and then, not wasting time to wait for a reply, reverting the article back, citing "per talk" in the diff description. I guess that is his idea of a "perfectly amiable discussion". Timbouctou (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake. This type of WP:HOUNDING and poor interaction between DIREKTOR and Timbouctou has already been going on for a very long time, and we need somebody to stop this current useless conversation. They have both been involved in several bad situations and now they going out harrassing one another once again. How unnecessary. Minima© (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake. This is not a case of WP:HOUNDING at all. User:DIREKTOR has problems with pretty much anyone editing any article he is involved in because of his editing practices and regularly gets into conflicts all over the place. I believe User:Nuujinn is currently drafting a RFC/U about his behaviour. User:Joy also had something to say about his "amiable discussions" last time DIREKTOR dragged me here in mid-December, but was ignored. User:Fainites had topic-banned him back in April but it seems it didn't work because Fainites' assessment of his behaviour is true today as it was back then. Timbouctou (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Minima. Excuse me, but I do not think the harassment can possibly be characterized as mutual. I believe you'll find I've been going well out of my way to avoid having any contact with Timbouctou whatsoever. I do not find him pleasant company. On the other hand here's another recent example (in addition to the previous ones listed in past discussions) where I am having a normal amicable discussion with others only to have Timbouctou arrive to oppose me. Its like a weird reverse of "if you have nothing good to say say nothing at all": he basically "reviews" what I do, and if he feels my reign of terror needs to be curbed, he joins in to oppose my position, and, often enough, to attack me. If I'm not seeing Timbouctou appear in a discussion, its likely because he can't think of a way to oppose me.

As I said in the previous two discussions [59], and even after being told by others to focus on his own actions, all this user does is try to paint me as a menace and a troublemaker whenever he is reported. This is my perception, but I see this not only as irrelevant in justifying his actions (along the lines of "he deserves it"), but as personal attacks. And yet again in this thread as well, he's justifying his harassment - with more harassment here on ANI. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To be quite fair, DIREKTOR is not only edit warring with Timbouctou, but also with GregorB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And in terms of edit warring, it seems to me that DIREKTOR's hands are less clean, with as many reverts as he has (not that Timbouctou is at all guiltless). I'd be inclined to block DIREKTOR over this, especially given his already extensive block log, but would also consider a block of Timbouctou, since he's also got a history of this offence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And to be even fairer, I am, as usual, only restoring the status quo. Gregor was bold, I reverted him and we had a standard, amicable discussion on the talkpage. Then Timbouctou arrives and we basically end up here. My problem is that I carefully avoid edit-warring to push new edits (per WP:BRD I discuss when my new edit is reverted), and so I can't stand it when people try to push new edits through edit-warring. "Force over reason" is how I perceive it. My block log is extensive because I edited a lot less appropriately years and years ago (when I was really just a kid :)). My point is, why block anyone over edit-warring? The edit-war is over, WP:3RR has not been violated, and to do so is just punitive.

Also, as I said, I strongly believe it was (and is) Timbouctou's intention to provoke edit-wars and then report me with my longer (ancient) block log, banking on me getting a much longer block. I mean the guy dislikes me that much. Its likely his idea of "retaliation" for being blocked for a week after a string of personal attacks, and that strategy appeals to his perception of me as a "troublemaker" ("you're a menace and now you'll pay for it"). It wouldn't be the first time either. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The status quo enjoys no protected status at Wikipedia, for the simple reason that the status quo sometimes contains factual errors, POV etc. Therefore such reverts have no exemption. And as for your block log being ancient, I wouldn't call 8 October 2011 ancient by anyone's definition. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's a partial response isn't it? :) No, the most recent one isn't of course. Look I'm not saying I am blameless with regard to the tiny edit-war (and its about as tiny as they get), I'm saying that 3RR was not really violated by either party, that its over, and that it would be punitive to block anyone. But I'll say it once more: this is Timbouctou switching the subject away from himself over to the user he is harassing (as he does every time, edit war or no edit war). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocking both of you to stop you both from engaging in your silly bickering war would be certainly not qualify as punitive, it would be palliative.--Adam in MO Talk 09:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, except that it's already stopped.. Sigh. If you guys want to block, fine, block me for posting four reverts, not over 24 hours, but since January 3. But what annoys me is how this thread has departed off topic, and how my behavior is being equated with that of Timbouctou - which indicates a lack of understanding of the wider context. Is anyone reading through the two older cases? This is not a "silly", minor issue, at least not where I'm standing. I posted this to report a continuation of the same behavior that Timbouctou was warned for, and then blocked for a week [60][61]. This user won't leave me alone, I'm asking for help and a review of the user's behavior, and all anyone can do is focus on the four reverts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If by "it's already stopped" you mean you won't revert that most recent edit, sure, I won't block. Are you indeed saying you won't? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah. Didn't I stop edit-warring and post this thread? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• How many times has one of these chaps dragged the other to ANI? Isn't it time for an interaction ban? Whenever they bump into each other things start exploding. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Basalisk: I never dragged anyone to ANI in my 6+ years here. On the other hand, DIREKTOR is what some call "a visitor" at ANI. I was never reported for anything by anyone other than him and all my previous three blocks came after interactions with him. On the other hand he seems to have a problem with someone somewhere on at least a weekly basis. All I ask is for him to accept consensus and stop owning articles. That is pretty much it. But it seems too much for him. Dozens of people asked him to stop it over the past two years to no avail. In the end it is always him who reports others because he considers ANI to be an editing tool. Once here, he gets a short block at most or a millionth warning to play nice and everything is back to business after that. I find it astonishing how a guy who chased away so many people from this project still manages to get so much sympathy around here by gaming the system. Timbouctou (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't have a lot of sympathy for either of you; I rarely remember all the details of ANI discussions from weeks and months previous, but I remember your names cropping up many times in the past and therefore feel that when the two of you together it causes nothing but trouble. I know you're not the only person to have had a problem with Direktor, but I'm just making the suggestion that you will, naturally, have less trouble with him if you just avoid him. What do you think? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

...all that being said, direktor has got to stop attributing religious beliefs to BLPs when he has absolutely no sources to back up the claims. He seems to have a compulsion of going around tagging BLPs as atheists, regardless of what sources actually say. I also suggest that the use of non-English sources is unhelpful when used in relation to a highly-contentious issue. This is the en-WP after all. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Basilisk: Everybody knows that he owns a few dozen articles and normal editors avoid them like the plague by default. That is the status quo, that is, most people avoid him already. The line where he gets intolerable is when he appears in articles which are actually edited by other people and goes against consensus and/or bites newcomers. Notice that in this particular instance I reacted only after he chose to ignore disagreement expressed by User:GregoB, a long-time user in perfectly good standing. I know that GregorB would have probably just walked away not wanting to waste time on DIREKTOR, but I don't think we content editors need to put up with it any longer. I don't enjoy being dragged over here every now and then, but to be honest I'm sick of everybody editing Croatia-related articles just shrugging it off and accepting it as fact of life. But I see what you meant - I do not have any intention of following him around and my interests are wider than his so there are areas where I can be useful without bumping into him. Of course I can do that and my life would be a whole lot easier. But I doubt it would solve the problem long-term. Timbouctou (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Direktor blocked I've blocked Direktor for 1 week. Direktor knows what the WP:3RR is and stopping at exactly 3 reverts is not a change in his behavior, it's trying to game the system to avoid a block. Escalating the block to 1 week per previous blocks will be a deterrent to future edit warring. The issue isn't just a WP:3RR issue but also a WP:BLP issue. In this case, I think User:Timbouctou is exempted from WP:3RR because of the BLP issue of whether or not to label a living person as a specific belief or non-belief. --v/r - TP 14:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for temporarily unblocking me TParis. I appreciate it, and will not edit anything other than ANI.

Regarding my block, I won't challenge it, even though I feel like a week-long sanction might be somewhat excessive for 4 reverts/3 days, but once again, in all objectivity, I feel like the matter was not treated fairly. I'm not going to discuss the issue here, but, as I pointed out on my talkpage, the WP:BLP exemption does not apply to User:Timbouctou any more than it applies to myself, and I believe the opposite is a mistaken assumption. WP:BLP would apply, for example, if I was adding unsourced information and Timbouctou was removing it, while this dispute (and this is evident from the relevant thread) concerns precisely whether the information was directly sourced or not. We even went into the dictionaries. Timbouctou challenges this, but from my point of view, Timbouctou was removing directly supported, sourced information and I was restoring it.

To say WP:BLP apllies to him especially is to "rule" in his favor in the dispute about what the source supports ("yes Timbouctou, the disputed content was not sourced as you said and you were right in removing it, so now you don't get blocked for a week"). And that is anything but fair in any context, and especially considering the discussion and a review of the sources was cut short. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban

User:DIREKTOR and User:Timbouctou should be banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI reports about each other for 6 months except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban.--v/r - TP 14:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Support as proposer.--v/r - TP 14:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – always trouble; iBan will help both to move on to more constructive editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basalisk (talk • contribs)

Comment I agree with everything except the "replying to each other in any discussion" bit. Can that be dropped? (Btw I had to correct TP's post above - it's User:DIREKTOR, not User:Direktor) Timbouctou (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I lurk around ANI every now and then and have noticed these two butting heads a lot, regardless of who started it or who did what to whom. I heartily support an interaction ban. Timbuctou, dropping the "replying to each other in any discussion" bit as you put it rather renders an "interaction" ban pointless, don't you think? Blackmane (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if everything else was kept it would still be an interaction ban since we'd be banned from undoing each other's edits. But if it comes with the standard package I'm fine with it. Timbouctou (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Appears to be the logical next step. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that a variation of Timbouctou's amendment makes sense. An interaction ban, with the very specific exception of discussing article content on an article talk pages, would enable third parties to more easily ascertain whether an edit to an article is good or bad, where one makes an edit and the other disagrees with it. If it doesn't work, the exemption is easily removed. —WFC— 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Setting the edit-war aside, I would like to ask the question whether it is fair that, in addition to being the only one who is blocked, I am also now to be forced to restrict my edits? The tendency on WP:ANI is always to "equate the guilt", as it were. And its a strong tendency, because I have to point out again: the harassment is not mutual, and I challenge anyone to show otherwise. I don't WP:STALK Timbouctou around, its vice versa.

To be perfectly blunt, what I am saying is: why should I have to stay away from Timbouctou? I don't hate him like he despises me, I tried my absolute best to have us reconciled five separate times (5:0 as far as that's concerned), but he just plain thinks I'm some sort of "menace" he's called-upon to protect Wikipedia from. You saw above he doesn't even like the fact that I use capital letters in my username (likely the font annoys him as well to no end).

This thread is about just the latest manifestation of a long-time pattern of harassment ("perhaps you don't know your own language?"). How does it make sense that my editing should now be in any way restricted thanks to this harassment? I avoid the user like the plague anyway, to be sure, but why should I, for example, be sanctioned if I happen to respond politely and appropriately to something he writes? I'm not the one harassing him - its the other way around. Please put yourself in my shoes for a moment: you get harassed for months, the user harassing you is warned and blocked, continues to harass you - and now you're supposed to restrict your activities on the project because of this guy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an interaction ban, not an interaction blame. It's in everyone's interests, yours included, if this particular bear doesn't get poked. Maybe the cause of that is that this particular bear is especially growly, but it's still a reasonable restriction that you should stop poking it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, for the love of god, yes. Swarm ^X 20:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It seems hardly a week goes by without a report here concerning at least one of these two, and usually both - and there really are more important things for people to be doing than constantly dragging them apart -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Discussion between these two does not work; ever. This means the attempted amendment is a farce - the time for polite discussion is long past. As such, the only way to protect this project from the massive timesink is to implement a full-bore interaction ban ASAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm sure we are all quite tired of scrolling past this stuff every time we come to AN/I. They clearly just do not work well together and everyone will be better off if they can just steer clear. causa sui (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I can't remember a time when there hasn't been an active thread involving some conflict Direktor has been involved in. This would be a good start. --Jayron32 01:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. However i don't get, with all due respect, why here on en.wiki (i write mainly on it.wiki) you allow such a recedive editor to continue editing on the encyclopedia. How many times one has to be blocked for the same things before being undefinitely banned? DIREKTOR has been blocked 10 times and restriced many times. And surely Timbouctou behaviour is problematic too and needs, in my opinion, a temporary ban. Being too fair lead the same things happeing times and times again... AndreaFox (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, and tolerating Timbouctou's stalking and harassment has led to it "happeing times and times again". AndreaFox, forgive me for asking, but what are you doing here? Yes I know you would absolutely love to have me indeffed or something, I'm sure, but isn't this survey supposed to be for admins? And aren't you the guy with whom I've had a few disputes over Italian/Yugoslav issues? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
    • First, i suggested blocking Timbouctou too ("needs, in my opinion, a temporary ban"). Second, it doesn't seem so to me (Basalisk and Blackmane aren't admins from what I see). Third and last, yes, 2 whole years ago i wrote on one article (and it was the one on Yugoslavian dictator Tito, so I don' get why you talk about "Italian/Yugoslav issues") on which you wrote too (but after that we never meet each other again and, as anyone can see by my contributions, I mainly edit on wrestling articles, so you're wrong) and there were the same problems that have emerged here and partially emerge again from your last comment (presumpion of bad faith, constant attemp to misrapresentate situations by changing the subject form you to other editors'supposed problems, edit warring, personal attacks and so on). So i can see you are engaging again in the same behaviour that has been stigmatised so many times (read the comment above mine, which is from an admin, because it is expressive of the situation). And I'm questioning if it is usefull to close eyes again on your behaviour after 10 blocks and countless ANI or if it is more appropriate to try and solve this problems you cause permanently. AndreaFox (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, if you look at the introduction at the top of the page, it says "any editor may post here". Sometimes there are non-admins who have helpful suggestions too. Such as, IMHO, this ban, which was suggested by me. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Break it up, you two. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. BLP violations are not solved by interaction bans. If the draft RfC/U on DIREKTOR does not have the desired effect, kick the whole thing up to ArbCom. They signed up to solve complicated situations like this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The latest issue has accusations of BLP violations flying around, but the longer term situation between these two goes way, way beyond this latest incident. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Both editors have been blocked together on three separate occasions where they have been involved. It's quite clear that these two editors can't seem to work together very well. Minima© (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Ladies vs Ricky Bahl

Another copyright violation which needs removing. [62] This which I removed is a copy and paste from [63] here. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Polarman and conflict of interest

User:Polarman, as you can see from his contribution history, has been quite prolific in adding links to a website entitled Playerhistory.com. By his own admission, Polarman is Hakon Winther, the founder of Playerhistory.com, which presents a massive conflict of interests. I would like an admin to intervene here so that Polarman is made properly aware of Wikipedia policy regarding self-published content and self-advertisement (and any other policies that may relate to WP:COI). – PeeJay 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You should report this at WP:COIN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of Sheodred and MarcusBritish

• Sheodred (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• MarcusBritish (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

I dread digging up old ground here, however, an exchange on EdJohnston's talk page has convinced me that I am not alone in my concerns.

Sheodred was indef blocked by EdJohnston on the January 4. The immediate cause of that block was this edit. The basis for the block was this decision on ANI/3. It also came after poor (another editor has said "silly") behavior, including blocks for incivility during a voluntary one-month topic ban. Sheodred, it would appear, has left the project rather than ask the block be reversed. One concern I have is that this block is out of proportion and lacks genuine community consensus for what is, or has turned into, an effective ban and is in excess of WP:INDEF given the relatively low level of disruption caused to the project.

However, and more importantly, I'm concerned that it fails to address a deeper context and the behavior of others involved in the conflict. There are a number of editors whose behavior is worrying to me. However, in particular, the behavior of MarcusBritish causes me concern.

The two editors have graced these pages a lot over the last month or so in connection with their mutual behavior (Sheodred, MarcusBritish). While Sheodred's behavior was silly, IMO it was MarcusBritish who truly pushed the limits of the behavioral guidelines in what appeared to be vindictive behavior on his part. One of the more shocking of examples of this was a threat to contact Sheodred's university to have him expelled under the veil of using the university's computing services for harassment. One of the more bizarre examples of MarcusBritish's behavior is this excessive archiving of discussions on Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (more in archive). See also the general tone of BritishMarcus's exchanges with other editors on that page, which is typical in my experience of how he addresses disputes.

It is hardly surprising that those on the receiving end of this kind of behavior go off the rails, as Sheodred did. I'm afraid that indefinitely blocking Sheodred does nothing to address MarcusBritish's battlefield-like behavior and may even embolden him.

Requests:

• Sheodred: Block be reduced (or removed) per WP:INDEF, even though Sheodred has not explicitly asked for it
• MarcusBritish: A community sanction of some sort (mentoring, civility restriction, topic ban)

Note: I am involved in this dispute to the extent that I have contributed to discussions on the topic at the centre of the dispute at the manual of style. However, I don't recall interacting either Sheodred or MarcusBritish (or to any great extent if I have).

--RA (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Both editors 'might' benefit from mentoring. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the old news... 2011 this was from, right? Do remind me, as I'm sure time has passed since and I'm too busy to listen to another Irishman moan. Pushing a plough over a ploughed field, or clutching at straws.. take your pick. Lot of moot and fallible points here. Also a lack of neutral tone. Also COI from OP.

• I'm a neutral party, even Sheodred recognised this, and apologised for his reaction, and recognised my abilities as a neutral editor: [64]
• Archiving was in relation to a de facto banned user called George SJ XXI much earlier, and not Sheodred. The hyperbolic reference you make is irrelevant and seeking to use evidence which precedes the dispute you have a problem with.
• "one of the more shocking examples" – why shocking? Looking to scare some editors with more hyperbole RA? You can't stop people doing whatever they want in the real world, so you must be confused that sysop gives you magic powers beyond Wiki. If a person feels harassed online, they can go to the police, or a lawyer. But legal threats were not required. Whistleblowing to his college was an option, and quite legal. Not shocking. The thought that he might be expelled is your implication, and further hyperbole.

Your comments are fairly speculative and lack any real "evidence", RA.

Try the "Marcus is a nationalist English bastard" line? You'll find a lot of evidence disproves that too. You'll find I don't give a flying-fuck about Irish or British articles, with the exception of Duk of Wellington. And only because he falls in my main subject.

I don't have time for this shit. Old news. Wasting ANI time RA, bad adminship and some gaming going on here. Sheodred in touch with you via email, is he? I suspect he is. Whatever purpose this serves, I'm not fucking interested. Got better things to do, because I'm very busy writing articles, whilst you're pissing about looking to sling some more mud. Pathetic.

Nor responding further. Waste of ANI time. Sheodred was severely disruptive to 50+ articles even a week ago after a block he persisted in being pointy and insolent. I didn't even need to comment.. it was his own doing. Well done EdJohnston, good block!

Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

MarcusBritish, my general opinions would be more along the lines of yours rather than RA's and Shoedreds, which they'd both admit, however i am agreement that from what i seen - you were provocative and antagonising towards Shoedred in quite a few statements. Whilst Shoedred is not innocent, neither are you, and to be honest some form of sanction should have been giving on you. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes but we are not gong back down that dusty road, are we - retroactive sanctions? Why not ask the blocking admin if he objects to a reduction? It seems Ed is of the position that any request to unblock is better coming from Sheodred himself - I support a reduction to timed served - currently we appear to have so few active contributors that every one matters. Youreallycan (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't see the issue here EdJohnston, made it clear when he blocked Sheodred it was not "forever" and could have been lifted if he had agreed to the topic ban which does not seem unduly unreasonable, he also said that he feels that any unblock request should come from Sheodred which again is not unreasonable and absent any request I don't see what there is to do here. If Sheodred makes a request but is not happy with the conditions then by all means come back here then and lets talk about it then. Mtking ^(edits) 22:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

@Youreallycan, RE: retroactive sanctions — that is why I am not suggesting a block for MarcusBritish. However, the behavior I am describing is not in the distant past. MarcusBritish's response above shows that a battlefield mentality and incivility is still a live issue with him. I don't want to see another editor come away feeling vindicated and rewarded for that kind of behavior. It only encourages it.

That is why, for MarcusBritish, I am suggesting some form of community sanction. I suggest a civility restriction. --RA (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not good at civility restrictions - we are better at give them enough rope and whack them with the hammer. As far as a civility restriction goes - at present a loud swear word would echo round an almost empty building and when it returns there would be a faint echo of, last one out shut the door. Youreallycan (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"I'm too busy to listen to another Irishman moan" - this is wholly unacceptable. If I were an admin I would block you just for that. N^oformation ^Talk 23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflicts) As far as I'm concerned RA, Sheodred was properly blocked. Really and truely his broad pattern of behaviour falls into ArbCom enforcable territory (WP:TROUBLES - both these editors were placed on formal notice of the remedies) and Ed was absolutely right to go to indef. And if Ed hadn't blocked him another uninvolved sysop would have. Further, the reason that Sheodred has not been unblocked is because he refuses to agree to modify his behaviour and per MTking it's up to him to make the first move.
  On the matter of MarcusBritish, while I see what Mabuska is saying that this has left MB feeling he "won" we don't do retroactive sanctions. However as demonstrated by MB's unnecessary outbursts here he clearly hasn't got the message that he's been given in numerous conduct threads (here on ANi since September 2011 and in two blocks in late November 2011) about WP:BATTLE.
  As MB was previously formaly placed on notice re WP:TROUBLES I've brought this to the attention of ErrantX, who is also uninvolved & has background, and I'll consider whether or not this new behaviour requires action in light of that warning and MB's overall pattern of condct towads others--Cailil ^talk 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent evidence suggests to me that there may be something wrong with MarcusBritish. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Depression.. instigated by people like RA, an amateur admin who apparently "not" knowing that we don't do retroactive sanctions, but also knows that whilst Sheodred cannot respond to this topic, I can. Given that I'm clearly bound to get pissed off at going through this crap again, wasting my fucking time further, I realise now that he's just baiting. Let it be known, this is RA's battle.. he started it as he's calling the shots. And canvassed only those involved on EdJohnston's talkpage to reply to it.. this isn't a sanction request, it's a personal campaign created by RA. I apologise in advance to everyone who was bored of this matter back in 2011, a month ago, and realise it was a WP:dickish move for RA. Let's all hope he gets a star on Hollywood Boulevard in recognition of his amazingness to stir up old shit. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding, Marcus, that you believe your inappropriate behaviour is not your responsibility, but that of other people? Are you implying by this that you have no control over your own actions? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Stuff like this:

"...I'm too busy to listen to another Irishman moan. Pushing a plough over a ploughed field..."

is no way to interact with other editors. That should stop. bobrayner (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an overtly racist personal attack and I'm honestly flabbergasted that an admin hasn't given a 24 block at the very least. N^oformation ^Talk 08:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Its certainly close to racism but I don't think it is as bad as the threats to contact Sheodred's University and to take legal action against them. It was probably bluster, but its intimidatory and seems to be seeking out conflict for its own sake. It was obvious to everyone that Sheodred was heading for a block. MarcusBritish seemed to want to stamp all over the corpse making a loud noise at the same time. I hadn't realised there were two prior blocks for uncivil behaviour, given that it seems time for some type of restriction and/or a more substantive block if that would get the point across. --Snowded ^TALK 10:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You're still taking crap Snowded, from a month ago and you're still just as boring. And you're a liar. I never mention taking legal action, and you bloody well know it. Contacting a college is whistleblowing. And if you have a problem with it, I don't give a shit. In fact, I've discussed the matter previously with an admin off-wiki via email and they acknowledge that it is my right. Go figure! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I quote " If the UCC refused to do anything, I might consider threatening them with legal action". Mind you I think "I don't give a shit" more or summarises your view of other editors and your willingness to work with them --Snowded ^TALK 12:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

D'uh! That says I might have threatened his college off-wiki if they didn't act on whistle blowing. His college is not an editor, so the suggestion is not aimed at any one. It isn't even a legal threat, it's a possibility. Pushing the realms of fantasy aren't we? As for "working with other editors", this is off-wiki (that thing called "real life") and doesn't involve editors, and certainly isn't any of your business. But keep pushing that point... you might have a baby! Given that the suggestion was conceived last year, you might be due now. Love holding onto old news, do you? Do you think if my threat was to be taken seriously I wouldn't have fucking done it by now? And if you do keep pressing that point, I will, just to spite you. Then he can only blame you for misrepresenting him. Morale of the story: stay the hell out of things that don't concern you, stirring up a storm in a teacup can often overspill. Problem in you is "I think", but you don't think properly. Seem to have a thing going, you and Sheodred.. you defending him.. cute! <3 Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I rest my case --Snowded ^TALK 14:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As Shoedred and MarcusBritish both seem to be quite passionate and arguementative in the same area of Wikipedia - British/Irish articles, or articles containing British/Irish information - maybe they should be both topic-banned from them. That could hopefully keep them apart (if Shoedred requests a unblock and abides by Ed's condition) and stop them getting dragged into conflict by taking them away from the conflict zone. In regards to MarcusBritish's recent outbursts, they do merit sanction.Mabuska ^(talk) 10:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I see the insipid cabal of people RA canvassed have come out of the shadows. IQ Test for Mabuska: Apart from Duke of Wellington, find us a list of articles on British/Irish topics that I've edited, from my contrib history. Articles that is, not talk, MOS, etc discussions. Also find any war edits, reverts, etc from those articles. Then go read the link Hoary posted above. Then I'll accept your apology for pre-judging me and accusing me falsely, and making a topic-ban motion based on zero evidence. What country do you live in, one where they hang now, ask questions later? And if you accuse me of nationalism again, I'll consider it a PA of the highest magnitude. Sheodred either needs to remain blocked, or agree to the unblock terms Ed offered to stay clean. I was never unclean to have to worry. Go figure! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Having interacted with both these editors I found Marcus blunt, but so too have I found Shoedred blunt and with a tendency to side step. What worries me is the post above highlighted by Snowded, where did Marcus get such information , if on wiki does it require a mention in such a hostile and very bullying way? The comment above about ploughing a feild is stereotypical racism and would digust many ,uncivil and racist to say the least. Marcus has contributed to IMOS only since he interacted with Sheodred, the only reason Sheodred got banned is he edited Bio's in a manner similar to Marcus' suggestions after coming back from a block, which to say the least is ironic. The fact that Marcus now calls RA's action here a waste of time yet brought similar to the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts board with a list of edits from Shoedred , [65] most of which where non-contentious , "Packie Bonner: — added "Irish" to lead" , that made me laugh , born in Ireland, holds Irish citizenship , one of the most capped Irish players off all time and Marcus is using the addition of Irish as a point of ethnic conflict ? But the most interesting point is Marcus' list of personal attacks on there, yet here it has been shown the he made racist comment and a use of information to engage in action that might have serious consequences outside of Wiki. Do we all who comment have to wonder if Marcus will contact our bosses after we do a lunch time edit on the office computer? Or do we have to wonder will he give away our personal details on here? The threat he made is more serious than any block on here could ever be.Murry1975 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bahahahah! LMFAO! I'm actually howling with laughter that "ploughing a field" could be construed as "racist". ROFL! What is means, FYFI, is "churning over things that have already been uncovered" – in short, RA is opening this magnanimous joke, based on something which happened a month ago, using "evidence" from so far bar, I'm sure my grand-parents were still alive. Racist, God if that isn't a total breach of AGF I'll walk into my local high street and pull my pants down! LOL! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheodred identified himself as being at Cork Uni using their computers when he socked. The rest of your comments are accusations, and WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:BALLS. You worry too much, obviously. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I find your underlying sentiment, that when I take it to Geopolitical conflicts no one gives a shit, but when RA brings it to ANI everyone should take interest, very interesting. Further evidence of Sheodred sympathies and COI indicative of this remark. All want him back to pursue his editing of Irish subjects. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The rest of my comments are questions not accusations Marcus , please dont misqoute an other editor to try and give a false sense of what was said , the isnt AGF is it? And another is that a personal comment about my state of mind on the end of the above comment? PS I find it a tad odd you accuse this of time wasting when your Geo-Ethnic one was in my opinion a farce. Do I want Sheodred back editing articles ?As much as I want you editing them Marcus, just as much.Murry1975 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you aired suspicions which were not appropriate. And as for your last sentence, a) what you want isn't important, but more to the point b) I DON'T edit them, because I don't give a hoot about Irish (or British) subjects, excluding Wellington. So you make a moot point, and the same mistake as others. Still waiting for someone to find some Irish-subjects I've edited in my 5000+ contribs which support these false accusations. All I can say is tra-la-la-la-la, because you won't find any. The accusations about me British/Irish edits are false, lies, pure bullshit. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said Irish/British articles I just said articles, I never accused you of editing any Irish/British articles again stop misqouting. My suspicions? Yes they are mine and I have aired them, were they appropriate, given the threat you made yes they were if you hadnt made such a threat I would never have asked such questions. Your language is becoming uncivil and you need to calm down read what is typed and respond in an appropriate manor.Murry1975 (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You're also very selective in your ANI discussions and what opinions you raise, given that you were supporting my neutral opinions recently [66]. As I've said already, the "threat" was dated back in mid-December. No one gave a shit then, it's too late to do anything now. Like I said.. if you plough a ploughed field, you don't unearth anything new, it's just the same old mud to sling! This thread is and remains a charade. You might consider redacting your unwarranted suspicions.. they are facetious. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering one of my edit summarys here was "reply to the nice chap who helped me", is my opinion meant to be dictated by others? I gave you support on your neutral stance that doesnt mean I would support the threat you made. You seem to think there is a time limit on such things as threats, the threat is my issue for concern not whether you acted upon it but that you made it. Your remarks of me redacting my suspicions as they are facetious, they are concerns for me which I raise. Has there been an apology for the threat and and have you redacted it? No. Do you admit that the threat was inappropriate ?Murry1975 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary appeared more patronising than genuine, but at least now you understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of being misinterpreted. I will never apologise for making motions to being harassed. As for redacting, the comment should have been left to die.. the fat of the matter is, RA is well aware of how passionately members of WP:Ireland are in throwing their weight into an ANI against someone, regardless of whether they really care or not, it's a form of WP:RANDY, enabling an ANI despite weak relevance. On the flip side, British people are generally lazy bastards who don't act on things fast, or too late. What governs this topic has fuck-all to do with what I've said, but is in fact veiled support for Sheodred's edits. RA is abusing ANI here, and letting the topic be mobbed by those he pre-determined an outcome with, canvassed, and such. This isn't ANI, this is witch-hunt behaviour, with mob mentality. Once again I stand by MY integrity as a Wiki editor, and that my edits do not have any pro-British leanings, that my actions against Sheodred were initially in good faith and it was his reaction and support from WP:Ireland members that led to it spiralling. That was, as I've also said, last year. He DID harass me, and I advised that if he persisted I would report him to his Uni for abusing their systems. Again, that it is called "whistleblowing" and is perfectly legal. Wiki is not a legal site, and has no business trying to prevent this, its editors are in no legal position to control what people do off-wiki. The comments made by Snowdred are irrelevant and hyperbolic shite. The only times Wiki has a legal right to get involved is in mater relating to physical threats, death threats, etc. What is the case here is that people disrespect other editors, and would rather they feel harassed, as I did, that take action to relieve the problem. That makes those editors sanctioning harassment, and driving off editors. The fact that Sheodred felt threatened by my suggestion at contacting his college is because he is guilty and knows there would be repercussions. Whereas I know I am guilty of nothing other than defending myself, my neutral position, and bringing a disruptive editor to the attention of wiki, who was protected, defended and WP:RANDYfied by WP:Ireland members who "approved" of his behaviour. As for Sheodred's last block, which RA is using as an excuse for this ANI, I was uninvolved.. he brough it on himself by persisting in war-editing, POV-pushing, and attacking editors and admins for warning him. Since mid-December upto this bullshit discriminatory thread, opened by RA to subject me to further WP:Ireland member harassment, under the false impression of "concerns", I have been busy with other things, totally unrelated to Sheodred and his erratic editing of Irish people. That speaks for itself, because I am, and always was, a better editor than he in terms of objectiveness and neutrality: interesting, is it not, that he tried to make my Wellington lead another IMOS policy despite attacking me over it? The fact of the matter is, this is a WP:Ireland game, I think it's racially-motivated, and only aims to attract biased attention. And the proof is obvious, because it has only drawn those members who have been involved with WP:Ireland's attempt to push a new IMOS which I protested and led to it being abolished. So this is nothing but an attempt at retribution. Nothing to do with Wiki, it's a simple plot to get back at me on behalf of a failed pro-Irish policy. I would but my hand on the Bible and swear to that! This is an old stick, which was dropped in December and should have been left dropped. I thing RA's ulterior motives need bringing into question here, because he has introduced this under false pretences, with no evidence of relevance. This is laughable, because you're wasting your time, my time, ANI time, and are going to achieve absolutely nothing. Because I have no intention of admitting to being wrong, and I don't accept your judgement. This will have to go to ArbCom before I ever take it seriously, because a swamp of WP:Ireland views is not impartial, it's just an open form of meat puppetry supporting either pro-Irish RA, or pro-Irish Sheodred. Take you pick. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Marcus you have only reaffirmed the fact that you think it is within your right to make the threat. That is not the case and you really need to calm down. Why not apologise? As you said the only thing Wiki can do outside of here is if you make a legal or death threat. The reason that only IMOS editors are responding could be the fact that you and Sheorded edit in different circles and the only over lap is the IMOS.Murry1975 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've said all that I need to say.. fact remains, if no one was interested when I raised concerns which related directly to Wiki content last year, then there's no reason for anyone to care about this, which doesn't relate to anything but a blocked user who has stated his intentions to quit because he can't have all his own way. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed and this bad faith discussion is vexatious and was pre-planned. It won't get anywhere, I don't have intention of listening to IMOS editors waffle on about their poxy concerns for a blocked and highly harassive individual. You've conceded that this it wasn't a physical threat and is therefore not a Wiki concern, so really even you have nothing more to say either that matters. Even GoodDay recognised that point, moments before I typed it. So in conclusion, I have better things to do.. life is short and ANI is often nothing but word gaming, egotism and sniping. When WP:Ireland gets involved it becomes territorial with an abundance of predators. The only reason WP:TROUBLES exists is because small-minded people with Irish and British nationalistic views incited enough hate to force ArbCom into implementing such enforcements. I don't intend to be a part of that hate, and although this is a indicated as a pure indulgent hate-campaign against me, notably because Sheodred can't partake in it and RA wants him unblocked and me molested, I couldn't care less. As they say.. "the sun'll come out, tomorrow". ToOdles! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Marcus, I'd advise you to calm down - your accusations of canvassing and comments about editor's intelligence are not helping your cause. Tea and biscuits? GiantSnowman 12:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If MarcusBritish had suggested he was going to Sheodred's university to kill him off or beat him up, then we'd have a problem. However, MB didn't do that; so no problem IMHO. Also, the 2 editors-in-question, haven't been in contact with each other for awhile. Plus, Sheodred is in retirement. We should consider 'closing' this thread & moving on. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay MB's recent comments i think mean that this thread can't be simply closed and everyone move on. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And just what sort of admin action would you envisage? Not sure why this was opened here in the first place since the issue is stale and it seems like the wrong venue. I agree with GoodDay — close this piece of drama and move on. Mojoworker (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the comments above by MarcusBritish show that the issue is far from stale. Being the subject of a thread on ANI is stressful, so some outburst is understandable. However, at some point, it is expected that a person will calm down and begin to give their perspective without attacks and accusation. That doesn't appear to be happening. The subject of the tread is MarcusBritsh's hostile approach to others (and a desire not to see that go unchecked or potentially encouraged). His behavior here demonstrates that hostile behavior continues to be a problem.

Cailil has asked ErrantX to consider how to approach the issue. Let's see what comes out of that. In the mean time, I too would encourage MarcusBritish to calm down. --RA (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly I am supposed to do here :) Certainly there seems no obvious admin actions to be taken. I've talked to Marcus numerous times about the way he interacts with people here on-wiki, and suggested it may be combative/inappropriate. He does not feel that is so, which is his prerogative of course. If people still feel there is an ongoing issue then the correct venue is WP:RFC/U. However Sheodred was blocked on unrelated grounds; after returning following his and Marcus' earlier spat he managed the indef all on his own. So tying his current block in with anything Marcus has done (i.e. saying Marcus has misbehaved and this should affect the current block) is not going to fly. The only concern I have is the threat Marcus made to contact Sheodred's university; obviously this is inappropriate and if Marcus makes such threats again, or acts on them, then we can revisit the matter (and block/ban him as appropriate). Marcus, just for the record - contrary to everything you have said so far; actively pursuing an editor in real life is something we will block and ban you for. And simply threatening to do so is a chilling effect that will also get you blocks if you keep doing it. As I am sure you can appreciate; someone with a history of pursuing editors, with whom they have a problem, in real life is not the kind of person we would welcome in the community. If real life action has to be taken then the WMF is there as a neutral body to take such action. At the end of the day; this is just a website, and there is no need to pursue each other to the grave over small things. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Errant. My 2c before we close this:

• Without question, consensus RE: Sheorded is that the block was correct and that it is up to him to appeal it.
• We will not be placing a sanction on MarcusBritish at this time for his behavior in relation to Sheorded or elsewhere.

No less, I believe the substantive point regarding MarcusBritish's battlefield mentality is abundantly demonstrated by his conduct in this thread alone. As I wrote in the inital post, it is hardly surprising that those on the receiving end of this kind of behavior go off the rails. It is not welcome here.

If I believed that MarusBritish would take your words to heart, Errant, I would have confidience that issue would be resolved. I doubt it, however. I don't think he has learnt anything from his experience with Sheorded or here. I continue to fear that he will simply be emboldened by it (or, as others have said, will come away with a sense of satisfaction and vindication). So, give 'em rope. --RA (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Last words? Sure. Get off my back RA, my mother's dead and I don't need another one up my arse! Your petulant hounding has been noted and will not be forgotten. Several editors have commented on the futility of this thread, and you still persist in being pretentious and patronising. Try WP:IDHT, as it applies to you here. If you took this down-talk tone with someone like Malleus he'd fuck you over for treating him like a child, and believe me, if you take it with me again, so will I.. sysop, with which you are an amateur and unreliable IMHO, doesn't make you anyone's parent, guardian, mentor, or master. Quit the condescending attitude, quit the hounding, quit the COI related ANI threads, quit anything that is detrimental to Wiki (Randy and cabals come to mind) and quit supporting Sheodred's misdeeds, he's gone by his own "rope". As for that last rope.. I've cheated death in ways you can't begin to imagine, in real life, so your threatening tone doesn't impress me, son. I see you losing that mop, long before I lose anything. I suggest you drop the predictive crystal ball act, and go continue your virtually SPA contribs, and stay out of my hair. I'm very easy to get on with, FYI, and have been involved with plenty of people in the main areas of Wiki FYI, and achieved much, AN is a bureaucratic sideline and bad for your health, there should be a government warning, but the only people I take a negative attitude to anywhere are <insert Malleus' "C" word>. You don't intimidate me, despite the attempt, and your "summary" back there is subjective and self-indulgent egotism. Live your own life, stay the fuck out of mine. Civility is like respect; when you abuse someone's trust you don't get either. This ANI was vexatious abuse full of bullshit, and given the lack of credible support, was needless time wasted, so you can stop blowing your own trumpet now, we've heard it and it was out of tune. As a mop, learn not to make bad judgements again any time soon, they might bite you on the arse. Lessons learned both ways here, so you will gain something: experience. Can close this can of worms now.. none escaped. Hopefully now we can focus on other things that actually have importance. Last word: Bye! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The above post demeans Wikipedia and it requires a substantial and serious response. 58.7.251.206 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sock of George SJ XXI - indef blocked months ago for SPA disruption by Beeblebrox, and my favourite stalker ever since. Hi George! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You should be careful not to mistake the outcome of this ANI thread as a vindication of your conduct, Marcus. Just as several editors have commented on the futility of this thread, several have also commented on the inappropriateness of your behaviour. If there's a case of WP:IDHT here, you're just as guilty of it yourself, and it's certainly hypocritical of you to expect RA to abide by criticism in this thread if you're not willing to do so yourself. As for your advice to 'quit anything that is detrimental to Wiki', I would suggest that people may actually listen to you dole out that advice if you were capable of following it yourself. If you think your current attitude is in any way beneficial to the wiki, you're deluded. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to make a bold, black-and-white statement here after reading the entire thing - archive, remove - whatever, just move on - can it. --Nutthida (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I regard a threat to report someone to his university for what they do here in the same light as a threat to report someone to their employer: harassment. If the matter is that sever as to warrant going outside Wikipedia, it should not be taken by one party in a dispute against another but a neutral enforcement here, as we do with egregious trolling-- a threat to do this has a dramatic chilling effect in either case and cannot be permitted to become a weapon in a dispute here. Certainly, in both cases a person has a right to do it--but pursuing that course is incompatible with cooperative Wikipedia editing. And, if unjustified, that sort of action can also be regarded as harassment, and sometimes is. Everyone has a right to go outside the community to the r=RW authorities, but if they do, they are for the time being placing themselves outside the community. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fake lawyer offering his services?

In this diff, a lawyer from the fine firm of Piranha Solicitors is offering to help a user sue Wikipedia. Is this account part of a sock farm? I ask because User:NawlinWiki indeffed a user with a similar name today (User:The Rt Hon. L Phillips QC) as a sockpuppet but I don't know if that admin is still online. --NellieBly (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Never mind; User:Favonian blocked editor while I was adding this and before I was able to place a notice. --NellieBly (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"L. Phillips QC" is an AN/I troll whose MO involves Mr. Treason-esque lawsuit threats using the former Queen's Council's name. I wonder if the actual Honourable L. Phillips can sue this clown for libel? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

IPs have been trolling this board using that name for the past few days; it had gone away for awhile, but it started up again shortly after I blocked User:FPGT24. It's not FPGT24, but they quickly began trolling that thread, and I guess they've started branching out. Though I have to admit, the "Notice of intent to sue" section I found in the ANI archives when I searched for L Phillips, QC was one of the funnier things I've read. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Piranha Solicitors"...how appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

the real The Rt. Hon. L.C. Phillips, QC is not a "former QC", though: he's the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and likely has better things to do than to sue a Wikipedia troll. --NellieBly (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The troll appears to be emailing users, judging by a comment just added by a user to their talk page, apparently in response to an email. See User talk:Radvo#Legal advise from UK. I read message. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User JohnC

JohnC (talk · contribs) Re-reporting. Long term inflammatory commentary, including BLP violations and provocative statements regarding ethnicity, continuing despite numerous warnings. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked as a troll [67] and [68] after multiple warnings for a variety of unhelpful edits. This is simply not a useful contributor. No one edit is, in itself, a killer - but taken in balance the project is better off without this. Hapy to have this decision reviewed.--Scott Mac 19:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. Reviewed. Move to close. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all the above, and to Elen of the Roads for helping. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

IP problem

129.133.127.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is being very unconstructive, to say the least. He made mass changes to Masonic bodies, and did not wish to discuss those changes when they were reverted. I'd note he claims on the talk page that he doesn't care about the article. He also is warring over terminology on List of Masonic Grand Lodges and again, "doesn't care" about the article, per the talk page. Nevertheless, he obviously isn't staying away from them. He is a lurker or sock, as his first reply to me indicated he already knew what my course of action was going to be (which an inexperienced user would not know), and he seems to be more interested in being POINTY with User:Blueboar than in actually making contributions to Wikipedia. most notably, I asked him to discuss changes, and he replied on my talk page that he "does not write with my permission", which wasn't at all what the point of the statement I made was. So he's creating a problem for some reason, and I think I know who this is, although I'm not going to feed the trolls - a CU, if needed, will serve the same purpose. MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want a CU to look at this then try filing a report at WP:SPI, but I'm afraid you're going to need to disclose the other IP/account you think is controlled by the same person and supply diffs showing similarities in their behaviour. I don't think the CheckUsers are inclined to go fishing for possible socks in the way you're describing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it'll definitely need some work; I'm not planning a fishing expedition by any means. MSJapan (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the IP's reaction when I reverted an edit he/she made was unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational. That said, my interaction with him/her has been minimal... so I can not speak to potential puppetry. Blueboar (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is for sure an IP hopper from within Wesleyan's network - 129.133.127.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked several times for PA, etc., with several edits to similar articles (Skull and Bones and Wesleyan itself, for example). I would therefore suggest that, rather than belaboring the issue, the problem be resolved with a schoolblock, which shouldn't adversely affect much, since universities (including this one) are on winter break. MSJapan (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that other Wesleyan based IP, MSJ. Now that I look at both edit histories, I have to agree... it does seem likely to be the same fellow - he's editing the same articles... over the same issues... and with the same combative (and wikilawyerish) style once someone opposes his edits. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I changed four short paragraphs at the intro of Masonic Bodies. Mass changes? 2."and did not wish to discuss those changes when they were reverted" I did discuss those changes on this complainant's pages. I also told him then that I was not going to change *anything* he had reverted. 3 - "He also is warring over (another page)" I am not, I haven't changed anything on that page, I have had discussions with Blueboar over that page and have not edited anything since we have been discussing. 4 - "as his first reply to me indicated he already knew what my course of action was going to be" I said he was going try to precipitate a war, and then be the first to complain about it to the admins. Which is *exactly* what he as done. 5 - Blueboar is the editor of the other page, and the two are reinforcing each other. They're acting together, although they are pretending on this Administrators noticeboard like Blueboar is a disinterested party.

Look, the situation is plain. Blueboar hovers in wikipedia. He has a dozen, ten dozen, however many pages that he considers his own to superintend, and he vigorously fights anyone who dares change any of "his" articles any way he disagrees with. I've run up against him before in articles in Freemasonry. (I've also run into similar types all across wikipedia.) Unfortunately, Blueboar doesn't write all that well, and his editorial choices are fairly iffy, so that the pages on Freemasonry are pretty miserable. ---I am sure, by this point, other people have noticed that many topics will attract fans, and that fans will have excessively positive conceptions of their darling subjects, and those people, as editors, will fight tooth and nail to prevent anything but the rosiest of pictures to be painted of them in wikipedia. That's Blueboar as far as Freemasonry goes. And the pages on Freemasonry will always suck. Likewise with the pages on Wesleyan University. I challange anyone to look at the edit histories of any major university, and they'll see the same vigilant few names reverting the edits of other editors. (By the way, I type via my ISP for a reason, but I didn't expect *anybody* to publicly post the location of my ISP. Shouldn't that be a violation of privacy guidelines? Shouldn't MSJapan be reported for that?) MSJapan is another vulture hovering over the Freemasonry pages. I've never met him before, but his escalation of this dispute to the Administrator's notenook was easy to see coming; he's true to type and a blood brother to Blueboar. (Actually, given that both of them are likely Freemasons, it looks like their sworn bortherhood may be coming into play as a lite conspiracy. It also explains how they found each other outside wikipedia.)

By the way I stand by the edits as made. Blueboars edits are cumbersome and confusing, and I defy anyone to make a sensible statement of the mess MSJapan has made of Masonic Bodies. And I have done nothing but stand up to them in their user chat pages. This claim here on this noticeboard is only a result of them looking ridicuous to themselves on their own user pages.

By the procedures of wikipedia, when I changed Masonic Bodies, MSJapan should have read it as changed, and made whatever improvements he saw fit, (perhaps reincorporating some things I removed), and back and forth. He did not. He reverted the whole article, and it has not changed since. **I want anyone who thinks I am an 'edit warrer' because of that, plase post why.** MSJapan should be reported for not following guidelines. Instead he posted omnious messages on my user page. That was intended as a threat and it was a threat. I called him on it, and here we are.

Wikipedia is NOT a place where users can freely edit anymore. It has matured to a point where virtually every page has admirers who hover over them, and who fight against any changes whatsoever. There's no scholarly debate here, there's not even debate. There's just indignant pride.

Look no further for the reasons why wikipedia is what it is. And how it has become limited.129.133.127.112 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Need we say more? I rest my case. :>) Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear anon at 129.133.127.112 - Shouldn't that be a violation of privacy guidelines? No - if you look at the bottom of your own IP/contributions page here on wikipedia, you'll see there are links to DNS lookups etc, in order assist wikipedian with finding out location of IPs for these sort of situations - it helps to confirm or deny a pattern of constructive editing OR abuse by those who choose not to register an account. By the procedures of wikipedia, when I changed Masonic Bodies, MSJapan should have read it as changed, and made whatever improvements he saw fit, (perhaps reincorporating some things I removed), and back and forth. He did not. Go look at bold, revert, discuss for a generally accepted discussion of how the system DID work on the part of other users. Comment on content, not on the contributor. You're playing the Masonic conspiracy against you card, it's unrealistic. Based on prior IP contributions and the interactions that have resulted from them, it seems clear that conflict is what you desire to create on wikipedia, not better content.--Vidkun (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Vidkun, your magisterial dismissal of my position "that conflict is what you desire to create on wikipedia, not better content" would have more credibility if my contributions are on many pages, and even my contributions to the pages in dispute here weren't so substantial. As it is, you're just engaging in personal smear, and not the either any principles of reason, or wikipedia guidelines. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Really? Really, Vidkun? Really?129.133.127.112 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Vidkun, since I am here to create controversy and disruption, was I the one to make it an Administrator's issue? Was I the one to call the re-write of four paragraphs in an intro a major edit and a outrageous violation of wikipedia policies? Was it me? Just checking, Vidkun. I just want to make sure we all have the facts straight.129.133.127.112 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This person is not really an unknown quantity per se - I ran a tool on the two IPs, and found overlap on the List of Masonic Grand Lodges article and talk page from months ago (April 2011 for the article and July 2011 for talk) where the 244 IP was reverted by Blueboar and myself on the article and said IP tried to justify turning the article into a linkfarm "per policy" on the talk page and was contradicted by an uninvolved user. There's also overlap on five other articles. That prior experience pretty much explains the whole situation, but it also proves that this is a perennial problem, as there's overlap editing issues on Skull and Bones going back to 2010. I would therefore still request a schoolblock on this range to prevent future recurrences of disruptive editing, as it seems that the IP is going to blame the system for his behavior as opposed to taking personal responsibility for it. MSJapan (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the the conspiracy theories, MSJapan. How come you can't defend your edits on their own terms? 129.133.127.112 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:GoodDay and User:Djsasso - interaction and topic bans

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – Sorted out through the talk page.

Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. Some of you may or may not know, but I am one of the mentors of GoodDay (talk · contribs) (the other being DBD (talk · contribs). Over the past few weeks, I've observed that GoodDay and Djsasso (talk · contribs) run into each other quite often, and normally have very heated, at times uncivil discussions. These generally revolve around the use of diacritics in articles relating to hockey. The general discussion tends to have two viewpoints, GoodDays' being that this is the English Wikipedia so it should not use non-english characters or diacrtitics, and that there was a consensus not to include diacritics in North American hockey articles. Djsasso's is that (if I am correct) these diacritics are used in reliable sources discussing the topic.

Now I didn't come to ANI to sort out a content decision (that would be rather stupid of me now wouldn't it?). From the discussions I've observed (a few examples are here, here, here and here). It's pretty evident to me that the two of them interacting has become an issue.

I therefore propose a two-way interaction ban between Djsasso and GoodDay, broadly interpreted (perhaps an admin who's familiar with these can outline the normal provisions. I also forsee the possibility of a first action advantage, ie, one of the two makes an edit knowing that the other user can't revert the edit nor comment on it, so I am also proposing a topic ban on the two from all articles relating to hockey, broadly defined. This would be until such time as an RFC or a mediation case has been held (which I will help set up) which will determine the best way forward regarding diacritics. I do note that GoodDay has stated his intention to stay away from ice hockey articles, so that needs to be taken into consideration. I still think an interaction ban is necessary, a topic ban also necessary until this issue can be sorted out through dispute resolution. That part I am of course happy to organise. (I think this is the part where people say support or oppose....) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall agree to an interaction ban & a topic ban from ice hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow you took it to ANI instead of trying to work it out as reasonable editors. Well I certainly want no part of any mediation you are involved in. You are clearly far to biased in your support of GoodDay when he is clearly using you to bludgeon me. I have repeatedly stated I would walk away from this situation and any problem with him, all I asked for was for GoodDay to stop disparaging people who disagrees with him. I am not sure why that is unacceptable to you to the point where you had to take this to ANI. Certainly not sure what else you want to gain if me walking away from the situation is not enough, other than to attempt to beat me down more. Not to mention topic banning me from hockey essentially bans me from the wiki since hockey articles account for probably 98% of my edits. -DJSasso (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I said on Djsasso's talk page, a mutual ban from commenting on each other's talk pages would be sufficient. A topic ban from hockey would serve to "protect" your charge from his own mischief by effectively banning his opponent from Wikipedia. Draconian, excessive, and frankly, disturbing. Resolute 20:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: As a writter of nine FAs, I believe I have the right to voice my concern here. I'm having some serious issue with GoodDay due to his unhealthy obsession in maintaining what he regards as an "English spoken Wikipedia". He is an editor who does not contribute to any article at all. He doesn't write a single piece of paragraph. Nothing. All he does is to search for articles where the English language may be in peril (on his view, of course) and start discussions that lead nowhere. In a conversation I had with Jimbo Wales today, Jimbo opted to deliberately ignore GoodDay and supported my views on the matter. See User talk:Jimbo Wales#John VI is Spanish Juan VI not João VI. Worse: some of GoodDay's remarks reveal an absurd foreign culture prejudice which could easily be regarded as xenophobia (see the link above for a few examples). The problem here is GoodDay's obsession, not his interaction with another user. It's just senseless. --Lecen (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

SuggestionI have read the WP:HOCKEY guidelines and Gooddays lack of use of diacritics is the correct one following the guidelines:

• "All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics"

I dont think Goodday has edits any bios of players yet - they may play in North America but their bios are not North American. A topic ban for following guidelines? I am relatively new but that just doesnt sound right. Djasso is going by WP:COMMONNAME, again following guidelines so again I cant see a topic ban for that. There is a clear conflict between these two guidelines that needs addressing as much as these editors do. I would personally edit with the more cat-spec guideline, in this case WP:Hockey, but it understandible why neither editor can see why the other side is right. An interaction ban? How about they have to work together to resovlve the conflict of interest with the relevant MOS projects showing no gaming but an ability to work through good faith?Murry1975 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Since when have wikiprojects had carteblance to overule the MOS? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • They don't, but at the same time, there is no Wikipedia wide accepted view on how diacritics should be treated. Hockey's guideline is an attempt at compromise. The notation that North America specific articles would not use diacritics was agreed to on the basis that North American sources don't use such. In a few cases, that is actually starting to change, which muddies the waters. Resolute 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Diacritics are very polarizing... as in it turns into a black-and-white matter (pretty much either always use, or never use diactrics). While the present solution is not ideal, it has been the status quo for over five years and has kept the peace. Maxim_(talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Djsasso is one of the most active and important hockey editors. It makes no sense to topic ban him over these disputes with GoodDay about diacritics. Nor have I found Djsasso's actions to be inappropriate in any hockey-related (or any other) matter. Rlendog (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose all bans, as pure nonsense. DJSasso is an excellent ice hockey editor and banning him from hockey would be a great loss. I agree with Res and Rlendog. GoodDay's very useful too in the subject area (e.g. always pops up on my watchlst keeping List of current NHL captains and alternate captains accurate), and it would be a loss too if he were to step away from the subject area. It would be however nice if GoodDay wasn't always so riled up over dios; if it's such a bother, then it's better to avoid the debates. Maxim_(talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have always found Djsasso a balanced editor in this eternal dispute over diacritics. On the other hand, GoodDay has shown a certain degree of .. immaturity in his comments. I don't think this needed to go here. Sanctioning both of them would be kind of like when a player in ice hockey knows he's going to get a penalty at the next referee call, he picks a fight with an opponent to fix a penalty for the other team too, in hoping that he won't get 2+2 himself. GoodDay would only be happy if he could bring down a veteran editor like Djsasso with him. Frankly, I don't think either one deserves any sanction, but a reprimand for GoodDay for silly and unnecessary comments about his "opponents" could be motivated. All it takes is for him is stop his silly comments about his perceived opponents. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: - I've proposed here that Djsasso accepts an interaction ban, and to not make changes to diacritics until dispute resolution is pursued to sort this out. If that's accepted I'll close the ANI. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how are you going to close it, if all other editors say "oppose"? HandsomeFella (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's rather easy. If it's sorted out on talk pages, there's no need for ANI. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page I have no issue not changing diacritics as I don't generally do it anyways. The article above was an exception because it was a unique situation I felt should be discussed. As for a interaction ban I can certainly stay away from his talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And I assume this applies to him as well. -DJSasso (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can't believe this dispute has made it to ANI again. Are we seriously proposing to ban an editor as productive as DJSasso from one of his main areas of activity? Over some squiggly bits in article titles? This is the WP:LAMEest thing ever. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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

DJSasso has been one of the main proponents to ban me, a productive editor, from my editing over "some squiggly bits in article titles". What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Why the double standard? Dolovis (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

1. You were under an indef ban on moving pages with diacritics.
2. You gamed the system, edited in bad faith, and badly spun and ANI report.
3. That resulted in a block and an expansion of the existing ban, whether you like it or not. Some discussion is ongoing on AN at your goading to clarify just where you are limited and where you can either try to regain community trust or play with the rope.
4. GoodDay has his own limitations on editing and is under mentorship. His situation is different than yours.
5. DJSasso's situation is also different than yours.
6. This has run its course with those having commented pointing out a good chunk of it was overreaction.
7. Posting well after this discussion was closed to get a shot in does not help your position in any way.
8. Are we done here, or is there more drama you'd like to post?

- J Greb (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Batshit crazy rants"

No admin action is going to be taken. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Long block log for same, TCO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Warning for similar four days ago on his talk [69] "pussy juice leaking from its nutsack" Nov 30, "motherfuckers" Nov 30, "crufty rule mongers" while tag team edit warring with his mentor Wehwalt Dec 1 warned again on his talk Jan 6 Followed by today: "batshit crazy rants from Sandy" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Will notify now.[70] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Sandy isn't the only target of TCO's incivility. I've just about had my fill with him too. (The one that did it for me was this comment here he suggests that I got the FA director title because it was "cool" rather than the 8 years of work I've put into it) He was put on the "strictest possible probation" last year, with little apparent effect on his current behavior. Given his mile-long block log, and numerous recent warnings that have gone ignored, I think it's time for a substantial (multi-month) block. Raul654 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Also, for full history, this is my alleged batshit crazy rant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I am not a fan of that most recent diff. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC) This is all stuff from WT:FAC spilling over here. If anyone takes this seriously, I will post diffs. Very regrettable that Sandy would start this. Very regrettable.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I find that in spite of its reputation, generally folks at ANI can tell where the discussion came from by clicking on the diffs. I know many admins who actually do that; YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Suggestion I warned this user, just days ago over the "pussy juice" comment, and indicated that he was headed for blocking - so I'm fully supportive of taking action here. However, I think as incivility goes "batshit crazy rants" isn't of itself way over the line. However, given the track record and the inability to heed warnings, action needs to be taken. I suggest community puts the user on "civility parole" the terms of which are "user to avoid all personal attacks, and any and all heightened invective whatsoever. If the parole is broken, any uninvolved administrator may block for 24 hours in the first instance, escalating to a 1 year block". When users are constantly warned and don't heed it, it is time for zero tolerance.--Scott Mac 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, but a topic ban from FAC should also be on the table: I'm out of time for today, so will leave it to others to present that case, which goes back almost a year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Scott, you yourself called Sandy's line of comments ""borderline scurrilous". We all know Sandy. After a considerable time, she has come here and said "oh, he hit me". Fortunately, what led up to it are matters of record.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "We all know Sandy" seems to be an interesting indirect insult; pls clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I did, and I gave clear reasons and not worthless invective. But I'm not seeing the connection.--Scott Mac 18:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC) It is all part of the same conversation. Shall I get diffs of what Sandy has called TCO, or would this needlessly deepen the "hell-swamp"? (I have Cas's page watchlisted, nothing to do with you). I don't know what it is with Sandy, but since she resigned, she has been insufferable. It doesn't bother me, I have a thick skin and Sandy doesn't know what buttons to push, but it's hard on other people.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC) What have I called TCO? If you're referring to me saying his presentation reads like a "Manic manifesto", I'll save you the time of looking for the diffs and acknowledge I said that somewhere. I did notice that he claimed elsewhere later that I was saying *he* was manic, which is untrue. His presentation reads like a randomly thrown together manifesto of bullet points and faulty analysis with a target (namely FA writers). Comment on the content, not the contributor-- I did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC) So you can call his (how many pages was it? A lot) paper a "manic manifesto" but he is somehow off base to call your postings "crazy rant" even with the "batshit"? I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Comment on the content, Wehwalt; many editors (count them please) have indicated here that TCO has in fact been disruptive at FAC, he is calling my feedback on a talk page "batshit crazy", while I commented on his "paper". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The track record of "civility parole" is utterly abysmal. History shows it only serves to prolong the agony. Either act, or don't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Blocking simply for a borderline comment is unusual. The parole is supposed to give fair warning to the user to stay away from the borders.--Scott Mac 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC) This is the sort of thing Sandy has been saying. Very poor assumption of bad faith. If you think that is not bad enough, she blames the entire FAC community for her troubles. Come on. Either do something fair to both sides, or nothing. But do not ignore one side. A lot of this is about fairness. Be fair.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Not to mention [71] referring to this. I do not think someone who by adoption makes reference to monkeys coming out of their a$$ in response to someone civilly responding to them has much call to be coming to AN/I. And given Sandy's comments stating Malleus should not be blocked as his comments were not directed at a specific person, it seems it is one rule for the stranger, another for the native of the land.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, I just can't take anyone seriously when they do stuff like write "A$$"" instead of ass. Are we in kindergarten here, or what? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry Beeb, I was raised gently and rarely use the words, and don't care to write them. Also, there's this (Sandy calls TCO comment "more baloney" (edit summary)) .--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Agree with Beeblebrox; some people speak with direct language, some people give indirects like "We all know Sandy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I'd agree with the rant part anyway, see this and this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC) @Wehwalt and TCO, the problem is that by repeatedly focussing discussion on reform or review of FAC onto the election of a FA director, and (I believe) incorrectly assigned alot of issues to it, you've made the issue unnecessarily ad hominem, and soured the atmosphere and polarised discussion. The unfortunate side-effects of this is that valid points have been lost in the ongoing furore and you've likely alienated quite a few people. The atmosphere is quite charged currently, so more posts that are dismissive of the other side or inflammatory should be taken in that powder-keg context. This is my opinion and I am obviously not impartial here, but my impression is that this qualifies as disruptive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Please do not address "Wehwalt and TCO", we are not associated and he has not yet commented here. Very well, if you are saying that this is a troll-provoked reaction by someone who is the model of civility when she is not in the throes of her resignation, I will accept it on your word as an arbitrator. Is that what you are saying?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC) @Wehwalt, I am speaking as an editor, not as an admin, arb or anything else. I am not calling it that at all, just saying that antagonistic comments using gratuitous words in a powderkeg situation is much worse that the usual run-of-the-mill argy-bargy. And have you actually been or are supposed to be TCO's mentor? I've seen references to this (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "antagonistic comments"? Diffs please. I have taken care to be respectful. Unless you call this thread a powderkeg situation. And even here I have been respectful.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I, too, would like some clarification please. It was you who stated that you were TCO's mentor. Has that changed, or was it never true? I'd like to know so that I can stop referring to you as his mentor if that is no longer true. You said it was, and you were the admin who did all the adminly tasks of giving him rights, reconstructing his various accounts and IPs that he used durinig his RTV, etc. Are you no longer his mentor, or are you denying that you once were? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I too cannot claim to be uninvolved but here are my observations. TCO has merely stated plainly what many people have been thinking: Ever since SandyGeorgia resigned she has been going around the place with a flamethrower. Here is another example: She was called up to WQA for incivility by one of the people involved in the Portuguese diacritics dispute, and by the end of the thread it becomes obvious that she is driving away some of the very sort of people the Foundation is trying to cultivate: those from the Global South. link to WQA discussion Although she states her "IQ" edit summary was not directed at Ed specifically, but at the admin core in general, Ed believed initially that the remark was directed specifically at him. I know I for one take offense at such edit summaries, and have been the victim of her acid tongue on several recent and not-so-recent occasions. Such hostility is unbecoming of a person in her position. Sandy, you need to rein it in. Here is another recent example. Assuming everyone is stupider than you or has fewer assets to bring to the table is demeaning to your fellow editors and interferes with collegiate editing. Now I gotta go do the payroll, so will be offline for a long while. --Dianna (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I can't be responsible for what Ed might have thought until he clarified and realized he was wrong (read the threads, misunderstandings happen, that's why we have something called AGF). You have been the "victim of my acid tongue"? Was that when I opposed you at RFA or elsewhere? Diffs please. I think Moni3's post here (starting from "... participants in this discussion ... " summarized well what's been happening at FAC. On the "ever since SandyGeorgia resigned" meme, since that was a few days ago, that's a rather small sample upon which to be making such claims, and let's consider what Welwalt and Alarbus have made of my resignation. Even with multiple flat out denials that I would stand for FA director or delegate, they are still making statements like this on talk pages (something that should be factored into any proposals for how to address this issue. I believe we still have something called AGF around here, and I believe my multiple statements should be accepted as truth, and I see those comments as furthering a campaign). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I get that Ed misunderstood, but I was offended by your blanket statement, as I too am an administrator on this wiki. When you feel someone has less knowledge than you, and you literally laugh in their face like you did with TCO, that is really rude, SandyGeorgia; it is demeaning to treat people that way. Very unprofessional behaviour on your part. A person in your position should hold themselves to a higher standard of behaviour. I am going to bed now, and will respond no more to this thread. --Dianna (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry you were offended by my rhetorical question: I'll consider your feedback for future interactions and take more care, but just so I can be clear on the standard-- are you offended by "this place has pussyjuice leaking out of its nutsack"? Also, you have provided no diffs for your "acid tongue" comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Cas, it's an ongoing thing. Usually it's tolerable, but she's been after TCO since the report. Obviously as you can tell TCO's pussy juice comment didn't start it; he did not introduce the reproductive organs into the discussion, Sandy did. Here's the "manic" thing she admits to sending TCO's way here, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Dianaa's diff.: I think you have a skewed idea of how analysis is done for learning about business situations, Sandy. Bwaaaaaaahaha .. I almost spewed my coffee on that one. Young man, "you're better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt". Some people reading this discussion know my educational background and employment history, and we thank you for displaying what you don't know. The question is not whether you know what a t-test is: it's whether either of you know the history of FAC well enough to know what samples are valid, or if you understand the principle of "garbage in-- garbage out". There's also a question of common sense on the table. At any rate, my former professors and employers would disagree with your characterization of mfy knowledge of applying analysis, particularly stochastic processes, to business situations. That's Sandy, today, three hours ago, denigrating TCO. And she gasps when he responds, and runs here. How do her comments help to build the encyclopedia?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC) In hindsight, yes, I could have answered that one more directly and simply without the "young man" lesson; it was ironic that he would try to discredit me with a statement that spoke directly to my education and employment history (kind of like telling Casliber he doesn't know anything about psychiatry might feel), but I could have just said that more simply, as in "TCO, my graduate degree and employment history are in statistical analysis, stochastic processes and computer models applied to business decision making". I was wrong to go over the top, because one is tired of being attacked doesn't excuse lashing back, and to the extent it felt like "denigration" of TCO, I'm sorry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I think that my body fluid remark was more harsh than Sandy (or Moni or Malleus). Also, you should punish based on what is right/wrong. Not if "Sandy did it too". I really mean that. Also, I personally don't think the only preventative block concept is right. I honestly (no troll) think punitive blocks are how the rest of the Internet does things and just work better. That said, I have no intention of repeating the misogyny. But I will accept my punishment with grace. You need to think about protecting your website. Not sure if this is an "ANI" thing, but it is on mind and kind of applies. But the sort of thing that bothers me much more than harsh words is holding grudges or being unfair (Soviet Tintin review, Chavez somthing? some thing with Hollaway? donno) I also think it is very wrong to try to look for questionable copyvios and to pervert the real objective of getting good, compliant prose into just another game in the wars of the factions. I really think what matters is being fair. Even when your "enemy is in the right" or your "friend in the wrong". I read something a long time ago by Cla68 about the Geogre thingie where he said he was an "ally" and "fellow content guy" with Geogre. But he had to be fair in judging a wrong by his "side". I hope this makes sense and is helpful. TCO (Reviews needed) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC) It is a little bit incoherent in the third and fourth paragraph. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Surely incoherence is no symptom of mania? :) Anyway, I doubt anyone is going to block TCO over a stale comment, especially when he's agreed to tone it down, and the rest of it is outside AN/I's remit. Suggest we close, or else leave open in case Sandy wants to rebut anything I've said.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "Incoherence is no symptom of mania" with a cute smiley after it? More indirect insults and implications, Wehwalt-- at the same time you call out others for trying to make light of "ass" comments, you joke about a claim that I said TCO was manic? Not on. And therein lies the civlity issue-- some of us speak directly, not in indirects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Cas is right and you should listen to him. This has been personalized beyond all repair quite frankly. Despite his remark, four or five more have been tacked on since, and then a comment to the effect that TCO's very inappropriate remark is basically fine. The atmosphere is charged to the point that I've totally lost my cool more than once in the last month - this has been going one since November and is disruptive - to the point of making a wildly inappropriate remark myself. The upshot of all of this is that writers and delegates are being lost, mostly women. That's worth thinking about. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Wehwalt, of course I AGF here, but you know very well (you posted a response to Ettrig after I responded to him on my talk) that I said an hour ago I was in a hurry and had to get out the door. I'm out of the shower now (TMI), and on my way out. Are we in a hurry here to close something while I'm not around and when very few people have weighed in? No, we don't close an ANI that deals with long-term disruption a few hours after it's been opened and before some consensus has formed about how to handle the TCO issue long term. I'm off now, when I'm back on I'll see if there's anything I need to respond to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) No wonder folks want to avoid FA. — Ched :  ?  21:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC) (removed in error - ec notice did not show up, so it is likely WP glitch - sorry) Collect (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) You all will have to decide if the provocation is sufficient to censure. (We are starting to repeat points.) I have had much less volume of remarks than Sandy has (number of comments on FAC). For instance in the late November kerfuffle. Huge numbers of rants at FAC and all over the site. It seems accepted that she can go on the warpath or fly off the handle to a much greater extent (I think even her friends might admit it). Remarks like pointing out Raul's fundamental absence are just speaking the truth and appropriate in a conversation on governance. But, again, do what you think is fair and best for Wiki. TCO (Reviews needed) 22:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Observations. My impression from what I have seen and the evidence here is that TCO's incivility and disruptiveness has a very self-aware and knowing aspect, perhaps even curiosity. With experience of other sites and internet fora, TCO deliberately uses language, including invective, for effect when he needs it, and pushes at the boundaries of acceptability. Hence on the one hand, he evidently does not buy into Wikipedia's ideals and challenges whether others do, but on the other hand, he readily accepts the right of Wikipedia to enforce those ideals as it thinks best. If/when this results in an indef ban, I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote a paper analysing his experience here. This is not a typical situation, in which the simplistic "the other side was nearly as bad" provides an excuse for taking no action rather than one-sided action. Hence I support the civility parole suggestion: better that TCO push the boundaries of parole rather than the boundaries of disruptiveness. Geometry guy 22:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Per Ched...I don't wonder why people avoid FA, or wiki for that matter, not anymore do I wonder. My Lord. Btwn this and Raul protecting a page in which he's a central figure. PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Raul has the authority to protect the page, but the suggestion to do so came from Wehwalt, after Raul archived discussion. I approve of both actions, as discussion was generating more heat than light: this is an environment in which disruption thrives, because nobody is on their best form, and there were multiple requests by editors to slow down and cool down. Consequently I do not yet support a topic ban for TCO from FAC: although I think a good case can be made, it still needs to be made. However, there is no question in my mind that there is a sufficient history of disruption here to support civility parole or a similar sanction. Geometry guy 23:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) GG, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Can you comment on whether Sandy's comments fall within our civility policy? I'd be grateful for as thorough an analysis as you devoted to TCO.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Disagreements between you and Sandy are a matter for separate discussion. If you read my thoughtful comments carefully (and my comments at the previous ANI discussion about TCO), you should see that I am referring to a pattern of behavior by TCO that this particular incident illustrates, and am specifically cautioning against: (1) Assessing TCO's behavior as part of some wider scheme involving editors such as yourself; (2) Comparing his behavior in this particular incident to the responses by others to this behavior. If you believe there is a pattern of disruption and incivility by Sandy or anyone else, please start a new discussion, present your evidence, and ask me to comment there. Geometry guy 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The thing that gets me is that all this is coming out of "FA"; supposedly our brightest and best editors. People that know how to use words and communicate. You all know the nuances that various words carry - you all know what we're here for. In fact, I even understand that you all want what is best for the project. I suggest that this isn't it!! I don't know how it got started, and to be honest? I really don't give a ... <deep breath>, I really don'I care. I'd think somewhere in the group sanity would have to fall on someone, and there could be meeting of the minds. At this point, it won't be long before our very best writers are before our own little court of law pointing fingers and claiming "... but they started it". How on Earth is that going to look to the outside world? Come on folks; if you're that emotionally involved - step outside and smell a flower or take a picture of the stars. All together now ... deep breath ... good air in ... bad air out. — Ched :  ?  23:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm kinda surprised, too. This is I think the result of the type of disruption that WT:FAC is being subjected to. FAC is usually a thoughtful and heady crew. The disruption has been persistent and deliberate. As to what the outside world thinks, why would anyone start caring now? --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Second proposal. I would suggest, in light of this, obviously quite toxic, situation that, and to allow the FA process to continue without disruption (while not preventing any reform suggestions) the following be agreed, (preferably, but not necessarily, on a voluntary basis.) Comments on the governance of FA process ought to be made only in the course of constructive analysis and proposals for change in an appropriate place (e.g. an RFC - or an appropriate thread on the an appropriate Wikipedia talk page). The users involved are directed to desist from criticising the FA process on pages evidently designed for commenting on articles because, however valid the criticism, the location is inappropriate, off-topic, and disruptive. TCO, SandyGeorgia, and Wehwalt shall not comment on each other at all. All involved users are directed to avoid any heated invective whatsoever. How would that do for allowing FAC to continue without disruption?--Scott Mac 23:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC) No. Sorry. I've done nothing wrong. I will not agree to any such restriction on me or obey it if imposed. I am appalled at the suggestion. I have written of Sandy respectfully. She is a sitting featured article delegate; her performance is obviously a matter to be discussed. Absolutely not.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I've not suggested that her performance cannot be discussed, only that it be done on the correct venue and format. It isn't a matter of attributing blame, or in saying who is in the "wrong", it is a matter of saying "this current interaction isn't helping the project and it has become disruptive" so, for the sake of the project everyone backs off. As I said, it would be better if this was voluntary, but if not....--Scott Mac 23:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Is TCO's incivility and potty mouth only directed at people involved in the FAC process? Although tempers appear to be getting a little short over there, I don't know why it would be considered unreasonable to require TCO or anyone else involved in that debate to keep their comments within certain boundries of decorum. If you were a manager in an office, how would you influence these people to get along? Two ways: (1)You send them to their offices and prohibit them from interacting for a certain amount of time, or (2) you tightly regulate their behavior when they are around each other, with quick and sure punishment if they cross the line. I believe Scott has proposed both. I would support either or both courses of action. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for asking the right question (I see others below thinking that papering this over with a "block 'em all" will solve something). Contrary to what Wehwalt said above, no, most of the diffs and warnings above are not related to FAC (one is edit warring in article space, one is DYK, one is his talk page, and only two I believe are FAC related), and none of his block log is FAC related. Should any admins care to look into the reason for this thread, in fact, the behaviors at FAC are a repeat of behaviors for which he has been blocked as far back as 2008. For example, he was blocked in 2008 for this comment, very much like one of his current comments. Perhaps one should not presume that admins weighing in here are clicking on diffs and reading block logs-- this is NOT an FA matter, making it one casts ill repute on FAC and Raul's leadership, and is ironic for PumpkinSky to be making statements about FAC when both Wehwalt and I had to warn *him* for his conduct at WT:FAC. WRT TCO, this is a continuation of behaviors elsewhere, and mostly not occurring at FAC, but that his disruption at FAC has been sustained has been pointed out by multiple editors here. And the last time this happened at FAC (2009-10), it was a very long time before that editor was indeff'd, and Wehwalt was one of her supporters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) If there is a complaint against me, make a thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC) You disparaged one of the parties involved in this dispute, so you also appear to be contributing to the disagreement. Nothing personal, I respect your writing. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC) What disparagement is that?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Some admin be brave and cap this off. Raul very sensibly shut down the discussion at FAC for 24 hours to give everybody a chance to cool off. That doesn't really work if everybody just jumps to the next available forum and keeps sniping at each other. Yomanganitalk 23:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm getting tempted to block the lot of them.--Scott Mac 23:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Sounds expedient, fast and easy, but first, "the lot of them" aren't even named here yet, and second, ignoring problems usually only escalates them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) As you wish, but I'm going offline. I don't edit while I'm angry, or at least know enough to walk away. Yomangani's advice sounds good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Scott Mac and I do not often agree, but he has the right idea this time. I'd be hard put to say which of the people here is more responsible than the others. Let's hope this does not resume tomorrow. If it does, interaction bans are in order as a first step. If it results in the need for some other people to attend to FAC than the regulars there, so much the better; others need the experience. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC) . I'm minded to pause or close this. Not because I disagree with Sandy and Raul (surprisingly I sympathise with a lot of what they say) but because this discussion taking place here or anywhere else at this moment renders the full protection of WT:FAC pointless. I've resisted the tempation to take action myself; given the extent of my past interactions with TCO, me closing could reasonably be seen as me behaving improperly in an attempt to save his neck. Point of order: if the above is ignored, and as we're discussing topic banning (a/ ) prominent user( /s) at FAC, this should probably be advertised at WT:FAC. —WFC— 02:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC) If that's the consensus, fine, but TCO has a long history of same, it's not only on FAC, and multiple editors have explained here that he is disrupting FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Whether any sanction is needed with regard to Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia is a matter for separate discussion, and considerable care. This thread concerns TCO, where the case is in an entirely different ballpark as yet another example of ongoing disruptive behavior. Geometry guy 01:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC) If someone wants to give TCO an enforced break, judging from this thread, I don't think most people here would disagree with you. I'm not an admin, which is why I haven't done so myself. Cla68 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC) On Scott Mac's proposal above: Comments on the governance of FA process ought to be made only in the course of constructive analysis and proposals for change in an appropriate place (e.g. an RFC - or an appropriate thread on the an appropriate Wikipedia talk page). The users involved are directed to desist from criticising the FA process on pages evidently designed for commenting on articles because, however valid the criticism, the location is inappropriate, off-topic, and disruptive. I'm not sure how that works: Wehwalt has not denied that he is campaigning to be FA director, and if he can't comment at WT:FAC, where can he comment? Even if I disagree with him, he has a right to campaign if he wants, and everyone has a right to criticism, as long as it's not disruptive. The problems there have been TCO and Alarbus; Wehwalt operates more with the kind of indirects I've highlighted above. And, what will you do about the statements on user talk pages such as I linked above, where Wehwalt and Alarbus are discussing that my resignation is not legitimate? I guess I'm not following your wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) TCO, SandyGeorgia, and Wehwalt shall not comment on each other at all. There is a "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign, and asking me not to comment on his qualifications for the job is ... well, go figure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) All involved users are directed to avoid any heated invective whatsoever. Not quite right or fair. And doesn't do anything to address the real issue, which is the destabilization and disruption at FAC from TCO even when he's not commenting on me, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) ENOUGH ... Sandy, TCO, and Wehwalt ... consider yourselves blocked for 48 hours. If you want to take me to AC, then fine ... but enough is enough. — Ched :  ?  06:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC) First, it's remarkable that you can say "stop this shit", while we can't say "ass". Second, amazing that I have no right to response, and my first response after being away all evening (for HOURS) triggered this. Third, don't anyone even THINK about unblocking me if this guy does this without consensus, because there's an arb case up right now where this is going. And fourth, 48 hours for a first block for Wehwalt or me-- read the manual. No consensus, ongoing discussion-- all heat, no light. <tap, tap, tap> I'm waiting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC) At my suggestion, Sandy is going to take a break for the night. Wehwalt, I suggest you do likewise. Meanwhile, I think it would be best to focus the discussion here back to the original topic of this thread, which is reigning in TCO's incivility. Raul654 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I have never meant any disrespect to anyone - I just want the fighting to stop. — Ched :  ?  07:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC) A question What has any of this to do with writing an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Beats me. All I asked for was for Raul, who has been in his post for eight years by virtue of a vote conducted in 2004, to agree to an election or retention vote, conducted in a free and fair manner. I didn't even say I wanted him out of office; it was my view that the effect of facing the community for a review every now and then would improve the tone at FAC, a free sample of which you've received. I did this in the context of a discussion opened by Sandy in her capacity as delegate asking what concerns the community had. Raul was on full notice of the discussion, that was the first thing I checked. I will not characterize the subsequent discussion using my name, except to note that it is false. I do not seek any office. However, if admins do not feel they can do anything about the diffs I posted, I will thank you and take my leave. Ched, I understand your heart was in the right place, but ... would someone close this? This is the third time I've asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Offensive content on user and talk 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.

---

• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs)

This user appears to have content on their user page which is there for no reason other than to offend. In particular, the image is of "Gallows on Auschwitz" with the caption "In a hung parliament, who do we hang first?" The obvious and disruptive implication here is that Jewish politicians should be hung first. This image is not being used on any pages other than this user page. In my opinion, this definitely violates user page policy.

On their talk page, their "gone fishing" notice contains an image of Cocaine and their signature is "2 lines of K". I don't know if the promotion of a drug which is illegal in most countries is against policy, and I have no idea whether this is intended to offend or not, but I thought it should be brought up as well. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks a lot like WP:FORUMSHOPping to me, given the thread you created hours ago at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#One_Night_In_Hackney. Also, while you did notify ONIH of that thread, you did not mention this thread after its creation, which is required. I would add that the complaint you are making might be a bit nit-picky; because a picture depicts something in Auschwitz does not automatically mean it is anti-Jewish, nor does a picture of cocaine necessarily promote drug use. I am not saying these things are in good taste, and indeed both might be against policy, but neither stands out as an "OMG, let's get immediate admin action" item...at least to me.  Frank  |  talk  21:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not leap to any conclusions about that. Someone came into my office and needed my attention just after I posted this before I had the change to post a notification. I have now done so. As to whether this is "forum shopping" you are welcome to hold whatever opinion about that you like, but this is a different issue and as far as I know this is the correct forum to report the issue. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "leap to any conclusions" - that's how it was at the time. As for forum shopping, well, I think WP:QUACK can be applied here. You failed to get any action on your WQA thread and then opened this one. Note that I'm not making any judgment whatsoever on the user page or user talk page; I'm commenting on the advisability of this request for action in light of the previous one...against the same user. And I use the word against deliberately here, because that's how it appears to me.  Frank  |  talk  22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that having has a separate problem with an editor is a good reason not to report a user page problem that I just discovered. I hadn't really looked at the user page until just now. Again, have whatever opinion you like. It's just not relevant to the issue I brought up. If you have no opinion on that issue, there's not really any pressing need on your part to say any more... or is there? Yworo (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

One's motivation in bringing up an issue at WP:ANI (or indeed any noticeboard requesting punitive action) is directly relevant to the issue. Your protestation regarding my interpretation is a part of the conversation; I find it a little problematic given the timing of the edits. You didn't bother to look at the user's talk page - even though you had posted a notice about the WQA thread - until after you got two answers from two different editors that disagreed with your WQA post? Sure, it's possible, and maybe even exactly how it happened...but, that's not how it looks. As for whether there is a "pressing need" for me to say more, well, the answer is "of course there is no need", but as I chose to initially respond, it's reasonable to continue to engage in the conversation.  Frank  |  talk  22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions again. Of course I looked at the user's talk page. I said I hadn't really looked at the user's user page, there's a difference. And by "really looked", I mean I hadn't looked to see what the image was of until now. I looked to see if there was anything relevant to know about them, there wasn't. I'd just looked deeper into what was there is all. Sheesh. Yworo (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And the cocaine picture, about which you also complained, is on which page?  Frank  |  talk  22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page. I didn't find it sufficiently offensive on its own to report, but thought it should be brought up along with the other more offensive issue, as I said in my initial post, I didn't know if it was against any policy or not. I think I was pretty clear about that. Yworo (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Grow up. "In a hung parliament, who do we hang first?" is a well-used phrase totally unrelated to anti-semitism. If it hadn't been pointed out, I wouldn't have known it was a gallows at Auschwitz, but so what if it is? All gallows are repulsive. This is a joke. It's actually quite a funny one and one which is well-appreciated in the UK where, readers may recall, we were landed with a hung parliament at the last election. Thus, not just funny, but topical and satirical. (FYI, the page in its present form was created on 7 May 2010, the day after the election which produced a "hung parliament".) I notice the complainant is American, so perhaps, to be charitable, it's just that our British humour is not understood there, but I also suspect that this is more to do with a personal vendetta than a genuine affront. It really does smack of WP:FORUMSHOPping to me. Emeraude (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm American and I don't get the joke. While I'm not Jewish myself, I have good reason to be sensitive to such "jokes", most of my in-laws family died at Auschwitz. I don't appreciate the lightness of the attitude here, being told to "grow up" or being told my concern is insincere. You people are admins? Hell, if you can be admins, I'm more than qualified myself. Yworo (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFA is the place to test out that assertion.  Frank  |  talk  22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Now y'all have fun patting yourselves on the back and laughing at crypto-anti-semitism. I won't be watching this page anymore. If any admin who can see the what the issue is here and has something sensible to say about it, ping me on my talk page. Yworo (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cavalierly dropping charges of antisemitism is something that will boomerang on you if you aren't damn sure of what you are claiming. Seriously, go find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And, indeed, three different editors have already said several sensible things to you right here where you raised your concern. It is highly unlikely you'll get any responses to this thread on your talk page; that's not how WP:ANI (or most of Wikipedia) works.  Frank  |  talk  23:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Looking at this case, I'd say that ONIH demonstrated execrable judgement and tremendous insensitivity, but absent any evidence to suggest intent I don't think there's a reason to jump to the conclusion that his user page is antisemitic. It is, however, quite offensive.

Hung parliament is a term often used in UK politics as a synonym for a minority government: a government where no political party holds a majority of the votes (seats) in parliament. (U.S. editors may be unfamiliar with this concept or situation and the associated terminology, as U.S. politics have been dominated for many years by just two parties; the party with the most seats will necessarily also have a majority of the seats.) 'Hung' is used in this context to mean 'stuck' or 'snagged' (like a hung jury), not executed with a noose and gallows—but of course the word's more colorful connotations proved irresistible to the sadly predictable wags who draw editorial cartoons ([72], [73], [74], [75], [76]) and write 'witty' columns. The quote on ONIH's user page almost certainly would have been drawn from the writing of a humor columnist, blogger, or late-night television monologue.

As far as I can tell, ONIH thought that the quote was a clever witticism – and I'm willing to admit that it's mildly chuckle-inducing the first time, though it tires quickly if it's the only joke on the page – and just went out to get the first (or best, or clearest) free image of a gallows he could find on Wikipedia to decorate the text—without regard for the image's source. That said, given that the name Auschwitz is right in the image's title, I'm not willing to assume that he didn't know where the image was taken. Perhaps he's guilty of egregious cultural or historical illiteracy and wasn't aware of the significance, but it seems more likely to me that he was just resoundingly insensitive. It's not appropriate to use Holocaust-related photographs to decorate one's editorial cartoons, and that shouldn't need to be said. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I doubt hugely that the image has anything to do with anti-semitism or the holocaust. From what I undertand, OneNightInHackney is from the UK. The UK currently has a hung parliament (which is unusual in recent UK politics).

Also, if you have concerns about this kind of thing, it is usually best to bring it up on the user's talk page before coming here. --RA (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - 2linesofK - the K is not cocaine , its special K Ketamine. Youreallycan (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably just an unfortunate choice of illustrations. There are several safe ones at Gallows. Regarding the "hung Parliament", the approximate equivalent situation in the USA is called "gridlock". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The images in our article Gallows all seem to have people hanging on them. Or it's not immediately clear what they are - one looks like industrial machinery. If you go to Commons and search for "gallows", you get these four images [77]. Which one are you going to pick to illustrate an acerbic comment on the best option for the miscegenation that is the current UK government? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This one is my personal favorite. It's also tragic, as Lincoln's conspirators had a fatal miscommunication with their attorney. When he told them he would try to get them a suspended sentence, they thought it was good news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Have to disagree. Can't help but feel that this one is a more accurate metaphor for men in suits faffing over the death of a nation. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved idiot Back to the topic. The 2linesofK-thingy is not a problem afaik. It is indirectly related to his/her name (via kektex and Chris Liberator). I think it is about time to simply ask One Night In Hackney if he/she is willing to change to another picture of gallows. If One Night In Hackney just wants a picture of gallows and does not care where it is from picking another picture that has less potential to offend so we can mark this thread as resolved is probably the best solution. If One Night In Hackney is not willing to change the picture this thread can continue. Von Restorff (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked that question to One Night In Hackney here. Von Restorff (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. If I interpret this correctly One Night In Hackney says fascism is a bad thing.

So what exactly is offensive here? The gallows? Picture of cocaine? A username? Mo ainm~Talk 01:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To me? Nothing TBQH. But incorrect accusations of anti-Semitism can be seen as a personal attack. Von Restorff (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What does a dispute at Nicole Kidman, have to do with ONIH's userpage 'image' & talkpage 'image'? GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you guys mind if I close this? If we need to re-open it that is always possible. Von Restorff (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bold nonadmin closure. This was stupid. I will ask Yworo to apologize to One Night In Hackney. Von Restorff (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Mailinator addresses (again)

This problem has been discussed several times on this board, without resolution, including here, here, here and here. I've just received dozens more such abusive emmails; this tame, the Mailinator address was racist abuse of another editor. Since, as far as I understand, an email address must be registered in order to use the send email facility, would it not be possible to put in a filter, such as with abusive usernames, to prevent at least this element of such abuse? RolandR (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't possible—the edit filter has no access to emails sent. Filing a bug report/feature request at bugzilla.wikimedia.org is the only way I can think of to stop it beyond disabling your email. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a content filter for messages sent. Rather, that when an email is registered to allow posting using the Wikipedia email facility, abusive email names, such as the ones used by this vandal (usually themselves containing racist abuse or death threats) not be permitted to register at all. RolandR (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting that feature added would take the same process. Anyway, it would be very easy to circumvent by simply using an innocuously-named address. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think RolandR's basic request is, can we prevent "throw-away" email addresses from being confirmed?--v/r - TP 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And the answer to that is to file a bugzilla feature request, either to block Mailinator addresses from being used, or to create a blacklist we can edit for allowed email addresses. Prodego ^talk 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The above replies are good, but what can the community do that is more helpful than effectively dismissing the OP to a blind alley (since an individual asking for a significant change is unlikely to get results)? Where should a discussion be held to get some solid consensus that technical assistance is required? WP:VPR? Can those with influence seek to engage people familiar with MediaWiki enhancements? Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that this requires a MediaWiki tweak it's probably best if you request it at bugzilla. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but we all know about that there is a close-to-zero chance of significant work being performed when an unknown account makes a random bugzilla suggestion requiring significant work. I am asking that someone clueful make a suggestion about how to proceed because abuse of the mail system is a serious problem. Yes, we can all ignore it because it's only happening to someone else (solution: that person should disable their email, that is, we can each be picked off one-by-one). However, when reports of abusive editing are made, it is standard for people to help—that's what is needed here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually there's already a related bugzilla [78]. There have been some contradictory comments but my understanding is the foundation is already aware of this and looking in to the best solution. I'm not entirely sure whether more community pressure would help, I would have expected the nature of the emails is enough to convince the foundation that this is a serious issue. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact is, there's nothing we can do. This is something that would require a code change, not something the community can deal with. It's not "ignoring" the problem to point them to the bugzilla system. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I know the above is well intentioned, but as it completely misses the point I have to respond. Everyone here knows that a code change is required. We also know that sending an individual to bugzilla about this issue will achieve nothing. For any chance of success, the community would have to conduct a wider discussion and reach a solid consensus requesting an enhancement. People with a clue would need to be involved. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First, back off on the passive-aggressive insults. Second, "a wider discussion" would not achieve anything, as the community cannot enact the change. If you feel that bugzilla "achieve(s) nothing," that's your perogative; but that doesn't change the reality that the community cannot implement the fix you want. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User Zenanarh

User Zenanarh has used systematically personal attack in the following discussion. [79], despite the discussion was already mediated by an administrator. I have not replied before in order not to influence the decision of the administrator about the matter of the dispute.
This is over now and I need to report this incident. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you provide links to the supposed personal attacks. I do believe that you should bring your objections to the administrator mediating the debate, rather than make a post on ANI. I understand, from my past involvement with the Zadar issue (in 2007, if i recall correctly), that the debate is a contentious one but I urge all parties involved to discuss the issue with civility. Bringing this matter before ANI will only escalate the issue. —Dark 13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances this is what I would do. The thing is that I was very patient during the mediation despite the attacks of user Zenanarh (he was also warned by the mediator to have a calmer attitude). This user has been recently blocked [80] for the following reason: "has expressed and demonstrated a deliberate desire to disrupt Wikipedia", but apparently this sanction has not been very effective on his/her behaviour.

I report hereafter the extracts of some of his/her attacks from the talks [81], [82] and [83] if you want to put them into context.

• This is just another problem of the same kind with literature, since Italian literature is not objective, it usurps any prominent person from Croatia in the past. If you defend such extremism you are an extremist and from now on I will treat you as the one. Zenanarh (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Very nice. But I don't trust Silvio. His comment, now removed, was manipulation of what I wrote. Please, don't trust his citations, check it. Zenanarh (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• I would like to add that claims of extremistic ideologies cannot be a part of multiple perspectives. You can inform people that Mein Kampf treated the Jews as the animals, but you cannot edit Jews as they are the animals and use Mein Kampf as reference. Zenanarh (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• I cannot socialize with an agenda warrior. Zenanarh (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• It is obvious in our case, that Italian claims about Italianship of Dalmatia were coming from the Italian Irredentists and Fascists in the past and that same claims are sometimes coming from some modern Italians at present. Zenanarh (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I can see we have problem – your poor knowledge about Zadar, Dalmatia and Croatia. Zenanarh (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Silvio, don't make jokes with me. I have no time for craps. Zenanarh (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• It's much more important to explain processes and occasions, as well as complex political situation in the city, than to produce a political pamphlet which is your obvious intention (I would like to believe it's not, but you haven't shown anything else); Zenanarh (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is more available if you need...

--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio, I can't see any of those as personal attacks, although some are a little impolite. Yes, some are calling your editing into question, but you're doing the same to Zenanarh. The first is probably the indicator of the problem, and ought really to be dealt with as part of the mediation if it is still ongoing.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, if this is normal behaviour I guess Wikipedia (at least the English one) is not the right place for me. I am fine with boldness but I did not qualify of extremist, ignorant, forger or manipulator my counterparty. Where can you find such comments from my side?

Well, I think the mediation is finished. This is the reason I am reporting this only now. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not "taking sides". But you must know that bringing this to ANI isn't going to look favorably upon yourself either, and will potentially escalate the dispute. I agree with Elen in that I do not see a personal attack in the comments above, although it may be heated and be misconstrued as such. I suggest that you bring this issue into formal mediation and keep your cool - Zenanarh should do the same. —Dark 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and I do not think nor believe that you are "taling sides". The issue - and you can understand clearly checking it by yourself - it that almost each talk that touch articles like Zadar, Dalmatian history and art gets into lenghty and impolite discussion (to use Elen's wording). Many contributors to these articles do not see with favour contributions or modifications from non Croat users. Almost invariably Italian contributors as potential extremist and all new users (it was also my case) are seen as potential sock puppets (?!).

However I understand what you mean when you write that there is no ground for a claim on ANI (albeit I did not like at all the reference he made to [Mein Kampf]). Someone else will report Zenanarh in the future. This user is genuinely aggressive, no doubt he will be blocked again one day. In the meantime I will avoid any contact with him. It does not matter if he/she will have easier life in imposing his views. I do not want to be insulted again just because my sources are different. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to comment that I responded to a third opinion for this matter and we discussed in length on the talk page here: Talk:Zadar and in my own user namespace where I tried to resolve the issue as a "mediator" position here: User:Whenaxis/Zadar. I kept reminding both of them of 4 steps they should always remember:

1. Consider the other editor's point of view.
2. Do not disruptively edit through edit warring and reversions.
3. Do not use personal attacks to get your point across.
4. Rely on Wikipedia policies to determine a resolution.

[Source: [84] ]

At this time, from a third party "mediator" perspective, I don't think this is needed because I think we've resolved majority, if not all, the issues because Zenanarh has lightened up and is responding in a friendly manner now. Thanks Whenaxis talk Join the Imposter Verification Team! 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis you are right but the result of Luciano Laurana as Croat is quite original if you consider Britannica or Getty.

• http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=Luciano+Laurana
• http://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=luciano+laurana&role=&nation=&prev_page=1&subjectid=500007368

--Grifter72 (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, everyone would have responded in a friendly manner after such a favorable decision. Before your decision he was friendly at all. I still do not understand why the sources I provided were not taken in consideration. We are facing a situation where for an article on en:wiki, local sources (Croatian) have been preferred to reputable international available on line. Perhaps I was not good in defending my arguments, but still remains for me a mistery how could Whenaxis stating about the content of the Croatian sources unless he does not speak Croatian (and he owns the books). But I prefer not discussing of it otherwise I will get sick. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal

I believe a requested move (RM) discussion for John VI of Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that was still active was prematurely closed. The discussion was still active, and there were multiple replies going on the same day when an administrator (User:The ed17) abruptly closed and moved the page. I appealed to the closer for reversal, but to no avail (unfortunately, I was not very polite in the heat of that shock, but others should not have to pay for my thoughtlessness).

I would like to request an uninvolved administrator to reopen the discussion and reverse the premature move.

• Talk page shows the continued how active the disussion still is Talk:João VI of Portugal
• Talk page of the closer User talk:The ed17#João VI, with reactions to the closing.

This page has been subjected to the same requested move before (including earlier this year earlier RM), and the decision consistently has been to leave the page at the same stable, long-standing title. Although this renewed RM had fewer participatants, discussion still proceeded and strong opposition was expressed. But an administrator stepped in, interpreted it as "consensus", closed it and moved it, while active discussion was still going on (there were many replies on that same day).

Immediate disatisfaction with the change is evident on the talk page, and the discussion is obviously still active. You might also notice that this name change implicates other similarly-titled pages (John I, John II, John III, etc.), and the controversial move immediately resulted in a brief spate of move-warring across other pages. Clearly, this needs more discussion. The move was premature and should be reversed back to the stable, long-standing title it had before the move and discussion re-opened.

Walrasiad (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As I see, the requested move was opened 03:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC). Requested moves can be closed any time after full listing period (also seven days). Thus the close of this requested move wasn't premature. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There was Christmas lull. Discussion was very active again. There were seventeen (!) posts on the topic the very day it was closed. Indeed, I found abruptly closed while still in the course of composing a reply. Walrasiad (talk)

There was little chance of the consensus changing when only people who had already participated were arguing, in my view. There was no later move-warring, just typical WP:BRD. My view is that an RfC needs to be raised to decide what name the articles should be under. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you're saying. People were in active discussion. If you admit consensus wasn't changing, then the page should have not been moved but left in its current state. I hate to bring this up here, but it has also been brought to my attention that you recently sought out the assistance of one of the more active participants in this debate on an unrelated matter (collaborating on each other's Featured Articles). While I am certain your closure was not elicited nor done as a favor, I can't help but wonder if your judgment of "consensus" was not inadvertently affected by your close familiarity with one of the more vocal editors for the move. Again, I mean no disrespect, and I am sure you endeavored to be fair, but we are all human and judgment is imperfect. It would put my mind at rest if another less-involved administrator at least looked at this RM closure with a fresh impartial set of eyes, and decided whether or not "consensus to move" had been reached and the closure and move warranted. I am all for opening RfC to the wider community and resolving this matter, but I think it fair that the page be first restored to prior state, so that people coming to comment are clearly aware what the long-standing, stable status of the article has been, and where the burden of proof lies. Walrasiad (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If I felt my judgement was compromised, I wouldn't have closed it. I remain firmly convinced that my assessment of the consensus was correct. I'm going to back away, let this ANI run its course (read: let neutral editors weigh in), and then let's all open an RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

They should be in english, for english readers to understand. Afterall, English Wikipedia is for english readers. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All the supporters of this diastrous name change should be investigated for canvassing and/or other non-ethical behavior. Looks pretty much like a group action to pollute the language intentionally. Very destructive consensus in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

C'est la vie. Alarbus (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I think João is more appropriate, since that seems to be favoured by sources (both anglophone and lusophone). I would remind GoodDay that although this is the "English Wikipedia", it covers foreign subjects too. Including, in this case, a Portuguese monarch. One of the perils of having articles on Portuguese people is that we may sometimes have to use Portuguese names; accuracy is pretty important in an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is xenophobia allowed on Wikipedia? Some of the remarks here and at João VI of Portugal's talk page are way out of line. --Lecen (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Xenophobia? Once again with the grotesque low personal attacks? No one's made nationality an issue except you Lecen. Walrasiad (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

When will we 'english only' speakers, get our language Wikipedia back? Heck help us, if a movement begins, to change the Japanese monarch articles to Japanese. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good close, good move. The unhappy parties seem intent on misnaming anything "foreign". Bad businesses. Alarbus (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As the closer suggested, the obvious course is a rfc on the use of the name. RMs have limited participation, and are subject to distortion by a small number of people who feel the same way on something. In this case, the issue is broad enough that others might be interested. The cure for limited attention is wider attention. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If you're not in any way involved, how about drafting an RfC on this and getting a goodly number of uninvolved in on this? I'm not much involved, but I see others (in this thread) who involve themselves in all sorts of moves involving diacritics and "foreign" names. It's not healthy for the project. If not you, someone... Alarbus (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But this needs to be moved back to the long-standing stable page before an RfC run, so that outside commentators are clear what the status quo was and where the burden of proof lies. I have participated in many RMs, and never have I seen "consensus" so misinterpreted by a closing administrator as happened here. Now, even if this closing admin honestly believed at the time there was consensus, I think it is pretty clear now that there isn't consensus. So I'd like to remind administrators to apply the policy WP: Consensus states: "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Walrasiad (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I do still believe that there was consensus. You need to stop criticizing my close, which was right numbers-wise (6 to 3) and arguments-wise (my judgement), and let outside people here comment (which they may not do, thanks to the vitriol expressed by you and others). Either way, soon after we need to move to an RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was premature or ill-advised or something. It should take more than a 6-3 to declare a new consensus for a long-standing title that was last thoroughly discuss just a year ago and had a 9–9 split over the issue. Especially since there's a big contentious broad principle at stake here. Do a centralized RfC on it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some of you might have missed the point of what is truly being discussed here. A move was requested based on what is the name mostly used by English speaking historians. The name is João VI. We have 53,800 results for João and 40,800 results for John. Ed17 closed the discussion because here were no longer replies except for three users who against the move who kept debating by thsemves. So far, so good. What some may have not noticed are the comments by three users with a high dosage of xenophobia.[85], [86], [87] and [[88]], to name a few. This is the kind of behavior that should not be allowed on Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, as proven clearly in the talk page, your numbers are misleading. And I am getting increasingly tired and annoyed of your bald accusations and insinuations about the motives of people about whom you known nothing about. You and only you have made nationality an issue. You have repeatedly, not only in this debate, but also in the user talk pages, related to your failed Featured Article candididacies when people disagreed with you. Your paranoia is misconstrued. At some point, you should realize that just because someone doesn't agree with your view, or doesn't thnk Portuguese spellings should be forced upon English wikipedia, they aren't necessarily xenophobes, and to accuse them of that is disgusting and dishonest. Walrasiad (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I object to being slandered here as xenophobic. Anyone who knows me or even has looked at my WP user page would find such personal attacks om me ridiculous. I find them extremely offensive. STOP THAT MUD-SLINGING! And stick to the subject! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not WP policy, as I understand it, that frequency of use should be more important than common sense in naming articles, as long as frequency imbalance is not overwhelming, which is not the case here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be "John VI of Portugal", followed by, (João VI de Portugal). Which follows the pattern found on John II of France[89] and Henry IV of France[90]. Maybe this should be the pattern for all royalty? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think so, but that is to be addressed in an RfC, not here. The only issue in this ANI is whether there was consensus for the move or not. And if not, then it should be corrected as per "no consensus" policy in WP:CONSENSUS and the page moved back to the long-standing stable name. The RfC, and all the comments about names, can follow from there. Walrasiad (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. See WP:COMMONNAME and the closely related point three at WP:SOVEREIGN. In any case, the question here, as I understand it, is if I judged consensus correctly at the RM linked about. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Premature looking at it objectively and carefully, reading it all, taking into account the holidays and also the apparent identities of some of the "voters", plus WP common sense policies on everything, including WP:USEENGLISH. That's not to say I want to criticize Ed, who I'm sure acted in good faith (sadly, more than I can say about some of the others involved). SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that admins hestitate to ... well .. do what admins are supposed to do? And why is it that Alarbus, who has all the hallmarks of being a returning editor and who shares a position with Lecen and Ed on the FA director issue (and a review of their editing histories and talk pages shows that Alarbus came to support Lecen over the "Wehwalt for FA director" issue-- a phrase first seen from Alarbus on the Lecen issue[ [91]) are now editing on the same side of a conflict? As Lecen has already shown, there is an abundance of articles that refer to John by his name in English, this is the en Wiki, and we have naming conventions here. That there are slightly more sources that refer to his Portuguese name than the translation to English is irrelevant to the issue: there is an abundance of sources that support his English name and that translation, so it should be used on en Wiki. WP:SOVEREIGN says "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference ... " English! Feel free to point out what I'm missing. And by the way, besides the curious nexus of the apparently returning editor Alarbus suddenly supporting Lecen's content positions after they came together on the FA issue, there has been a long history of canvassing on this suite of articles, so again, why the heck aren't admins looking at the things they're supposed to be looking at: disruptive behaviors, returning editors with a possible agenda, possible meatpuppetry-- is it rocket science or did we not have an arb finding a few years ago about coordinated editing? Why must we have an RFC when we have policies and conventions? Why are admins unable to sort this here and be done with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me say muito bem dito in beautiful Portuguese. Thanks SandyGeorgia! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

three edit-conflicts, getting ridiculous! :Wait, what? I don't really have a position on the FA director issue right now. That's why I want an RfC. Have I unintentionally expressed one? Afaik, Alarbus and Lecen haven't contacted each other before a few days ago. It may be that they share several philosophies about Wikipedia and naturally gelled. I thought that the argument that there were more sources calling him Joao was proven, and there were more people opining with stronger arguments in support than those opposed. That's why I closed it as "move." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not faulting you Ed-- an editor very legitimately came here looking for help, where for all the world I can't see where he's not plainly right, yet he's having to battle a Lecen-Alarbus coordination that developed a few days ago over another issue, and no admins will just take this on and solve it, so what should be clear right here and now gets drug to RFC, wasting a lot of time. This is why ANI doesn't work and admins are held in little regard. Please explain why this is rocket science, and please explain why admins can't see that Alarbus has all the hallmarks of a returning editor with an agenda, who is supporting Lecen here because of other issues? Gosh, is anything above f'ing c's just too hard for admins to deal with? What about the fellow who came here with a legitimate issue who is getting ignored? I've had to call out canvassing in this suite in the past-- is anyone even looking into that? And Serge, if you have diffs, post them here-- you have to make it very easy here on ANI, because not all of them will look beyond obvious vulgarities for which they can issue an easy block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

More background: before I knew him at FAC, I had edited with Lecen at Hugo Chavez. While we share views on what has gone wrong in that article to make it POV (the who, how and why it came to ignore reliable sources to become a pro-Chavez hagiography), Lecen was so argumentative and disruptive on the talk page that he effectively shot any effort to NPOV the article in the foot, using the talk page for long anti-Chavez rants, ([92][93]) leading me to recuse on his FACs, where he then went on to alienate reviewers and delegates alike with the same intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style,[94] leading him to sour grapes at FAC,[95] leading to Alarbus's post about the Wehwalt for FA director campaign. Lecen is very difficult to edit with, which is why he's having a hard time getting FACs reviewed-- he argues with everyone about everything. So give the poor fellow who came here with a legitimate issue a chance; solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, obliquely you are because I'm the one who closed the RM. ;-) I've been waiting for a neutral admin or editor to look at the discussion and assess my close (aka the original issue raised in post #1), but I think the vitriol here has stopped people from entering the discussion. Anyway. I have to run to work now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, you can make a wrong close without necessarily being an incompetent admin or complicit ... I'm alerting you to the problem, but my issue is with other admins who do nothing unless someone curses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha – my bad. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's particularly hard to make a good close when there are disruptive behaviors, canvassing, and the like going on, so yea ... where are the other admins to help out here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rfc, seems the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC on what or whom? Which part of the various Wikipedia pages on naming and foreign languages is unclear? Please explain why the naming aspect isn't fairly clear cut and well spelled out in the pages linked above-- I may be truly dense. Unless you're suggesting an editor RFC for disruption ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear, that we should use english. Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark; Pedro V of Portugal; Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece (to name a few), should be Frederick, Crown Prince of Denmark; Peter V of Portugal; Paul, Crown Prince of Greece. The problem is a few editors who seem to be pushing their 'mother-tongue' on these article titles. What kinda Rfc is pushed, matters not to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Though we are drifting more and more off topic, I do not agree re: bios of living people after 1900. By about then, everyone had legal names with legal spellings, so Frederik should remain Frederik, Carl XVI Gustaf should remain Carl Gustaf etc. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

...that's not specifically within WP:SOVEREIGN. The names have to be the most-used in English literature. The issue here is that certain English transliterations may not actually be predominant for some names, but not all, so the RfC will decide what names they should all go under. Or at least that's how I'm envisioning it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the exchange at User talk:The ed17#Appeal to resolve RM and SergeWoodzing I wish to point out to you that when closing a WP:RM debate it is not a question of counting "votes" it is a question of reading the opinions expressed and seeing how they match the WP:AT policy and the naming convention guidelines.

It seems to me that the debate was closed before these issues had been properly aired, and many of the opinions expressed did not examine the evidence and present it using the policy and guidelines to help them come to an informed decision. The sort of questions that should have been asked are outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title.

After skimming the debate I do not see any analysis presented of the usage in reliable sources in the article. I do not see a survey of what other general references use and the Google search seems to be flawed.

It would have helped every one come to a more informed decision if a Google search had been done on English language books published in the last 25 years or so. If that had been done then the results seem to indicate that "João VI" or "Joao VI" is about twice as common than "John VI". But I have not looked at the quality of the sources and that would take time to do (an ANI is not the forum for it). Also there has been no discussion about whether "João VI" or "Joao VI" is more common in English language sources.

I think the RM ought not to have been closed as a move because the evidence had not been presented in such a way that an informed decision could have been reached by the closing administrator, on the evidence presented during the RM debate, and I do not see a summary of the informed reasons for the move presented by the closing administrator, which if given could have gone a long way to defusing this row.

As an administrator who has closed debates before that are contentious :-o I know what a thankless task it often is. I suggest that in this case that unless on consideration Ed decides to reopen this debate, the customary period of six months is allowed to pass before the debate is resumed with a new WP:RM. I particularly do not support an RfC over this issue (it is forum shopping) and often RfCs get even less support than RMs and RMs have an advantage over RfCs because they tend to attracted editors who are familiar with the WP:AT policy and its guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to PBS on admin "The ed17"

Thank you for your input. I respectfully request that a different admin be put in charge of this decision, as I don't believe the closing administrator User:The ed17 is competent to make this decision.

Support the respectful request and admire the excellent and comprehensive field work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was holding this part of my argument back, to give Ed time to make the right decision. But User:Lecen has just now tried to get me frivolously blocked a second time, this time on 3RR, when I resisted Lecen's attempt a few minutes ago to introduce an automatic archiving bot to remove the older (but relevant) discussions on the John VI talk page before this ANI was resolved. As a result, I am not sure if I'll be blocked or not, and might not be around to see Ed's reply and the progress of this ANI before laying out this case.

It is not a pleasant case to make, and I wish I wouldn't have to, but Ed's failure to rectify his error, and Lecen's increasingly hostile shenanigans to induce my silence, leave me little option but to present the case fully now. I have tip-toed around it thus far. But I feel that so long as the situation continues in the present state, there will be more collateral damage, and resolution must be quickened.

Let me state it openly: I am not satisfied that User:The ed17 acted ethically or in a manner befitting of an admin on this matter. I believe ed17's judgment and role in this closure was elicited at the request of one of the more vocal participants, specifically User: Lecen, who I believe also canvassed other participants, to undertake the move.

This charge is based on the following factors:

• Ed and Lecen are close collaborators on Featured Article candidacies (FAC), and have been for over a year, Ed and Lecen are extremely friendly, intimate collaboraters, and in e-mail contact with each other, as a cursory glance at their talk pages show, e.g. just from the past year (2011), from Ed's talk page:

*Dec 10 (Lecen canvassing Ed for Requested Move vote (on a different page). Note revelation of e-mail contact between them over this.)

• Jan 11

* Feb (FAC coop)

• Mar (note: here Ed moves a page at Lecen's request, without RM),
• Apr (FAC coop)
• Apr 2 (on a problem with an FA commentator)
• Jun 1, (FAC coop),
• Jun 2 (what looks suspiciously like a plan to manipulate an RfC to help Lecen evade a block, and a curious comment about the "arbitrariness" of admins),
• Sep (FAc again)
• Sep (recommending Lecen to author op-ed for the Bugle)
• Oct
• Nov (FAC coop)

* Dec (FAC review coop)

* Dec (greetings & gratitude)

• Side note: Lecen's contributions to Ed's FAC on Talk:South American dreadnought race

and from Lecen's talk page (from 2011)

* Jan 11 (Lecen warned about Canvassing for FAC by another party)

* Jan (Lecen's edit-warring quarrel with Cpripper over John VI/Joao VI in Empire of Brazil page)

* Jan (CPripper warns Lecen of 3RR in attempting to impose Joao VI over John VI in Brazil article. Lecen follows it up with counter-threats on Crpipper's page)

* Jan (Lecen & Paulista01 frustration over failure of RM for Joao VI/John VI, blame nationality of admin, plan re-run)

* Jan (Uxbona summarizes wiki policy on monarch names, rel. John VI)

* User talk:Lecen/Archive 7#Luso-Brazilian History (Ed expresses interest in joining Lecen's Luso-Brasilian history wikigroup; note participation of Asyntax, Paulista01, in this (who also participated in this RM). Note also Lecen's revelation of his frustration to Ed of first RM ofJoao/John VI in Jan 11, part of the quarrel of which can be read just above.)

* Apr (Ed urging Lecen not to leave, Ed characterized as a "good and loyal person")

* Dec 11 (FAC coop)

* Jan (post on Ed's FAC, Ed expresses regret at Lecen's departure, urges alternative projects, future collaboration - three days before RM fiasco).

finally from User:Lumastan (Chritiano Thomas) page, an indication (in the Portuguese language) of the connection between the John VI name and Lecen's departure this past December 2011:

* [96] translation: explaining his departure, Lecen says "I had interest in writing other articles on Portuguese history but lack of support has destimulated me", referring to FA reviewers being "sometimes some real arrogant ****" who frustrated him. He then goes on to point out that "I wanted to improve the D. Joao VI article, but I hate the name "John VI' and the editors here on Wikipedia love to "americanize (or more precisely "anglicize") the name of the their monarchs....I tried to change the name, but I did not receive the proper support".

It has given me no pleasure to trawl through talk pages collecting this, and even less pleasure posting it here. The point of airing all this laundry is:

• 1. to demonstate a pattern of intimacy and cooperation between Lecen and the Ed for at least a year. Most of it is legitimate and fair, but some of it is close enough to suggest a serious compromise of impartiality.
• 2. This collection also demonstrates that it is impossible that Ed was not aware of Lecen's the frustrations and acrimony over John/Joao VI.
• 3 It also notes Ed's awareness of Lecen's threats to depart as a result of his frustrations with critical editors and lack of new projects, a departure which might compromise the FA candidacy of Ed's article on the dreadnaught race, all of which suggests Ed might have had a disposition to "do something about it".

On the basis of this, I believe it highly unlikely that Ed's appearance at the RM was a coincidence of patrolling RM page, and very probable that it was elicited by Lecen, or volunteered as a favor by Ed to Lecen to forestall his threatened departure.

In furtherance of this hypothesis:

• Lecen's other suspectedly canvassed participant (User:Alarbus) was also working closely with Lecen in FA issues, came in only minutes before Ed also came in and closed the RM. I believe this suggests was a timed response to a Lecen elicitation.

• As PBS noticed above, Ed did not satisfactorily explain his rationale for closure, neither at the time nor in the follow up discussions. In his responses to my protestations and appeals, Ed has made no reference to any particular point or argument made, but has simply spoken in generalities, suggesting low familiarity with the points in the debate. I believed this is indicative that he did not actually take the RM seriously, or take any factors other than his friendship to Lecen into consideration in his decision. I suspect he simply closed and moved it without bothering to read it, at the request or as a favor to Lecen.

• I also find Ed's citation above of "only three opponents" of the move in this ANI, which is false, to be suspicious, as it simply reiterates the situation as interpreted by Lecen, and stated by him in other venues. (e.g. [97]), suggesting he never took a careful look.

• Although I recognize I protested a little strongly immediately after the shock, Ed did not and has still not provided satisfactory justification, and his consistent reply to my concerns and appeals has been to brush me off and tell me to "go start an RfC". At one point, he even referred to my concerns as "lame" with a mocking link WP:Lame [98].

• that upon closure, Ed immediately pushed his current FA candidacy of his FA candidacy article on the Dreadnought Race in the reply to the protests over the closure [99], which I believe is a significant hint of him eliciting grateful participants to reward him with a favorable review of his FAC. Lecen has duly done so today. [100] This seems like tit-for-tat payola.

• Ed's failure to recuse himself from acting as an admin in a debate in which a close and intimate collaborator and confessed friend was engaged in, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety, is further proof he did not approach this matter impartiality or ethically.

I therefore submit that The Ed acted partially, unethically and corruptedly in this matter, in a manner inconsistent and unbefitting of an admin, with the conscious knowledge and intent of violating WP policy, that he was not fit at the time to make an impartial judgment about the RM of this article, and he is not fit to make any further judgment relating to it. I request that another admin take over the matter, and reverse the close & move decision and restore the page to its long-standing, stable situation, as per WP:Consensus policy.

While I am sure some will take exception to these charges, on the basis that the evidence is purely circumstantial (I am not in the possession of any actual e-mails between Lecen & the Ed), I believe it is at least sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Ed appeared to act with impropriety in this matter, and that therefore the decision should not depend on him.

I regret having to air such accusations in this forum, over what I am certain was only a momentary slip. I have previously appealed directly to Ed's good sense, duty and responsibility, to put an end to this matter promptly. But his refusal to countenance it has left me little option.

At this point, I have no interest in petitioning for Ed's admin privileges to be revoked, or for any ethical investigations or sanctions, or for any further investigations of canvassing, but simply want this matter resolved promptly, and this entire thing placed behind us.

I would, however, like to direct admin's attentions to User:Lecen's recent aggressive personal attacks & mud-slinging accusations of xenophobia (e.g. [101], [102]), attempts to archive the talk page away ( [103] [104], [105]), and frivolous attempts to get administrators to block me (ANI, 3RR) as part of a pattern of disruptive behavior designed to derail this ANI and my continued participation in it. I believe the swifter this matter is resolved, the quicker those disruptive shenanigans will cease.

Thank you for your attention. And I sincerely regret things got to this stage. Walrasiad (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)T

It's rather late so I haven't read everything above, but will tomorrow at some point. As ridiculous as it seems, the only reason I drifted across the article was the computer game Victoria 2. I was playing a campaign as Portugal (still am, actually, though I'm not doing very well) and decided to look into the actual Portuguese history during that period.

By the number of links above, I apparently have many more interactions with Lecen than I previously thought. From the links I reviewed, though, many seem were incidental (e.g. the Bugle op-ed was purely because Lecen was the only editor I specifically knew was from Brazil, or I reviewed a FAC and he thanked me for it). I'm not sure what the RM -> FAC implication is about, as I've been working for months to get the article to a FAC standard, and afaik Lecen has only translated a few Portuguese-language sources for me (hence my sadness at his intended retirement, as I plan to write more on Brazilian warships). The "lame" comment was in direct reply to "People are insane (as a species;)"; I've never attacked someone in my time here and certainly wouldn't start now. As for the email so prominently linked at the top, I have no recollection of it, nor is it in my email archive. As far as I can remember, our interactions have mainly been limited to being interested in roughly the same area and era of history, along with occasional requests for advice. Should I have recused for having previous interactions with one editor in the discussion? If so, then I apologize and invite a neutral admin to review (and correct, if necessary!) my close. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read through most of the rest, and I'm a little taken aback. Nearly all of the links from Lecen's talk page do not involve me. As for the hypotheses above,

1. There has been some cooperation, mainly in the area of Brazilian history, where we are both active. Beyond that, not so much.
2. Not sure how I can defend against this, but I had not looked at the naming disputes beforehand. I don't think I actually clicked the link given in Lecen's archive 7, which is backed up by my rather bland answer.
3. I take the insinuation that I closed the RM to get support at FAC absolutely reprehensible, as attempts to 'game' FAC in this manner are taken very seriously over there. I did not and would never do anything specifically to gain support at a FAC of mine. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

When you said "...If this change is undertaken, I will not respect it, nor will I adhere to it, but will continue referring to Portuguese monarchs by their common anglicized names"[106] you were not joking. I will not even waste my time discussing The ed17's ethics. He is a well known and respected editor here. About the other editors mentioned here (Paulista, Cristiano Tomás, Astynax): like myself, all of them are well known contributors of Brazilian/Portuguese articles. About the move now: nothing of new was occurring on the discussion, except for Walrasiad and two other editors who were opposed the move who kept arguing against it. None of them have made any contribution to articles about João VI, nor his son Pedro I, nor his grandson Pedro II. See the discussion on the talk page: they opposed the move because they saw it as an attack against Anglo culture (I'm not kidding, go see it for yourself). Plus: Walrasiad talks as I was the mastermind behind the entire discussion. I had a marginal role on the discussion (see João VI's talk page history log). I made a few comments here, at the ANI, arguing over his inappropriate behavior (insulting the administrator, foreign culture prejudice, etc...). P.S.: I took the liberty to notify[107][108][109][110] the other editors accused by Walrasiad since he didn't do that. --Lecen (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not attribute partisan motives to me -- I wish to make it clear that I have not (and would not) act in concert with Lecen or any other person. I form my own views and am not afraid to express them. However, I am commenting here because Lecen has asked me to. I have a doctorate in economic history and regularly monitor EM, CFD, and certain AFDs. I would express a lot of respect for PBS (which I have come across in WP), who provided me with a lot of help over some edit-warring in the days when WP was full of unreliable information and citing sources was quite usual. That issue was ultimately resolved in my favour, after I had published something elsewhere - in aplace where it could be cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remember that this entire conflict is being caused by three editors: Walrasiad, GoodDay and SergeWoodzing. They are the three editors who opposed the move and are creating a false feeling of "general opposition" to ed17's closure. They are few, indeed, but they can yell very loud. GoodDay and SergeWoodzing are two editors well known for their staunch oppotion to anything they regard as "too foreign". None of them have ever made any contribution to João VI of Portugal or have shown any interest on the King's life. Do not mistake three editors' unreasonable complains with a general unrest. --Lecen (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There's that word again "Foreign". Why are you making this an nationalistic/ethnic thing? It's an linguistic topic we're dealing with here. It's not a Canadian -vs- Portuguese argument. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A sole purpose account[111] to vote.[112] This is what I call fairness. --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you withdraw that accusation, unless you have evidence. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? But you don't find odd the existence of this account? --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am none of these editors; I find the suggestion that I created an account in August in order to meddle in this discussion, which did not exist then, too weird to be seriously insulting. It was suggested that my comments would get more respect if they were signed, from those who had trouble remembering "not to bite the newbies." (I seem to have begun with an English ship.) This does not seem to be working out; I may return to anonymity. Subnumine (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As Subnumine points out, the account existed long before this debate came up. There's nothing to link it to the other editors. If you do not have enough evidence to support an investigation, don't make the accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I apologize for taking a long time to answer. Here is what I think: This discussion has become passionate, it can’t get anywhere. The reality is that regulation is a little confusing, we are supposed to give priority to English names, I agree, but it also states that we have to take into consideration the most used name in modern sources. Using the last one I based my decision, I supported the use of João VI instead of John VI because most modern historians use João VI. Among these is British/Canadian historian Roderick J. Barman, one of the best in his field. I would also like to note that most if not all of the English speaking historians used as sources in Brazilian/Portuguese articles use João VI, that being said, I would rather have both names on top. I believe Lecen tried to do this in the past but one editor complained, he made all hell break lose because of an English translation of a royal name, you can’t please everybody. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Satisfaction and Apology I was advised to stay from the ANI, but I would like to come on the record here to thank The ed 17 for his replies to what certainly the most distressing allegations and thank him for clearing them up. I would like to record unambiguously that, for my part, I believe Ed's answers are sincere, and that I am reasonably satisfied there was no dishonest intent in the closure of the RM. Given the proximity to one of the participants, it would have probably been wiser to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I believe now there was no actual impropriety and that appearances, however unfortunate, were coincidental, and that I jumped too quickly to conclusions. I would also like to extend my personal apologies to Ed for the hastiness by which I submitted these allegations, not giving this ANI time to evolve, which might have allayed my suspicions and forestalled this ordeal. And furthermore, and especially, to apologize to Ed for the unsavory strength of some of my speculations about motive, which I now retract, and if they are repeated beyond this forum, I will personally take it upon myself to repudiate. However, let me also reiterate my continued belief that the closure and move was in error, but I am satisfied that there was at least no dishonesty behind it. Walrasiad (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this now: "GoodDay and SergeWoodzing are two editors well known for their staunch oppotion to anything they regard as "too foreign"." Accusations of this kind are really disgusting. Rarely have I ever seen such a low level of despicable garbage in a WP discussion. I think Lecen should be severely censured for this kind of intentional, manipulative, personal insults that have nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of reality. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm dealing with an angry person

The following discussion is closed. 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 past he's followed me but now he's not even pretending to have wikipedia's interests in mind he's just reverting my efforts if he doesn't like the facts even if proper citations are being made.

What's more he's started to engage in name calling. --Protostan (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Who, what, when, where, why and how? Phearson (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump. troll, on the Jared Lee Loughner page, and I don't know what his problem is but he's made it clear he doesn't care how many good citations I have backing my edit he's going to remove them. --Protostan (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the contribs, this seems to be related to Protostan's recent POV edits to the religious views of Jared Lee Loughner and Anders Behring Breivik. I believe the PA that Protostan is referring to is being called a troll in an edit summary reverting him. Protostan has not posted to the talk pages of either of those articles, nor has he posted to the talk pages of editors who reverted him. This AN/I post seems to be in response to a recent NPOV Level-4 warning from Von Restorff. Chillllls (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Protostan has a long history of ignoring consensus (and policy) to insert his POV into articles. He didn't get off to a good start on the Loughner article, when he inserted 'Category:Atheist philosophers' into it soon after it was created, for no apparent reason at all beyond troublemaking. [113] Since then he has repeatedly tried to insert material related to Loughner's supposed atheism - in spite of there being no source for this other than vague statements made by former schoolmates, and in spite of it apparently having nothing whatsoever with Loughner's notability. And by the way, I wasn't angry. Grumpy no doubt, but I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion thread does not present edit differences and therefore should be closed. TFD (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice how he doesn't want to deal with my having proper citations for my latest edit? He'd rather speculate about my motive. --Protostan (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice how Protostan started this thread with speculations about my motive? Notice how Protostan makes no comment on the fact that I wasn't the only one reverting his edits? He'd rather avoid any discussion of his own behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I'd rather talk about my citations and why you refuse to acknowledge them. --Protostan (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you would - but this is AN/I, and we discuss behaviour here, not content disputes. You had the talk page available for that, and chose not to use it. Still, if you wan't to discuss sources, can you show me the one you used for the 'atheist philosopher' category you tried to insert into the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to accept proper citations is an obvious behaviour problem you are having. --Protostan (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It isn't obvious to anyone else here. What is obvious is that you chose to edit-war, rather than engage in discussion on the article talk page. Anyway, this isn't a forum for tit-for-tat namecalling. Unless anyone has any constructive input, I'm done here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your failure to read the citations is not my fault but it is a problem for anyone who has to deal with you. --Protostan (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said on Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Even_more_pov_pushing I think it would be a good idea for Protostan to apologize to AndyTheGrump and try to do some edits that actually improve Wikipedia and are not religion-related. Von Restorff (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• [114] - "troll elsewhere"

Lets look at the source:

• http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-7229463.htm

• "An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life."

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/jared-lee-loughner-arizona-shooting

• "Loughner also stood out as a vigorous atheist in a religious part of the world."

Deletion seems unjustified, the edit summary of "troll elsewhere" is not appropriate in any case.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

His being legally insane has nothing to do with being atheistic. There are plenty of religious legally insane also. But thanks for tipping us off to your Dutch IP address. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Normally I would close this thread but the boomerangs keep on coming, maybe it is better to keep it open for a bit. ;-) Von Restorff (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@84.106.26.81 Hi! I spent a couple of seconds looking at your contribs and it seems like you do not like Andy. Your comment is rather pointless since it is quite obvious that no admin will block AndyTheGrump for that editsummary, they are not stupid. Lets check to see if Protostan did troll on that article, because if he did then that is what caused Andy's editsummary. This is clearly trolling and Protostan is obviously an SPA pushing a POV. I will have to spend more time looking at your contribs in order to determine if the same applies to you. Von Restorff (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the topic. I only looked at the deleted source and the edit summary. I don't see any trolling even if it would be acceptable to use edit summaries for that kind of expressions.

Here user:AndyTheGrump removes a source to:

• [115] "I fail to see how this source supports the material it is being cited for"

The source states:

• http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,407154,00.html#ixzz1j8hD4uNv

• "In another TV episode, Guillen visited the lab of one James Patterson, who demonstrated a gizmo that he claimed used plastic beads covered with layers of metal to produce nuclear energy without radiation — a version of the discredited "cold fusion" claim."

Our article used this as a source for:

• "it is one of several cells that some observers classified as cold fusion; cells which have been the subject of media interest. The CETI Patterson Power Cell is given little credence by scientists."

There is nothing wrong with the way the source is used.

If you look at the number of contributions AndyTheGrump makes we should be worried about his failure to see how this source supports the material it is being cited for.84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, be stubborn, I will simply close this thingy. Why? Because this is not the correct page to voice your opinion about Andy. Feel free to contact him on his talkpage. Von Restorff (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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

When is a block not a 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.

---

When appently the block is broken.

Case in point is IP 87.82.212.210 which is a school IP address which, according to the block log is blocked for 1 year starting from the 4th of January, however it seems this is not the case as according to the contributions, they are editing logged out past that date, the most recent being about 30 minutes ago (from the time of this message). Can this be looked into please. - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 13:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Today is now 1 year and 7 days after the start of the block. The block was placed in 2011, not 2012. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh am I an idiot... DERP - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 13:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary...

You're not an idiot. In fact, 87.82.212.210 (talk · contribs) continues to be vandalism-only, and needs to be put on ice for at least another semester. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant comment for blocking the IP as well I must add :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 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 are personal attacks being made towards me in the following edit summaries could the summary text be cleaned up, and perhaps the editor warned? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all: notify Darkwarriorblake. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion here. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. Von Restorff (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks in the first page of edits, and certainly nothing that meets the requirements under WP:REVDEL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification  Done Calabe1992 16:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

the attack is in the edit summary text itself, not the edit. I am not asking for the revisions to be deleted, just the summary text cleaned up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see personal attacks in there, discussion seems ready to be closed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Short history. Darkwarriorblake created an article, I nominated it for deletion as it was a movie in pre-production, that had not commenced filming, and so did not meet WP:NFF. The article ultimately survived the AFD. I have had no other interaction other than the AFD discussion. Darkwarriorblake has now posted some additional edits to the article with the following summaries.

• I'd just like to thank Gaijin42 for wasting so much of my time but never bothering to take part in the discussion that threatened to remove this for the sake of two weeks.
• Again, thanks Gaijin

Those are what I am asking to be cleaned up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

They're a bit snippy, but they don't rise to the level of needing to be hidden. The two of you had a dispute about whether to delete an article, you lost, and he considered your deletion attempt to be frivolous and a waste of other editors' time. Better you should address that factor than to gripe about someone's mildly snippy edit summaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Concurring that there's nothing here rising to the level of requiring admin time to remove an edit summary - there's nothing libelous or defamatory. --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you do not like reading that, but the editsummary will not be deleted. I will ask Darkwarriorblake right here and now to be nice, and I will ask you to be nice to him. C'mon guys, lets be friends. Von Restorff (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Review of block

I've just blocked Arthur Rubin for 24 hours for edit warring and misusing rollback on Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. As blocks of admins are usually controversial, review is welcome. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the block was fine. I had been going to revoke his rollback, but I found he was an admin. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good block, after Arthur Rubin was warned - what an amazingly silly edit-war over a truly trivial disagreement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I did the same thing Reaper. This edit war has been going on over several months and on more than one article, and for the life of me I can't see anything wrong with the link anyway--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hard to say. Clearly war-editing, but also giving a message to dynamic IP users how easy it is to evade being dragged to ANI like those of us with the sense (or balls) to register, without being blocked due to technological reasons it sends out a bad message, and they will continue being disruptive. The article needs semi-protecting, to show that we don't allow anons to take the piss. If IPs are human to, make their gaming less easy. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on the protection of the page, I just warned the IP about edit warring, instead of issuing a block, because he hadn't edited since 11:33 (UTC) today... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point - although in this case the IP has what limited consensus there is with it. But if it didn't, there would be no real point in blocking it, as the person behind it would just reset their router again. Arthur was significantly silly though - if I was adding info in an article about a Statutory Instrument issued by the UK government, I'd probably link to Statutory Instrument (UK) as well, just so folks knew what one of the things was. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article (in the state that I do not personally favour) and left a note on the Talk page - as soon as anyone thinks there is a sufficient consensus to make or not make the change, the article can be unprotected -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• While this particular edit-war seems to be pointless, it has to be said that the IP-user in question, is a long time disruptive user on most of the climate pages. He/She is recognized by the links (mostly unrelated to the edit) used in edit-comments, and usage of the talk-pages as his/her personal news aggregator. Iirc, he/she has been mentioned several times here, and as Rubin says blocks are pretty impossible since its on a dynamic address. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The main "bonus" of these highly dynamic IPs is that they can force impetuous editors into breaching 3RR, and once blocked can use a fresh IP and the "block time" as an opportunistic moment to revert and edit further. In some cases dynamic socks could be used a brilliant cover to knock out a competitive registered editor, then login as an apparently innocent editor, claim the IP was right all along: game, set, and match. The blocked user isn't going to risk another 3RR, and unless SPI determines anything solid and is able to act (in many cases rangeblocks cause too much collateral damage), who is to know? Dynamic IPs are more of an annoyance to long-standing editors, because of their ability to avoid blocks, ANI, policy enforcement and such. Semi-protects help, but the limiting factor is the best of two evils. This is why many editors are pro-Registered access only, I suppose. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 17:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Please cease speculation on this kind of behavior. Longtime disruptive IP addresses know the secret knock to get into the treehouse as well. Hasteurhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=16 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"This humorous essay contains comments by one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline" ...and that's where I stopped reading... Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a point of information on WP:BEANS, it's not a complete joke (cf. WP:MMO; or, more specifically, {{humor}} and {{humorous essay}}) – it contains a serious point: not to spell out how to disrupt Wikipedia in public fora: just coated in amusing language. It is also rated as a High-impact essay. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to me to be a very (extremely?) tendentious IP. Arthur did not do multiple reverts in any short time period, so I am unsure that anything more than the formal warning was called for, and a symmetrical warning ought to have been appended for each IP address. Then future admins can see that the IP has been used disruptively in the past. And reduce block to "time served" as that is IMO a reasonable act. Collect (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverts don't have to be done in a short time period to qualify as edit-warring - it's a content dispute (and a pretty lame one at that), and both parties have been blatantly edit-warring over it for *months* -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hum...so we've blocked an admkn in otherwise good standing and assumed that the IP that won't register an account is adding trustworthy info?MONGO 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not trustworthy info, merely a wikilink... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked now, with Salvio's agreement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89

Luciferwildcat has been left a final warning on their talkpage. The next unsubstantiated complaint on either side will see me reopped and issuing blocks. This better end today. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He has agreed to a topic ban on articles that I have been directly involved in and consensus is that he should be doing so. I recommend he be blocked for a week for violating this agreement at the AfD for an article I created.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Also he nominated another article that I was involved in for deletion here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Also made direct comments to me[ here clearly violating the communication ban.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC) So? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not seeing how this is in violation. It's a vote at an AfD, and there is no mention of you, or your editing in it. Are we to take that he can't have opinions on an article's merit due to this ban? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC) He was told to back off articles with which I was directly involved in. So yes he cannot have an opinion on article that involve me, he was told not not nominate ones I was involved in either, instead he was told to ask someone else to make such edits for him.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "He was told" doesn't mean a thing. You claim there is agreement on a topic ban, and that PBP agreed to it. We are asking you to prove it so we can look at it. If you can't type in a search term in the box at the top of this case, then we shall be done very quickly here. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Can you link to where this discussion and the agreement to a topic ban took place? Tarc (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I don't know how to find archived discussions, can anyone help?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) [ec with Tarc] Where is that agreement? It's not here. Further comment: sheesh, drop it already. Further further comment: it would be wise for Purplebackpack to stay the hell away from Luciferwildcat's stuff (duh). Drmies (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Gah, let it rest! This is the fifth or sixth ANI Lucifer or Unscintillating have started, all stemming from their dislike of the fact that I nominate articles that fail notability, rather than any expressed policy violation. They need to learn to stop whining. The vote at AfD violates no policy whatsoever; it's 100% boilerplate. The "consensus" mostly consisted of people who voted "keep" in the deletion discussions I started or are Article Rescue Squad members, rather than uninvolved editors who didn't have vested interests. Also, note that if me voting in an AfD I didn't start is a violation of any interaction ban, so is actually starting this thread. Particularly since Lucifer was expressly told not to start ANI threads. Also, while I'm here, what do you make of Lucifer's recent refactoring/removing of my comments in an archived discussion yesterday? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) What I make of that is that they shouldn't be doing that. Luciferwildcat, if you claim that PBP agreed to an interaction ban, then I supposed you are have agreed to the same, in which case you broke it with that edit. But mythical ban or not, do NOT refactor other users' comments! NOT! And PBP, while I have your ear, you may withdraw all you want, but the kind of editorializing you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattuck Avenue, as a "closing comment", is not appropriate either. I'm wonder if both these editors shouldn't be banned from interacting with each other, creating articles, initiating and ending AfDs, and starting threads at ANI. In fact, let's formalize this a little bit, shall we? Drmies (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Article creation or AfD initiation on non-involved articles seems pointless...there's no reason why I should be banned from creating articles Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Rhetorical exaggeration, dear Backpack. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Can someone provide a link to this topic ban for the sake of verification? In other news, Luciferwildcat also left a somewhat short-minded note on Country Squire Diner-Restaurant, an article tagged both for deletion and speedy deletion (it clearly meets criteria A7, so the AfD should probably be procedurally closed), claiming that the nominator for speedy deletion (me) is currently engaged in a topic ban with him. I'm inclined to believe this is simply a case of mistaken identity, but in any case, it's piqued my interest in this matter. Luciferwildcat, you should probably log out for a bit and go drink a coffee or something. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) There's already a denied A7 in the history, if I'm not mistaken. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Propose interaction ban between PBP and LWC, broadly construed. Please, someone, construe this. I'm on break and this is messing with my lunch. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Referring to the AfD which I don't think you started.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC) We already agreed to an interaction ban. Also perhaps I was shortsighted in thinking correcting an editorialize and inaccurate AfD closure rationale was ok. I thought I was just supposed to not contact or respond to PBP. He was the one further admonished to not even edit anything that I was involved in and this discussion took up about half the ANI space for the last week so I don't know how anyone can't find it. MelanieN was the main moderator, let's ask her. Also if there is an interaction ban and a violation of said ban, how am I supposed to report such a violation?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Let's not ask MelanieN. Let's ask Spartaz. Furthermore, any ban that punishes me equally or greater than Lucifer masks the issue that Lucifer is the one who has violated policy and doesn't understand guidelines. He's the one who needs to be restricted from creating articles (I point users to his talk page, which is full of editor's comments related to his lack of understanding of notability guidelines). And you're not supposed to report violations. If it's important, other editors are watching our edits, and they'll pick it up. That's why I didn't start an ANI thread about your refactoring of my comments, which is a much more serious violation that voting in an AfD I didn't start and AfDing an article that was going to be deleted anyway Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Yes and no. The editor has a right to file a grievance; I just wish they wouldn't. As for the refactoring, next time ask a friendly or even an unfriendly admin. Also yes: LCW has difficulties understanding guidelines, true, and they would do well to read up on them. As for violating policy--well, that, to me, seems a stretch to conclude right now. Certainly they have misapplied WP:KEEP at one time or other, but I suppose that was done in blissful ignorance, i.e., good faith. Finally, BPB, "punishment"--why would it be punishment for you to stay away from them and their edits? You should be pleased: this would greatly improve your health. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "Punishment" was a reference to your overly broad guideline that included banning creating articles...which, thank you, you have admitted was hyperbolizing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Note it should be noted that regardless of the claims made by PBP he did in fact start this AfD.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I never said I didn't, I only said that somebody else would've, as someone else has twice CSD tagged it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Every single comment in this thread from Purplebackpack and Luciferwildcat just reiterates how useful an interaction ban would be. We're down to "He started it" and "Nuh-uh" stuff here. I, for one, don't care who started it - you're both keeping it going. Stop. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC) This is an excellent example of how a quick interaction ban decisively produced by ANI would have averted an ongoing an ongoing and idiotic little war that has embroiled this board for several weeks. I'm less pissed about boys being boys than I am about administrators failing to be administrators at this point. These two (PBP, LWC) are clearly going to fight to the death over nothing at this point... Carrite (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange block on ScottyBerg

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

Not an AN/I issue. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

---

User:ScottyBerg has been blocked by User:Alison for being a sockpuppet of some account I've never heard of. What's weird is that the only sock puppet report I can find is from September of last year.[116] Check user was declined by HelloAnnoying who closed it as a bad faith report.[117] Does anyone know what's going on? I started a discussion on Alison's talk page but she appears to have gone offline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really something AN/I can help with. You'll need to take it up with Alison, or ArbCom if Alison's given you all the information she's willing to give you. 28bytes (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Alison is a Checkuser. I suspect that there is more than just the bad-faith report from last year involved. Collect (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll get more information on Wikipedia Review, where decisions like this are typically made. Hipocrite (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we should close this section again - since it was a CU block, Scotty has to appeal it to ArbCom, not the community. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree - User:WMC reopened it without a comment. Youreallycan (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong as always, OTRR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Pieter Kuiper again

With this edit I am sorry to have to say that Dr. Kuiper already violated the interaction ban we agreed to recently. I have no other recourse that to propose a

Permanent ban on Interaction ban between me and Pieter Kuiper. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to where the interaction ban is explicitly made? I cannot find it. --RA (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion here that suggests there may have been consensus for a ban on direct interaction, but the discussion was not closed before the thread was archived, and no conclusion was explicitly formulated.  --Lambiam 21:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that a request as important (?) as an interaction ban could be shelved without a solution. I remember that another editor specifically tried to take steps so that wouldn't happen in this case. Sorry! I thought there was an interaction ban in place. (Isn't there actually, for all intents and purposes?) Should I request that now, or what should I request? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've notified Pieter Kuiper. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no interaction ban in place. Although last time some editors supported an interaction ban, that doesn't mean that there was enough consensus to actually go ahead with it. In fact, I would interpret the relative lack of comments as meaning that most regular editors here didn't think a ban was worth pursuing. Seeing as there was no consensus for an interaction ban last time, your suggestion of an outright ban now seems extreme to me, particularly given that the edit in question looks helpful. Is this the only recent interaction between you and Pieter that you are concerned about? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned, as you may remember (?) from when you tried to help me last time, about any and all interaction between me and a person who has stalked me for years and subjected me to such a huge amout of uncivil, snyde, rude and cruel treatment that the very mention of his name shatters my nerves. I am deathly afraid of Pieter Kuiper, but I guess nobody will ever be able to help me in getting him to stay away. It's even scarier to me that he pops in like this, after a few months, and begins the same old unjustifiable mud-slinging (trying to link to your latest notification about this ANI on his talk page, but don't know if that will succeed- depends on multiple headings there). Just goes to show how that his slurs and insults are unrelenting and never will cease. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked for neutral comment here, intending that the image contributors should not factor into such neutrality. Note Kuiper's reply, wearing his "concerned and objective" disguise there. Also note whose image he wants out. It's all personal and vindictive with him, always. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So even though, as you say, there have been months without crossing paths on Wikipedia, you still maintain that he is stalking and harassing you? I see only one taking it "personal and vindictive" here, and that is you, Serge. You interpret everything Pieter does in the most negative way possible. This is ridiculous. You make some pretty serious accusations with no diffs to back them up. Someone should do something about these constant frivolous reports of yours. --Atlan (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Atlan: I don't need any more attacks on me prsonally right now, thank you! You are unaware of even a small part of what I have been subjected to for years and the amount of evidence I have submitted before. I thought there was an interaction ban in place when I submitted this. You missed that too. I agree with your last suggestion, except for your cruel adjective "frivolous" and your gross exaggeration "constant". What should be done is the interaction ban I have requested here, and which was supported by a majority of neutral editors then, after such a permament ban had been imposed on Kuiper and me on Commons at my request. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I was well aware of your erroneous assumption that there was an interaction ban in place. I am also aware of the "evidence" you submitted before, because I read each and every ANI report by you. That's exactly the problem. Each time it was explained to you that no stalking was taking place. However, you suffer from a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and you have simply ignored it every time. Yet you manage to read a consensus for an interaction ban when there clearly was none. That's selective reading for you.

Furthermore, you come here and call another editor a stalker, vindictive, uncivil, snide, rude, cruel and a hurler of slurs and insults. Yet when I say you make serious accusations without properly backing them up and you make frivolous reports, you feel personally attacked. Really? You do not see the double standards you apply?

Lastly, what I find especially damning is that the end result of Pieter Kuiper's "terrible and scary revert" is that he suggested a new image on the talk page, which you went ahead and added to the article, without so much as a "thank you" (while going out of your way to thank JoelWhy for not agreeing with you). No, instead you continue pushing for a ban and lamenting the "lack of help" you get here.--Atlan (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never ever had any dealings with you before, that I know of, and you have never attacked me like this or even commented in any way on anything that I've been involved in, as far as I can remember. Why do you read my every entry?!? Who asked you to do that? Am I a special interest of yours without even knowing it? Why am I, if so? How did you find this? Your very strong defense of of a totally innocent Kuiper is almost overwhelming. He certainly has a good compatriot friend in you. I find you incredibly biased in this section and cruelly unfair to me. That's my opinion. So your comments are worth nothing to me or to this discussion, in my opinion. All you are trying to do is blast the living daylights out of me. Your approach is irrelevant. You and I have nothing to discuss. So don't waste any more of your time. Oh, since you found me horrible even in that detail, be sure to thank your friend Kuiper for me for that excellent photo of Duke Birger. It really is a big imporvement. Will you do me that favor, please, since you know I don't want any direct contact with him? Do it in lovely lovely Dutch, it's a great language, and enjoy your lovely friendhip with him. Friendship can be one of life's most beautiful things, and yours with Pieter Kuiper certainly is impressive. I mean that sincerely, and on that happy note, bye bye! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it seems obvious not one administrator is interested in trying to help with this, and since it only has led to more heartache, I am getting real and withdrawing anything that needs attention. I do that very sadly. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

RealCowboys and Walter Görlitz

Note: I've grouped the twothree posts above as they are related post and counter-post. --RA (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:RealCowboys is displaying uncivil behaviour again

User:RealCowboys and User:Suitcivil133 are fans of rival football clubs.

RealCoboys made a mild personal attack, commenting on the editor, against Suitcivil133 in an edit summary on one of the articles that is in contention. RealCoboys then tagged Suitcivil133's talk page with a WP:NPA template after I had already tagged it for the same behaviour.

RealCoboys was blocked on 29 December 2011 for personal attacks and has only been back for five days. The editor's comments, discussion and and general behaviour often digress to trash-talking and name-calling, when edit summaries are left or talk is used to discuss. The editor doesn't seem to understand WP:CIVIL and may need an admin to explain it more clearly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh come off it, that's not a personal attack. He was unwise to characterise the material he was reverting as "vandalism", but apart from that he was right to re-write the title of that section as the previous one was definitely unencyclopaedic. If all you're complaining about here is an edit summary containing the word "bandwagoner" I don't think there's anything actionable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Bandwagoner" was not needed but not uncivil. Civility problems - and I don't see any here to be honest - can be taken to WP:WQA. GiantSnowman 10:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No administrative attention is needed in regards to the civility issues, as of yet. I urge the editors to remain civil in all their interactions, and stop templating each other. In regards to the content dispute, I tend to agree with Cowboys in that labelling Barcelona's reign as "Football Domination" is sensationalist, violating both WP:NPOV and the sub-title naming conventions of WP:MOS. More so, the lack of independent 3rd party sources in reference to this is a violation of our policy on original research and verifiability. But I digress - ANI is the wrong venue to discuss this. I urge the parties to cease edit warring or sanctions will be impossed on the parties involved. —Dark 11:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz

User:Walter Görlitz has repeatedly made false statements and or accusations that I have been uncivil in "tash talking" or "personal attacks". I understand that his job is to be a good editor but he feels the need that if I use as so much mention another editor im simply "attacking" them. Ive already been banned once and I realized personal attacks on wikipedia is not right but he should have no business to look thru my past history to further hurt my status. RealCowboys (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking for here? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RealCowboys, I'm not sure what you're looking for either. You have indeed been blocked twice (no, as far as I can see you have never been banned). Your history is right there, and always will be. In order to distance yourself from those actions, you need to act within policy. The best way to not be accused of future personal attacks is to not make comments that could be seen as personal attacks. One important civility issue is to ensure that you never call an edit vandalism unless it is, indeed, vandalism - some people get overly sensitive at being called a vandal. If you're having trouble having polite conversation to resolve an issue, then WP:WQA is thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is funny. And then the editor tagged my page with WP:NPA, but the action is not clear. I can see that this is going to take a great deal of patience. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Walter has a history of choosing which side he feels is "attacking" without trying to resolve anything. Judging by the way he worded "This is funny." it seems he is taking this as a joke, I'm warning him to be civil. RealCowboys (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That may not be funny, but this edit summary is, especially considering the first part of what you removed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No kid, I can remove any comments on MY talk page, quit trolling on my personal business. RealCowboys (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Mr. Twist, I know you can remove comments from your talkpage. The post from me was a very clear attempt to be helpful so that you can avoid future problems like your first two blocks. You are, indeed, quite welcome to remove that ... however, the silliness begins when you remove it at the same time as you remove an altercation with a completely different editor about an unrelated editor, especially when you refer to "rights" (which you have none on a private website). Add the incivility above (for example, referring to someone as "kid" in order to try to gain the dominant position) shows that you're really not listening to those trying to actually help you. That'll never go well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Real, maintain your civility here please. —Dark 10:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First off BWiliker,im sorry I couldnt tell if you wernt a kid, due to your juvinile responce the first time. I have a right to "defend" myself when its dicks like you trying to be somewhat "more" then me. IDC block me forever, I have ways of unbanning my ip adress anyways. And just for the record dont be a sarcastic asshole to me in the first place if you want to "help" me. That goes for anyone thinking they could talk to me how they want. RealCowboys (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked RealCowboys for a week for the above comment. 28bytes (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133

User:Suitcivil133 has repeatedly be accusing me of being "biased", "personally I don't care what the headline will be but this RealCowboys (who have an history of being blocked and not behaving) should not delete information and lable it as false when the subject has been discussed and proven correct, or delete information on a rival football clubs Wikipedia page without any discussion before deleting it as he is biased." He feels that any change I make to his favorite clubs page is automatically vandalism. I recently changed a header title on FC Barcelona that said "Football Domination" because I felt that is a POV remark and to him that is "vadalism" and im "deleting information lable it as false when the subject has been discussed and proven correct". When has this ever been proven correct? I ask for him to stop refering to me as being biased and should be blocked for a short period of time, just as I was. RealCowboys (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Without looking at anything else, "Football Domination" is not an appropriate section title, IMO. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, without looking at anything else, agree that "Football Domination" is not appropriate. (I've also again grouped these threads.) --RA (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

substantial copyright infringement

At Erich von Däniken the following massive copyvio was re-inserted by [118]. As exact quotes were used from Skeptic magazine, the claim that the section 'avoided direct quotes" fails. See also [119] where some is repeated - again sans attribution on WP for the exact copying.

"trouble, at the age of 19, when he was convicted of stealing money from an innkeeper and from a camp where he worked as a youth leader"

(just one small example) appeared in the Nov 9, 2004 issue of Skeptic.

By the age of 19 he got into trouble with the law when he was "convicted of stealing money from an innkeeper and from a camp where he worked as a youth leader"

is the version repeatedly inserted into the BLP. More evidence of copyvio really needed? The violating editor's response is [120] which means to me that he does not understand exactly how seriously Wikipedia takes plagiarism and copyright violations. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bit of work - but Playboy interview is at [121]. The amount of direct copying is enormous. Collect (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to downplay your legitimate copyright concerns, but please educate yourself with regards to verifiability. You have stated that "the Channel 4 ref is not online and can not be confirmed as backing the claims made," that "The "early life" section appears to have a great deal of negative information sourced to a single Playboy interview - which seems unavailable. This should be completely removed until solid evidence that all of it is properly soured to Playboy." Things are not verifiable when you verify them, but rather when a reliable source is provided. If you have evidence of an individual falsifying sources, then you could make a stronger argument, but that a source is not online, or that you don't have access to a source does not make it unsourced. Please be more careful. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I noted I found a copy of rhe Playboy interview - as an image file (pdf) and not through my usual searches. The text in the article is lifted wholesale from that article as far as I can determine. Plagiarism != "unsourced." "Direct copying" = "plagiarism" however. I do not accuse anyone of "falsifying" Playboy here - I make the observatuion that they lifted wholesale from it in violation of copyright law. Do you note the difference? Collect (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's now. In the past, you said that the interview was unavailable, and thus the information sourced to it should be removed. You said that because the Channel 4 ref was not online, it can not be confirmed. This is problematic, and needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio or not, Hipo is correct - sources do not have to be available online. (And the day Wikipeida decides to disallow offline sources is the day I quit editing...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@Collect, just summarize the information from the interview. Replace any direct quotes with briefs summaries of the naked facts, put the direct quotes inside {{cquote|blah blah blah|author}}, or surround the quotes with "Playboy said" or "Von Daniken said". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use "cquote", those curly quote marks are just too damn cute; besides, the template is not meant for use in an article's body, it's meant for pullquotes (as it says in the template doc). Use "bquote", please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue raised here is not one of availability - I found a PDF (which was a copyvio AFAICT on the site where it was) and noted that a huge amoount of the article is lifted directly from Playboy - as plagiarism on the first water. My initial problem had indeed been verifying the claims made - when I found the claims made used the exact same language as the copyright article, then I posted here. Is this clear, I trust? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the first part - your belief that things are not verifiable until you have verified them. This needs to change. The second part, the copyvio? It's not ripe for administrative attention. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When a long series of claims is made about a living person, and the claims are contentious (that is, alleging felonies etc.), prudence and WP:BLP requires we be cautious. I fear that blind acceptance of contentious claims has been a major problem on BLPs for a long time, and suggesting "just keep the claims even if they seem very contentious" or the like is not found in WP:BLP. I fear you do not seem to grasp the reason why WP:BLP is written as it is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP requires that all claims be reliably sourced. It does not require that you, Collect, read the source, or that the source be online, or easy to access. Go to the library. That you don't understand this, still, is very problematic. That your reflexive response to me educating you about what Verifiable means is to cry BLP is even more problematic. Perhaps you need to be directed to work in different areas for a time, so you can understand our sourcing policies. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential BLP violations combined with copyright violations are both factors that run the risk of damaging wikipedia. Those factors are more important than any alleged "reliability" of sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you find unambiguous copyvio, you can either remove it and leave a note on the talk page, or tag and list it as described at WP:CP. There is no obligation to rewrite in in properly paraphrased form, though it's always nice if you do it that way too. Hipocrite is right about there being no requirement for you personally to be able to verify a source, as long as someone would be able to (or you could ask at our own library. As an exception though, if the same editor added three large blocks of text and you've found two are flat-out copyvio, it becomes reasonable to assume the third is as well. List it at CP if you're not sure. No action is required at this board. Franamax (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Carli Lloyd

Some unknown user keeps putting their personal opinions of the player under her biographical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anc07 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it these contributions regarding the penalty kick that you are referring to? (And possibly thse contributions)? --RA (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like 68.45.234.82 is edit warring here (only looked at edits since Jan 1):

• 14:01, 4 January 2012
• 17:13, 3 January 2012
• 03:45, 5 January 2012
• 04:14, 5 January 2012
• 04:16, 5 January 2012
• 04:25, 5 January 2012
• 04:29, 5 January 2012
• 20:25, 5 January 2012

Then similarly before hopping to 71.169.87.36 here:

• 04:25, 5 January 2012
• 12:26, 7 January 2012
• 01:18, 9 January 2012
• 17:18, 9 January 2012
• 17:18, 9 January 2012

--RA (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've warned both accounts. --RA (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected yesterday and has been quiet since.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

About the one person with 3 users

I saw that the message I wrote to you was gone and I don't know if you intend to do something about it. I wrote to you that with his 3 users, he destroys and vandalize some values. The blocking has ended, and he begins to do the same things that he done before and I feel he would do the same mistakes that he repeats them. I don't come to you with any complaints but I came to you for help. --Friends147 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This presumably relates to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#ONE PERSON with 3 USERS. Deor (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for page protection is the best place - we can't indef IP's typically (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

IP harrasment and trolling

An anon editor (whom is/was known as the Gundagai anon/editor) using the IP range of 144.13x.xxx.xx has been harrasing (WP:OUTING) and trolling on the Gundagai talk page. The anon has had an arbitration case and was banned from using Wikipedia for 12 months however this was breached since the anon returned within the ban time frame and the fact the ArbCom case also stated the anon was required to edit under one account. Something needs to be done as this has gotten back out of control like it did back in 2006. Bidgee (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that each count of ban evasion resets the ban, Bidgee. If he's been continuously editing since then or otherwise violating sanctions, he can be blocked under the relevant ArbCom decisions. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the talk page for a few days would stifle it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Any chance at some sort of rangeblock? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not from me; I've never figured out how they work. Idea sounds good, however. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be a large range (a /15?) belonging to a large ISP in a major English-speaking country, so the collateral damage would probably be considerable. Given the very localized form of the disruption, it would probably be more efficient to just permanently semiprotect both the article and talkpage. Another alternative would be an edit filter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, would it be possible to set the edit filter to just flag edits from a particular range? Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

All edits are from eight /24 ranges, and it looks like all recent contributions from those ranges (since early 2011) have been to the same group of articles and related content in other pages, so blocking should be possible if the disruption continues. Peter E. James (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Anon has returned under 144.138.240.227 (talk · contribs) and has also breached WP:OUTING again. Bidgee (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm blocking every IP that I see from this person (two of them have bothered me on my talk page, besides doing this), but it's getting rather tiresome; I like the edit filter idea even better than the rangeblock. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've softblocked three ranges: 144.134.112.0/21, 144.138.128.0/17, 144.139.192.0/18 for 3 months, CU verified. That should be a spanner in the works. Let me know on my talk page if there's anything else I can do WilliamH (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Harrassment

Resolved

 – Enough already. Warnings all around re:outing, and if you want to claim "sock" then file the damn SPI or put a sock in it. "Hinting" about other past accounts is pretty useless now, over 3 years later. Stop sniping and improve the project one way or another

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like someone to help me with harrassment I am receiving from other editors. User:One Night In Hackney appears to be using every conceiveable incivility and breach of Wikipedia rules to stop me editing. The most serious is a continual allegation that I am a sockpuppet of another user, to the point where he is now referring to me in posts as The Thunderer. He is currently engaged in doing all he can to destroy my credibility as an editor at [[122]] and at [[123]] and on my talk page [[124]]. He appears to be working in support of, if not along with User:Mo ainm who is a known sockpuppet of <redacted> a much blocked editor who claims to be on a "fresh start" but has returned to the scene of his past misdemenanours to get involved in more rows, in my case culminating in a complaint against me when I made a mistake editing on a page which has a 1RR retsriction. The complaint is here [[125]]. It doesn't matter what answers, complaints, or reasoning I give, the harrassment and incivility is growing by the day. By my track record it can be seen that I have had problems since I joined with people saying I am a sockpuppet. It all seems to be linked to Ulster Defence Regiment, a page which has been fought over for so long it's unbelieveable, although I didn't know that when I started to edit. As a result of my inexperience I received a 24 hour block so I went away and edited other articles and my track record on that speaks for itself. I have interfaced successfully with other users, created a good article and brought several more up at least one class - all with no problems, proper discussion and following the rules of Wikipedia as I learn them. I moved to edit the Ulster Defence Regiment page again and the trouble started again. I am hoping to stamp this out because no editor should have to go through what I'm going through at the moment and I ask for help from anyone who cares to give it. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

He was warned on his talk page about WP:OUTING with a link to the relevant discussion here. But he obviously wants to continue his outing attempts. And here are another couple of links which might be of interest Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Thunderer/Archive and User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 13#Assistance Requested Mo ainm~Talk 12:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As if by magic one of the protagonists appears. My account is being scrutinised in violation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING

to prevent me making any progress. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as well ANI is on my watch list as you didn't notify me about this thread and don't think you notified Hackney either. Mo ainm~Talk 12:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement to notify anyone about harrassment. I could, and still might, do it privately. Why don't you just leave me alone? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you report a user at this board, you MUST notify them. No exceptions. This is an open venue - expect comments. Also, this is forum shopping - you're just rehashing what you've said at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SonofSetanta. No administrative action is warranted here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've come here for help. I'm not an experienced editor, although these people are suggesting I am. I need help to stop the harrassment. May I ask: how is dismissing the complaint seen as useful to me? Have you no follow up advice? Where do I go next, who do I talk to or am I expected to just endure this in contravention of everything I've read on the help pages? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Except to block him for outing and/or sockpuppetry, since he's still denying being a sock (even going so far as to claim he was cleared) in order to avoid sanctions. Mo ainm~Talk 12:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OUTING does go both ways :-) WP:CLEANSTART is also very clear in its usage. I could see lots of blocks, unless I implemented a whack of WP:AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

May I refer you to [126]. I had missed the significance, but SonofSetanta has also been pointed here. If a user has retired an account and started another because of outing issues related to the old account, then continually drawing attention to it is outing and blockable, and I suggest SonofSetanta shuts up before I do think of some administrative action. If his edits weren't problematic, he wouldn't be at AE to start with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to take administrative action against me, I came here for help? My record stands as that of a good editor who has contributed a decent amount. I only had a problem at the very start and now again on the same article. I'm finding it all very sinister. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OUTING only applies to personal information, not to account names unless those account names refer to personal information. Mo ainm~Talk 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, let me say it this way: TheThunderer account is not blocked, and has not edited since 2008. Let's assume for 2 seconds that you're right, and Setanta is TheThunderer ... it would appear that they too did a WP:CLEANSTART. By trying to place a link between those two accounts, you'd be hypothetically just as guilty as they are by linking 2 accounts. WP:SOCK/WP:EVADE does not apply in this case (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I've been round this loop a good few times before. If the old account does not contain, or is not associated with, personal information, it's not outing, but it is incivil to repeatedly refer to the person by the old account name. I would think that applies here - the old account isn't blocked, and isn't editing, and hasn't edited for 3 years, so it makes no difference whether this is the same person. They aren't breaking any rules, and users should just let the horse die. Mo ainm however had a personal information issue with their previous account - now that SonofSetanta has been appraised of this, he should not again repeat the information onwiki. So slightly different, but everyone should let this previous username issue drop RIGHT NOW and focus on current editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As has been verified by a checkuser/oversighter, my clean start is legit. "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny" - SonofSetanta has done all those things - returned to the old topic area, returned to the same edit warring, returned to the same problematic editing - all while trying to hide behind an "I'm new and being harassed" mask, even repeatedly denying being a sock while facing arbitration enforcement. So I ask you, do you consider covering up a lengthy block log for poor behaviour in the Troubles related area while facing a new block for poor behaviour in the Troubles related area to be a legitimate use of socks? Rest assured should the identity of my previous account be relevant to any such proceedings, I will be happy to reveal it to the people concerned. Mo ainm~Talk 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

But you HAVE returned to areas of conflict. Your old block log showed multiple incidences of problems on sites concerning the Irish Troubles and, if I'm not wrong, the Ulster Defence Regiment article was one of them. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a common misapprehension that returning to previous areas is forbidden. In fact, all CLEANSTART warns is that you're likely to be recognised, and people may see it as evading scrutiny. In this case, unless there are intervening accounts, there's such a huge time gap that I doubt it's significant. Just focus on his current problematic evidence - sufficient unto the day is the weevil thereof. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (Note, that remark was addressed to Mo ainm)

What problematic editing? I made a mistake when editing. I have not been a problem. The problem is that I have not been shown good faith. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So here's an idea: everybody cease and desist from referring to anyone by what may or may not be their old account. SonofSetanta is violating WP:OUTING - they're duly warned to knock it off. However, retaliatory and continual referring to Setanta as someone they may or may not have been is uncivil and disruptive. Move along, get along, or ya won't be here forlong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you've written. I understand it and will abide by it. Would you be kind enough to place a warning on Moaimh and One Night in Hackney's page. I would assert that is where the incivility is coming from. Can you also advise me please what I should do if the incivility and harrasment continues? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if I am the only one listening to you. May I ask you to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mo_ainm and see his last two contributions (at time of writing) both of which contain incivility towards me. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to edit articles in that area - and make statements like this, you're going to get strong reactions. The last two edits of Mo ainm were not incivil, particularly given everything that has gone on, and your post on his talkpage was probably unwise. In any case, he is entitled to revert it. Your best bet is just to keep talking on the article talkpage, where at least it seems to be largely constructive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not perfect but the comment about the Irish was made in good faith and not intended to be an insult to anyone of that nationality. I am happy to confirm that now and on the talk page of the article. Apart from that I just want the incivility and harrassment to stop and for other editors to behave in the same way as those on the Military Project page i.e, makes edits within the rules and then discuss if there is a disagreement. None of this "You can't do that" type of thing I've been facing. Some good faith extended in my direction would really make me feel welcome. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to both admins who offered advice and assistance. It is very much appreciated. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your best bet is not to edit in that area - it is one of the most POV driven biased sectors on the whole project with groups of tag team editors and nationalists everywhere - all the articles are worthless to readers, and as far as NPOV goes they're a joke. I had to laugh when you reminded me of User:Big Dunc - that account was used as a blind revert account and left with trojan email goodbyes. Youreallycan (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for posting. While I take on board what you say I can't agree that any editor should stay away from an article just because some people want to keep their POV on it. I have noticed sinister goings on however and your post highlights some of them. What can be done about it however? Is there an avenue of investigation we can ask admins to follow to try and make conditions suitable for all editors on the site to post, without harrassment, on every article? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That sector is so bad your best chance is to - walk away and never look back. Youreallycan (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No way would I ever let someone stop me editing an article. This may not be an appropriate time to enter into the politics of the site but what you've said is a shocking indightment of misuse of policy if editors are able to get away with imposing a POV on an organisation as big as Wikipedia. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with someone stopping you ... it's just that some areas of Wikipedia are just massive cesspools of neverending gloom and decay. In my real life, I wrote a series of articles on a topic quite similar to the one you're voluntarily editing in ... I received death threats afterwards. No way will I leap into those areas, except to perform admin tasks where needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of what you're talking about. I hope I'm not attaching too much gravitas to your admin position here but isn't that really what it's about? Aren't you able to spot anyone pushing a POV and stop them? I do agree with Youreallycan (talk) that there seems to be "something rotten in the State of Denmark" and I'm very keen to do anything I can to help. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is well beyond something one admin can fix. This has been ongoing since 2007. There are too many people and groups with deep-seated opinions on this matter for it to be as simple as "spot(ting) anyone pushing a POV." I admire your tenacity, but diving into articles about The Troubles is asking for stress & grief. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia must have a solution for this then if it's been going for so long. I mean presumably some interest groups present a similar problem i.e. those on Palestine? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Same problems there, the Balkans, etc. As long as it's the "encylopedia anyone can edit", we'll have issues. Just like a nurse in a burn unit eventually becomes "burnt out", these areas of Wikipedia are the cause of a lot of burnout. Sanity is more important (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel, Scientology and others have all been perennial problems. Check out Wikipedia:General sanctions for other examples. These subjects ignite passions and drive people who believe strongly in them to abuse Wikipedia to push their own agendas. Aside from those who break specific sanctions, it's extremely difficult to keep those subjects stable. There's no easy answer here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, if there's concerns about socking on both sides, then run CU. It least it would remove any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(a)no-one will run a usercheck on a fishing expedition−

(b)there are no socks. There are two alleged instances of an individual retiring one account and starting another. Since this is entirely within the rules, refer to (a)

(c) checkuser is not magic pixie dust. If a user last edited three years ago, there's nothing to compare to. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, based on WP:SCRUTINY the creation of a clean account is a problem if it is used to conceal prior bad acts to prevent other editors from detecting a pattern of disruptive editing. In this case Setanta and Mo would probably both be guilty of violating it, I think. Setanta has been more obvious about it by going right back to the same article and denying any prior involvement on Wikipedia, while Mo seems to have focused on edit-warring over the nationality of various well-known people i.e. fighting over whether x famous person is Irish or British with lots of fluff edits between these periods of edit-warring.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before however: any similarity between myself and any other editor is purely coincidental. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Tagging campaign

I have encountered an anon user with a Brazilian IP range who seems to be on a fly-by tagging campaign. Asked as help desk about this, but no response yet, as many of these tags are incorrect, or questionable: e.g. "citation needed" against existing refs and in lead/infobox when cited later in main body, also using "verification needed" and "quotation requested" against refs that are reliable and legit. Seems not to want to use edit summaries, and moving fast from article to article. Several of their tags have been reverted by myself and other editors where they seem misplaced, but there are a lot to keep up with. In several cases, they have returned to the same articles and added more tags. Unusual, and am not sure what to do. Seems almost bot like, and with the change of IP (dynamic?) I'm not sure if they'll respond to anyone on talk pages. User has been templated in some cases, I have not left a notification of this ANI yet, but if someone feels they need leaving a note, advise me where. Notified the latest IP used.

• Special:Contributions/187.15.79.196
• Special:Contributions/187.15.19.24
• Special:Contributions/187.15.33.12

Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that such drive-by tagging is disruptive. However, someone who understands range blocks (not me, obviously) should have a look. Blocking any one of these IPs is not going to do anything. Yes, do leave notifications on those three talk pages please. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to add on looking at the contributions of these ips that every single one of the edits by them is on pages I have recently edited myself. Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gaius_Octavius_Princeps to those provided by Marcus above. I find this...Very.Strange. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? You suspect some kind of stalkish sock behaviour? Coincidence like that would be pretty rare. Hopefully someone will figure it out, though if you recall any Brazilian editor who may have got on your bad side of in the past an SPI check might find out more. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No one willing to look into this matter? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 08:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblock isn't going to occur. No SPI filed with a suggestion of who the sockmaster might be ... no filing for WP:RFPP ... what else is there? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Chad Bannon - sockpuppetry and impersonation of a living person

I reverted edits on Chad Bannon which removed details of the subject's history as a performer in gay porn movies. Although the user who made the edits is User:Chad Bannon, looking at the history of the article shows that there have been a number of single-purpose accounts attempting to make similar edits in the past (User:Doc Unique, User:Doctor Kae, User:Doc Kloepfer). Note that user:Chad Bannon made this edit which includes an email that begins DoctorK. I cannot say more without violating WP:OUTING, but suffice to say that this person is not the subject of the article. Can someone please block the accounts and semi-protect the article? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

i think he needs two be blocked forever Jake.edu (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have just blocked Chad Bannon and revdeleted the edit where he disclosed his email address; personally, I don't think there has been enough recent disruption to warrant protection yet, but I'll defer to the judgement of my fellow admins. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe someone can skip the intervening steps and block User:Jake.edu, who has managed to find ANI and Jimbo's talk page within his first half-dozen edits? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There are several accounts that have variously been used, then abandoned. Jake -pick an account and stick to it or you'll find all of your accounts blocked. TNXMan 16:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

User Blospa

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but Blospa (talk · contribs)'s contributions seem very odd. Could be normal vandalism, but I wonder if there is more to the user. Very confusing. (Had it been straight vandalism, AIV would have been the place, I think; but I wondered if this quacked.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 1:37 pm, Today (UTC−8)

I notice the user was blocked whilst reporting this (also, I don't have access to deleted contributions, but when I checked there were at least 6 nonsense pages of just Margaret Thatcher). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 1:38 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Time to blacklist that image and set up an edit filter.Jasper Deng (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−8)

I believe it's Tile join (talk · contribs). HurricaneFan25 21:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

User kiefer.wolfowitz out of control

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

Unblocked by the original blocking admin, developing consensus that the block was reasonable. There may still be issues to discuss, but this is really not the place for them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I have blocked Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) for an indefinite (not infinite) period of time. A look at his last half-dozen edits will show you why - he's clearly out of control. Since I'm participating in the arbcom case where his edits in question are appearing, it will probably be said I'm "involved", so I'm going to unblock him in a few minutes, and let others decide what to do.--Scott Mac 18:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is hardly new behaviour from Kiefer, but I think that we should allow the Arb case to play out before tackling any further issues that may not have been sorted by the Arb case. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert warring with an ArbCom clerk on an ArbCom page is a very bad thing to do. But IMHO, I would defer to them as to how they wish to deal with those edits in particular. --Rschen7754 18:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunate but good block. Kiefer has had long-running problems with keeping himself under control (or maybe more accurately, keeping his on-wiki behavior such that he appears to be in control), and his proposals on the Civility workshop are clearly intended to be POINTy rather than helpful. Commentary like "feelings of inadequacy can be temporarily alleviated by the frisson of punishing the ruled", used to cast aspersions on the motivation of anyone, administrator or no, is not acceptable, and Kiefer has already undone an Arbcom clerk's redaction of his inflammatory language, which indicates that he has no intention of reining in. Unless and until he can regain his temper and contribute non-POINTily, it's of more benefit to the encyclopedia and its processes to keep Kiefer on the sidelines, though I'm not at all happy to see the block being made by an involved party. Scott, next time maybe ANI first? Or ask an uninvolved admin to comment first? Or something? As a side note, I hesitated to post this comment for fear that I will be attacked by "anti-civility-police" commenters. That, right there? That's a chilling effect, and that's why uncivil editors sometimes tend to go on longer than they should be allowed to. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• As long as Kiefer.Wolfowitz agrees to stop edit-warring with the clerks I would support a quick unblock. His passion is commendable, but we have clerks for a reason (and Salvio has been doing an excellent job keeping things on track there.) 28bytes (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I was writing a reply to Kiefer when I saw he was blocked... Scott, I understand where you're coming from and I can see that you consider this block preventative, but in these cases there are better remedies (clerks can ban people from cases, when they're being disruptive). Personally, I'd support an unblock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I will unblock and let some sane discussion (hopefully) commence. I hoped this block would be short. I trust others will keep him on a tight leash now. Hopefully, he will desist now.--Scott Mac 18:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't the revert waring with a clerk, he is posting, in short succession, inflammatory and offensive rants, which can only be designed deliberately to disrupt (i.e. trolling). See [127] [128] and particularly [129] "enforced sterilisation"? [130].--Scott Mac 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. I fail to see how the user is being constructive in the page linked. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on! Who doesn't want an ArbCom ruling on the "social fabric of the cosmos"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, good block. Or reasonable block, rather. I always disliked the term "good block". It's unfortunate that people have to be blocked, but in cases like this it's the most reasonable thing to do. --Conti|✉ 18:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked The purpose of the block was to end the insanity and get back to constructive discussion. Let's try that now. I've suggested that Kiefer discuss with the arbcom clerks what is, and is not, acceptable and helpful conduct in a difficult case. I suggest those who are uninvolved might help by monitoring things - I will bow out to avoid anything becoming personal (not that it is).--Scott Mac 18:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Salvio and I were discussing this, as my talk page shows. I repeat, that my edit summary invited the moving of the principles to a talk page.

"Insanity" seems a bit strong, Scott. You also misrepresented what I had written, when you omitted "in Sweden" from involuntary commitment/forced sterilization: Sweden used to sterilize and institutionalize weirdos and deviants on the flimsiest of evidence until 1974---something the community might wish to consider before driving away Malleus, Keepscases, along with Badger Drink et alia.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is something specific people want to discuss, it seems a good idea to close this. Leave it to the clerks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we shoul dnot close it. I thought some of his comments on the pomposity of the current Corps des Administrateurs quite amusing and rather succinct. I do hope we are not seeing a return of the bully boy tactics that the Corps des Administrateurs were so fond of in the past. Giacomo Returned 18:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I happen to agree with the point he was making. But that wasn't the time, place, or way to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah Wehwalt, the man who thinks "cocksucker" is an every day pleasantry. I suppose as a memeber of the corps, you would not agree. Giacomo Returned 19:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a good idea to close fast, when you Admins feel yourselves to be wrong footed. Giacomo Returned 19:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:CIVIL violation and inappropriate behavior by User:Beyond My Ken

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

No admin action required. Mild incivility is best handled at WP:WQA or by ignoring it. 28bytes (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I was shocked and disturbed to see that BMK added this and this to his comment on a now-closed ANI thread. This is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and about a dozen ArbCom finding of facts. Moreover it simply is inappropriate behavior on the part of BMK. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, summarily closing and then manually removing the thread wasn't exactly in keeping with how we do things here, either. Rklawton (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is User:76.118.180.210 when they're not logged out? [131] Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is very unusual for ByK not to be able to immediately lay his hand on a suitable choice of words, perhaps he has been hacked... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the choice of words was completely suitable to the frivolousness of the complaint, and I'm shocked – shocked! – to find that some masked person found them civil and inappropriate. To me, they're just straightforward and frank. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need to chase each other around telling tales because of minor expletives. This isn't kindergarten. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend just closing this. If 'bitching' is uncivil, it's small beer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Turtlewaxingmycar

Ok I am bringing this back here due to serious concerns about this user. Previous ANI resulted in advice given by user:Tide rolls. However since then he has continued his rants on article talk page accused me of accusing him of being a sock which I can't remember doing. This all stems fromm revering his initial edits on Lanny A. Breuer as flagged as a BLP issue on igloo vandalism program. If you look at his edit history he has 40 odd edits most of which are attacks, political statements and accusations of wikipedia. Being biased. As I don't have access to a computer I am unable to provide diffs but a quick look at his talk page mine and the article talk page and you will see what mean. I had asked the admin who gave advice to user last time. Tide rolls to reopen the ANI or take further action but he think user may become constructive again I don't see that happening.Edinburgh Wanderer 09:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Also his reply on Tide rolls talk page to me asking him to re look at the ANI should be viewed. To me it's clear there is competency issues alone with using Wikipedia as a political tool and attacking other users even if they are minor. Edinburgh Wanderer 09:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. I call to attention that Mr. Edinbergh did not notify me I was the topic of an ANI - now, for the second time.

With all due respect, this is ridiculous. I was peeved (annoying, found it irritating) that my first-pass edits to Lanny Breuer, mentionng the notable topic of Fast and Furious were auto-deleted as "unconstructive", a day-or-two ago. This Edinbergh guy was really slam-dunk about how he did it, and not willing to discuss, whatsoever, and I responded in-kind.

Since that point, I've made a few comments. Some of them have been really sarcastic. Biting, if you will.

But the bottom-line is that Lanny Breuer's involvement in Fast and Furious, and "Fast and Furious" in general is a censored topic on Wikipedia - or so it would appear. It was noted in August 2011 by another used. I noted it two days ago - principally due to the team-based, tag-team removal "in all due haste" of referenced commentary.

I guess you can have a big ANI about the matter, but I'm not all that interested. I guess this Edinbergh-guy has a lot of time to kill. I'll just watch and see how things develop. That is, if anyone is bored enough to make a big deal of the issue.

Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

EW notified twmc here [132] Nobody Ent 11:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

He also notified about you the first discussion here. GiantSnowman 11:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand why TWMC's edits were simply reverted, as they were referenced by what look like reliable sources (one being the Washington Times). The "lying" heading should have been removed, but not the entire section. Number 57 11:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I struggled with it too, for a while. Then I got testy.  :/ Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It really does seem that there is some kind of systematic 'issue' with F&F, as well as LB's involvement in the matter. Someone-else noted it on his talk page in August 2011, citing that they were 'disappointed in Wikipedia's objectivity' (different words were used).

What I noticed was that a group of people seemed to have the page (LB) on watch-list, and that (in my personal experience) it seems that any-such-related edits were "swooped upon", the edits labelled as "unconstructive" and the editor (me) labelled as making personal attacks - with what was frankly objective referenced editing. I was going to write more, and do clean-up, but "why bother" when you are attacked in the first five minutes of editing, called names, etc. That's why I got "all sarcastic and testy". Besides, this is pro forma at Wikipeida (at it's worst) so I know better than to take such team-based Wikipedia response-behavior personally. Or at least "too personally".Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Lanny Breuer got caught lying to the Senate. This is a matter of documented fact. This is not a personal attack on my part. I'll find a reference. Senator Grassley exclaimed on the Senate floor that AAG Breuer lied, and asked for his resignation, stating that if he didn't resign, he should be fired. Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to get back to work, but there are a few references about the LB involvement (i.e. lying). I'll try to find the reference for Senator Grassley's youtube speech about the matter. It is quite a big deal, notable, and surprising that Wikipedia has a stop-order on edits on the subject-matter.

Here are some references:

* http://news.investors.com/Article/594827/201112141912/justice-aide-lies-about-fast-and-furious.htm

* http://www.gopusa.com/news/2011/12/03/justice-dept-friday-night-fast-and-furious-document-dump/

* Senator Grassley on youtube asking for resignation, citing lying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19Wmk_O5QXM

* to be added

* to be added

* to be added

* to be added

* to be added

* Per Fast and Furious, a good link to read about the background is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html

Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

they were reverted because igloo flagged them as vandalism. As I said on previous ANI when coming out of igloo I went back in and looked although sourced they were purely negative and not neutral. I advised turtle to look at BLP and re do. He has ignored that advice and two other users advice and instead started ranting on talk page and having a go at me. He has had plenty of opportunity to act xp constructivlyEdinburgh Wanderer 11:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This isn't the right forum -- add your references to the article and/or the talk page. Request an WP:RFC if you need wider participation by the community. Nobody Ent 11:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

has anyone actually read his talk paga and userpage. I would also suggest reading the article talk page 40 odd edits and probay only one or two positive to the project. He has had time to add those sourced explain in the article the whole circumstances and it wouldn't be I'm breach of BLP. The behaviour is not ok if he chose to just sort it we wouldnt be having the problem. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

if you look at the first edit it tagged refs removed the second flags as possible BLP issue therefore igloo flags. It looked wrong and as far as I'm concerned without context it was a breach of BLP. I gave him advice as did others. There is nothing different I would do if he hadn't started bounding me on my talk page and rants on talkpage immediately then I probably would have went and sorted it but I'm not helping someone who hounds me and rants like that on page. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That sort of edit is better done manually - i.e. click undo and explain the reason (to help the other editor understand the issue). Essentially all it needs is a reword. It's better to avoid escalation by using an undo and a hand-written explanation of the neutrality issues. (just because igloo identifies an edit as vandalism is not carte blanche - as with all automated tools the decision to rv is only with yourself). In this case this seems a content dispute, there is nothing "blockable" there and tiderolls seems to be making progress (if slowly) on the talk page. What exact action is needed here? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

EW's action, while well-intended, could have been much more productive. The information TWMC was trying to add is reliably sourced (Washington Post, Wall Street Journal et. al.) Assisting him in appropriate insertion with neutral phrasing would have been better than biting dismissive reverting. Nobody Ent 12:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So what your saying Ent is his behaviour is ok. I will never help someone who attacks me straight off. I woul of been more than willing to help him I gave advice. If he has asked or even enquired politely why but no he repeatedly had a go. Also could someone dig out previous ANI to show where I accused him of being a sockpuppet. If no action is taken I ask that he is told not to post on my talk page again I do not like the nature of the comments and have no intention of answering them. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

this is why the project is going down hill we have policies but they are never acted on. We have BLP for a reason we have no personal attacks but no pick on someone who is trying to do good. I have explained that I went back and looked at the edits and that he attacked me before I had a chance to do anything. I gave advice hand written and tags as did two others. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

NO, nobody is saying that his personal attacks and sarcasm are ok. Indeed, if someone is going to go off on a snitty rant every time someone disagrees with them, then the internet is perhaps not a good place for them. He's not going to be blocked for those rants (yet), but you've simply been advised on how to better handle those edits in the future that MIGHT lead to less snit in the future, and thus better communication all-round. Of course, everyone would do with a good re-read of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP and WP:BRD :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is new editors TWMC first two edits ever: [133]. Both contributions are sourced and reasonably well edited. To just dump their contributions with no edit summary [134] (and the "minor" flag) is just rude. After TWMC raises the issue at the talk page, EW justifies their action because the tool said so[135] , an indication they are not using the tool appropriately. Nobody Ent 12:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I looked through the discussions and didn't see anything above the level of "ignore it and move on". Can you post a specific PA diff you feel needs sanctioning? As to the rest I am trying to give general advice; how we first interact with editors often sets to tone for the entire conversation. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, Edinbergh - I wrote that on my talk-page, on this utterly "new account" (I don't routinely edit Wikipedia, haven't edited for a long time, and opened-up this account, yes, to edit this topic. Big deal. It wasn't a conspiracy).

• I wrote that comment on my talk page after you auto-deleted my responses to you on your talk page twice. And my edits were "wiped clean" with no cause for debate.

I know enough about Wikipedia to know that if I put-back my edits (which weren't refined, or otherwise "camera ready", i.e. were in-process of being edited), I'd be banned, or whatever it is you do to people who write "unconstructive" edits, these days. Yes, it was childish. I'm human. I react to bad treatment with annoyance. What can I say.

• Back to the issues of substance. Mr. Breuer did, in fact, lie - though I stand corrected, given that the principal sources call it "misleading Congress". I *believe* I heard Senator Grassley say, 2-3 times, in the youtube.com video (cited above), "Lanny Breuer lied.... (then giving explanation as to how he lied)", but I could be wrong, so I won't argue that. But I wasn't making a personal attack on a biography against a famous person. I was citing what was published (albeit might have needed some refinement and/or discussion).

• What occurred was one of these "three horses of the apocolypse" swoop-down erasures - that can (and do) happen on Wikipedia, when a "certain set of persons" (or a very powerful administrator) has a special-interest in protecting a certain-page, or in presenting a certain POV.

What I experienced was extreme, and it annoyed me. C'est la vie.

My point still stands, that Fast and Furious appears to be a "censored topic" on Wikipedia.

Also, Lanny Breuer's documented "foibles" (to put it politely) on the topic are likewise censored here.

Thanks for your attention

Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: addressed content issues on users' talk page. Nobody Ent 12:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What a freakin' mess this section is. Indenting and outdenting... Doc talk 12:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

this is a joke I give up and no longer want anything to with this place itsweeping that ips and new users can act like this against long standing users and is ignoredI ask you draw up a interaction ban so if I choose to come back he will not contact me. It should be noted I ignored him if he hadn't reposted on my page again this would never of happens. In civility at least deserve a warning who care aye. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

EW, don't be disheartened. I'd agree that an informal interaction ban - i.e. both editors agree to leave each other well alone, with no need for admin officiality - would be a good idea moving forward. GiantSnowman 12:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I find this whole discussion to be a tempest-in-a-teapot. Edinbergh was utterly uninterested in talking to me, at the time of edit-disagreement. I was wrong, the edit was deleted, and "that was it". This kind of attitude irked me, and it's too-often seen on Wikipedia. So I got a bit snitty, but that's my right. I know it's not useful to fight-about substance on Wikipedia, not when one is being confronted with that-kind of attitude ("we are deleting your edits, you are wrong, and if you contest, you are even *more* wrong" kind of thing).

What I find fascinating is how-much time Edinbergh is interested in donating to a discussion of my so-called "behavior", rather than the actual substance of the argument (which is encylopedic content). This is an encyclopedia, not a therapy group, nor a parole board. If Edinbergh was this concerned about my moral character (such as reflected on this medium) he might-well have been open to discussion "at all", but he was not. He is very unilateral in his communication, or at least that's my subjective experience with the guy.

Creating two ANI's about me in 24 hours is a bit hyperbolic, IMO. I mean *really*. Turtlewaxingmycar (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

competence is clearly a problem two in 24 hours I don't think so. Also you attacked my job had a go on your talk page and repeatedly in mine why would anyone help you. This is an utter joke no wonder people leave in droves when you get people like this who don't give a shit about the project just furthering there need. Edinburgh Wanderer 12

48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

4 days actually, but agree it's slight overkill. I'd advise both editors to take a step back, calm down, and leave each other well alone, for the good of everyone. GiantSnowman 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No stepping back he started it back up by having another false go on my talk page snowy. He incompetent he says i never told him i did he says i called him a sock puppet i never he says two in 24 hours no that on top of serious incivility. The only reason its back is he started again. Anyway as above I'm wanting noting to do with a place that thinks this is correct.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

i apologise that I'm now being uncivil but i just can't take more of this. He needs to leave me alone and just get on with improving the page neutrally. Ok first of all some guy called edinburgh [136] i can't find the diff but in one he had a pop at me working for the emergency services. In talk page he creates section headings like When US Federal officers fart, the aroma of Angel perfume emits. this is his user page They call me unconstructive.

Well, well.

My question. Under the new NDAA, can I be placed in military detention for that?

"Yes we can".

bitey or what.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry I can't find diffs I don't have access to a computer only my phone as working away from home so impossible to do a full look. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I should also explain this ANI was opened because the admib from previous ANI said he hoped he would later become constructive so didn't want to do anything and of other opinions were needed then I should re open the ANI. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No admin action is appropriate at this time; I've made an effort to deescalate by addressing both editors on their talk pages[137][138] Nobody Ent 14:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And a heads-up to Turtlewaxingmycar: Edinburgh Wanderer has requested that you no longer contact him on his talkpage. If you have reason to contact him, I would recommend doing so through someone else. However, for all intents and purposes, most of your communication would take place on the talkpage of an article, which is permitted - as long as it's civil. Please note that a failure to abide by the request can cause somem needless escalation. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks :) "Not ENT" for the note on my page.

Bwilkins: No problem. I have no issue with this guy. My main problem with him was he deleted something (with a few backups) and didn't want to have 'one word' about it, i.e. deleted my posts (which in all honesty probably weren't the most polite ones I've ever written, lol). I have no idea where the guy got the idea I knew he worked for EMS. How would *I* know that? Anyways, my final suggestion would be that someone please write a "redirect" from a 2-part "Fast and Furious" definition, i.e. the only link to F&F is a movie, and the term "Operation F&F" isn't something the rest of the regular-world (who are not "inside ops") are going to know about. Thanks for the info that this isn't a censored topic. That makes me feel a bit better about the situation. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is resolved.  :) 194.230.159.69 (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

there is an infobox on my userpage that states my job very easy to get also gave you guideance to read the BLP article and reinsert once neutral that is the only advise I or anyone could give you other that rewrite it for you which given the post to my talk page I was unlikely to feel inclined to do. So I clearly did speak to you and as one of the reverts on my talk page says replied on tall page of article. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have asked him not to post on my talk page but would seriously like an answer to why he said I called him a sockpuppet and why he said I never informed him and why he thought there were two ani in 24 hours. After that it's up to the community if there Are further problems as I will not be keeping an eye on the situation as for me as he appears to have agreed not to post on my talk page that's it over. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think dragging this out any further is going to be helpful, do you? He leaves you alone, you leave him alone, both walk away, and that's that. Life, as they say, goes on. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to drag it out I'm happy leaving it but really want to know where the sockpuppet comment came from. It must of come from somewhere. I can only think that's what they thought the previous ANI was about which it wasn't. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes sticks are meant to be dropped. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request by Cculber007

• Cculber007 (talk · contribs · count)

This user has requested unblocking via unblock-en-l. We have decided to allow the community to discuss whether this request should be granted and under what terms to do so. If you are interested, please discuss on the user's talk page (not here). Thanks. --Chris (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hindi IP vandal back

There was an ANI thread about this some weeks ago, unfortunately I can't remember when. The IP 117.199.72.57 is back again, inserting nearly the same string of Hindi words. The primary target is Indian education related articles. The edits seem to have stopped now, but from experience, I can probably guarantee that he will be back. Just a heads up. Lynch7 17:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I hit that one with a 24 block. While, yes, xe'll obviously just switch IPs, we should block every one as soon as we find it. Is there any one or two pages that he almost always hits? I'll be happy to watchlist them, and if other admins could as well we could catch him faster each time, given that there's not much else we can do. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Education in India seems to be a favorite of his, though the targets are Indian Education articles in general, so watchlisting probably won't be practical. Yeah, best to dole out short, quick blocks as soon as it is detected I guess. I've also seen this guy around in Sanskrit Wikipedia with the same string; its only a matter of time before he goes crosswiki I reckon. Lynch7 06:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if it matters, but it appears to be spam for a private school book publisher. --NellieBly (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

He's back today: Contributions/117.199.75.70. Nah, nothing to do with books, its just about how the mother tongue is the best for education, some nonsense. Lynch7 14:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

24 hours there. The problem is that xe probably doesn't even notice. Report new addresses to my talk page if you like, unless someone else has a better solution. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do that. Isn't there any sort of a filter or something which can catch this string? I don't know, I'm just hazarding a guess. Lynch7 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we know what the string means? If it is not printable (so to speak), just say so.

Abusive emails from user:Taninao0126

I have reverted some BLP violations and copyvio images from the article Jennifer O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added by Taninao0126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now she has taken to writing threatening and abusive emails to me via the wikipedia email service. I can forward these emails to any interested admin. I request some help. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to forward them to me, I'll have a look; I trust you, but I want to make sure I know what I'd be revoking e-mail for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Blade of the Northern Lights. Especially for your trust. But as Ronald Reagan once said: Trust but verify. Nothing wrong with that. :) I will be pasting them momentarily at your Wikipedia email. I can also forward the originals at a later stage. Thanks again. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing those e-mails, I'm blocking her for a week with no e-mail access; if she really wants to be unblocked, she can use on-wiki channels. If problems continue after that, let me know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I will. Thank you very much. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

just FYI - regardless of the email setting, users can still use their regular email to request unblocking from the arbcom unblock list. All the email block setting does is prevent them from using the wikipedia 'email this user' feature. If a user is sending you abusive emails, I recommend not replying (even using the email this user on wikipedia) since once they have your email address they can spam you from off wiki. Syrthiss (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dr.K. hasn't responded, so he should be fine. I can't control whether she e-mails ArbCom, but I didn't want her to keep going after people via e-mail while blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I know, just wanted to make sure that you (and other viewers) knew. I've seen a few editors who feel that blocking email access is a horribly stifling thing to do, and its not true. Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As the Blade of the Northern Lights said I did not respond to this user and spamming was one of my concerns. The other reason for not responding to the emails was the threatening content. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Christianity

The article Conservative Christianity was nominated for deletion, and according to the closing admin, the consensus was to keep it as a dab page. However User:Dondegroovily has evidently disagreed with the idea that this was the consensus and has now redirected the page to Christian fundamentalism. Although consensus can change, this redirect has not been done with a fresh consensus. I am up to three reverts, so I cannot revert any more, but it seems that Dondegroovily is operating contrary to the consensus. Would an uninvolved admin be able to take a look at this, please? StAnselm (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dondegroovily claims consensus from talk:Christian conservatism but that discussion involved only 3 editors - Dondegroovily (who proposed the redirect), another who was "willing to accept it" but noted others may object, and StAnselm who did object. This is a very poor basis for claiming consensus, let alone edit warring about it. EdChem (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have directed Dondegroovily to WP:DRV, since they seem to disagree with the closing administrator's decision.--Atlan (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I contacted the closing administrator, who explicitly stated that he didn't consider the disambiguation part of the close binding and that we were free to follow whatever consensus was reached at the talk page. As stated above, this was also discussed at Christian conservatism. StAnselm also post at hisher {[User talk:Dondegroovily|my talk page]] that he wasn't reverting me because he personally agreed with a disambiguation page (in fact, he disagreed), but only to enforce the AfD. In short, the only objection was that it didn't conform to the AfD consensus, yet the admin said he didn't feel there was any such consensus, so StAnselm is enforcing a consensus that doesn't exist and that he himself disagrees with.

Edchem, as far as DRV is concerned, that page explicitly says to contact the closing administrator first. That is exactly what I did, and based on the administrator's response, I felt that deletion review was unnecessary.

And, of course, I posted all of this at the article's talk page. I even copied the discussion from the admin's talk page there. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've taken the appropriate steps, but you seem to misinterpret part of Kudpung's response. He said that if you can come to a new agreement about what the article should be, you can change it despite the outcome of the AFD. He didn't say the AFD had no consensus and you can just ignore it. Although I agree, he could've worded that better. Like EdChem says, the discussion you point to is a poor basis for claiming consensus has changed.--Atlan (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I could perhaps have better worded the closing statement. The main point is that I intended DAB to be a suggestion rather than make it absolutely mandatory. Because the close is not a deletion, there are no physical restraints for doing anything with the page, and I have made that clear and given my consent for an interpretation of my 'Keep' closure at here. Based on which, naturally what then takes place should be the result of a discussion between the editors rather than any unilateral operations; although one could possibly argue WP:BRD. Nevertheless, as I have stated there, edit warring is not a solution. I hope this clears it up, but as an involved party I can't adjudicate on the current issue, which I will leave a fellow admin to close as s/he feels appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Three Witnesses

User:BOMC, an inexperienced editor in terms of number of edits, insists on inserting Mormon POV cited to non-WP:RS in a long-stable article about the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. He refuses to discuss the edits with me on the talk page. Here's the last diff.--John Foxe (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here...I've been watching the developments at Three Witnesses for some time, and there is a parallel problem going on at David Whitmer, where User:72Dino, User:ARTEST4ECHO, and I have gotten involved to a limited extent. My impression has been that both User:John Foxe and User:BOMC have behaved poorly, both participating in a drawn-out edit war with little discussion (both trying, perhpas, to make the other do the work on the talk page). BOMC seems to have a mild point of view problem, but compared to John Foxe, it is refreshingly neutral, and I wouldn't describe it as being a pro-"Mormon POV". I see his main shortcoming as being the fact that he doesn't understand the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. That said, the citations he has added have been consistent with the current sourcing of the articles (for instance, citations to Vogel's Early Mormon Documents). BOMC appears to have read all these sources, and have a very good knowledge of them.

I see BOMC as a new and inexperienced editor who has a lot to offer, and my primary concern here is that I don't want to lose him to Wikipedia because he feels like he can't contribute. I think the easiest solution to this problem would be for John Foxe to tell BOMC specifically which parts of his edits are bad, instead of performing repeated wholesale reversions, because BOMC has actually added a lot of new and very useful information to the articles, including a comprehensive table showing the interviews of David Whitmer listing which sources they can be found in. (Follow this link, scroll to the end of the article, and expand the table to see this.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As my name is mention above I will put my two cents in. I was back and back and forth myself, tring to decided if I should comment, since I didn't want to stir up a hornets nest. However, in the end I felt that It wasn't fair to of Foxe to complain about BOMC.

First, in order to prevent any complaint of "Bias" or "hiding", I have already had one wp:edit war with John Foxe. The underlying issue was never completely resolved, but has ended for the time being.

I have to say I mostly agree with Adjwilley assessment. Both User:John Foxe and User:BOMC have behaved poorly. BOMC may have some mild POV issues, but John Foxe is by far worse.

I notice this started with a complaint about BOMC refusing "to discuss the edits with me on the talk page". However, I can understand his frustration and his unwillingness to discuss anything with John Foxe. My experience with him have left me felling that same way. No matter what you say, no matter how much you cite something, no matter who or how many people disagree with him, John Foxe will always revert to his POVish edits and refuse to accept a consensus. If he dosn't like what a source say he calles it "non-WP:RS" and no matter how many people come the the consensus that it is WP:RS, he refuses to allow that sources usage.

What I am saying it, I don't think BOMC should be faulted much for throwing his hand up and refusing to continue fruitless discussions.

Since I have edit warred with him, I do wish to point out that this in not just my opinion. John Foxe's edits and actions are well known by many editor and even non editors. For example:

1. His editing is so outrageous that he was actually in the newspaper about it. Wiki Wars: In battle to define beliefs, Mormons and foes wage battle on Wikipedia
2. He was also blocked for a week for Sock puppetry (related to Mormon articles) and here. As a result he was restricted to Reverting more than once (1RR) on any Morman-related (loosely constructed) articles for 2 years.
3. He then violated that restriction and was blocked again. here
4. He has in fact been blocked 7 times here for Edit Waring.

I find it ironic that John Foxe came here complaining, when his behavior in this case and in numerous other case is by far worse.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. The accusation that I inserted Mormon pov is a baseless accusation by John Foxe. Since my time here, he has hindered at every turn and refused to give a single example.BOMC (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

After reading Artest4echo's post above, I should probably also state that I too have been involved in a long, albeit slow, "edit war" with John Foxe, and have had similar experiences with long, fruitless talk page discussions and tendentious editing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted BOMC's additions because they replaced cited information with unverified information — many of the new citations were to print sources but lacked multiple crucial components needed to identify their sources. I have no opinion on which text is better/worse, but replacing properly cited information with information that others can't verify is never a good thing. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, I wasn't quite clear on what critical information was missing from all the references given. Are there certain fields required that were not completed? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? You're admitting you are unqualified to judge the sources and yet that is what you have done. I second the request by 72Dino that you cite as per wiki terms specific example(s). Be it known that user Foxe has refused to give specific examples also. With his track record, your coming to his side without a. specific example, b. offering time to amend is counter productive, no offense.BOMC (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't fault Nyttend, who I'm certain acted in good faith, based on the information available. I took a closer look at the diff today, and though some of the citations BOMC added are a little sloppy (probably due to inexperience) they seem reasonable compared to the other citations in the article. Here is a sample of some of the citations BOMC added to the article.

• Far West Record, pp. 123-125; Ebenezer Robinson, "Items of Personal History of the Editor," The Return, (Davis City, Iowa: Church of Christ), Vol. 1, No. 9, September 1889, pp. 134-135.
• Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, Signature Books, 2003, Vol. V, p. 421.
• Lavina Fielding Anderson, ed., Lucy's Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith's Family Memoir, Signature Books, 2001, p. 452.
• David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, 1887, p. 32.
• Leon R. Hartshorn, Dennis A. Wright, and Craig J. Ostler, eds., The Doctrine and Covenants, a Book of Answers: The 25th Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, Deseret Book Co., 1996, p. 88; Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 105.
• Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, Deseret Book Co., 1981, p. 153.
• William Lang to Thomas Gregg, 5 November 1881, Tiffin, Ohio, in Shook, The True Origin of the Book of Mormon , 56)." (Matthew Roper, "Comments on the Book of Mormon Witnesses: a Response To Jerald and Sandra Tanner Matthew Roper," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 2, no. 2 (Fall 1993), pp. 164-193.
• Lyndon W. Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, Grandin Book Co., 1991, p. xxvi.
• "James H. Hart Interview," Bear Lake Democrat, March 28, 1884
• Hamilton Newspaper, January 21, 1881; Kingston (Missouri) Times, December 16, 1887; "David Whitmer Interview with John Murphy, June 1880," Dan Vogel, ed., Early Morning Documents Signature Books, 2003, vol. 5, p. 63.
• Richmond (Missouri) Conservator, March 24, 1881; Hamiltonian (Missouri) Newspaper, April 8, 1881; Saints' Herald, June 1, 1881, vol. 28, p. 168; David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, 1887, pp. 8-10; LDS Church Archives; Ebbie Richardson, "David Whitmer," M.A. Thesis, BYU, 1952, pp. 178-180; "David Whitmer: The Independent Missouri Businessman," Improvement Era, vol. 72, April 1969, p. 79; Lyndon W. Cook, pp. 79-80; Dan Vogel, ed., Early Morning Documents Signature Books, 2003, vol. 5, pp. 68-71.

...and the list goes on... For comparison, here are some of the references he moved or removed, as best as I can tell...

• ThreeWitness.org website.
• Michael J. Latzer, "Whitmer, David" American National Biography Online Feb. 2000
• Moyle diary, June 28, 1885 in EMD 5: 141.
• Whitmer interview with John Murphy, June 1880, in EMD 5: 63.
• David Whitmer interview with Orson Pratt, September 1878, in EMD, 5: 43.
• Palmer, 180-81, 193-94, 197-99.
• Randall Cluff, "Cowdery, Oliver" American National Biography Online Feb. 2000.
• Bushman, 323, 347-48.
• Bushman, 255. The choices were announced at a meeting on 14 February 1835. History of the Church 2:186-87..

Granted, BOMC added many of these citations before he new the Wikipedia policies on primary and secondary sources, but not all the sources he added are primary, as John Foxe claimed, and most seem to be at least the quality of the ones he removed.

That said, I think we have a couple of options for moving forward from here. I think we need to move away from the revert war that's been going on. John Foxe has put a good deal of effort into the article, and naturally wants to protect his work. BOMC has put a lot of effort into his edits, and is mad that his work has been repeatedly undone—not in part, but in full. We have two versions of the article that are incompatible, and whichever one we start with will make somebody unhappy. I think, however, that the best path forward would be to leave the article in John Foxe's state, and have BOMC start over, in effect. He knows a lot more now than when he started out, and he also has the diff view that he can use if he wants to remember what he wrote, or copy and paste. I'm sure he'll be more careful this time about removing any cited material, and I would expect him and John Foxe to use the talk page to resolve specific differences in opinion. Is that something everybody can agree to? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't find the sources in the removed citations to be any more accessible or verifiable than the ones BOMC added. Yes, four of them have links, but three of those links don't show anything when you follow them, and the forth (history of the church) is to a primary source anyway. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that effort. My feeling is that John Foxe is too close to the matter and has made it his own. His bias was clear and his double-standard apparent. The greater good says we should use my fresh perspective as a newbie and start from and edits and work from there. This is NOT a difficult subject and multiple sources can be given for each point of the narrative. It is easier to cite the reference deemed insufficient and allow time for the poster to remedy the situation than to go the rounds with what some term "discussion." The credibility of the wiki is questioned when someone like Foxe is allowed to intimidate and obfuscate, and editors like Nyttend a. Do not give examples, and b. Allow time to remedy the situation. The wiki is not a club where contributions are not allowed to edit with boldness. I would like Foxe and Nyttend to show me one example where boldness was allowed.BOMC (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I started a section yesterday at Talk:Three Witnesses#Proposed to address the edits one by one, starting in the order they show in the article. I hope to see discussion there. 72Dino (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Mohombi

Imitation of another person. Edits all to that persons BLP. Cannot be that person himself since mistake was made on birth year. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is vague - diff please. What is the real birth year, and what is your source for that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• You should have notified the user of this discussion. I have now done so. I do not see where this user edited the birth year in the article, so I do not understand your claim the editor made a mistake in the birth year. -- Donald Albury 01:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just indefinitely softblocked this account per WP:REALNAME: Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name. They can create a new account or send an email to OTRS to confirm they're really Mohombi. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't get past all the google hits for the performing star, but it looks like it was his first name before he adopted it professionally. Do we know if this is a first name shared by others, or whether it is unique? If it is a first name that is not unique, I'm not certain about the block.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This artist uses Mohombi as his stage name; this user has only edited his bio and has chosen Mohombi as a username, I considered that to be a misleading username and worthy of a block... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 03:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Salvio's explanation. It is nearly textbook protocol at UAA to follow exactly this rationale. My76Strat (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen mention but believe it is relevant to informatively state to SergeWoodzing that WP:UAA is the preferred noticeboard when reporting concerns related to a user name. My76Strat (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, My76Strat, and sorry, Donald Albury, about forgetting to notify. I will try to remember these things next time. The birth year diffs requested are here and here. I believe his Moupondo's first name can be considered unique. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Thank you for the expanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

EL battle

Could an admin who has a free moment take a look at the battle over an external link on these pages:

• Homebrew (video games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cheating in video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ROM hacking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John L. Hennessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I brought this to WP:AN before, and User:Swarm warned the participants against edit warring, but they're still at it a month later. I'm recusing myself from admin action here since I edit one of the articles occasionally. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking it over, I'm inclined to block both parties for 24 hours for participating in an incredibly lame edit war. Given they've both been warned about this in the past, I don't think another warning will be enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've whacked the more recent one. The IP hasn't edited in a while. Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. I expect the IP will be along again before too long. 28bytes (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Block me

I need someone to block me until further notice as my health is really terrible right now, and I rather not risk editing Wikipedia until my health gets back to average. Thanks Secret ^account 21:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Hope you feel better soon. 28bytes (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

PGPirate

PGPirate (talk · contribs)

User appears to be going on an AFD tear, taking aim at a long list of college fight songs. Perhaps this is a reaction to this [139], but this looks like a vendetta. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I left a message on his talk page a few minutes ago asking him to stop as this is incredibly WP:POINTY. I'm tempted to speedy close all those nominations... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I've blocked PGPirate for 24 hours for his continued disruptive editing after the warnings. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • For the record, I count 83 AfDs nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 11 within a period of one hour. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I happened upon this at Boola Boola--not notable? I beg your pardon, kind sir. Harumph. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On a somewhat unrelated note, how is PGPirate a reviewer? The sheer number of warnings going back months on their talk page would concern me abut the editor's WP:COMPETENCE. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that userright is pretty much useless, considering admins cannot use pending changes any longer... So I'd say there's really no need to remove it... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed, good block. I'd suggest speedy closing the nominations. Judging that he nominated at least one GA for deletion, Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, the nominator did not concern himself with WP:BEFORE. Disavian (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Uggh, this editor didn't even glance a look at the reflist for On, Wisconsin! (aka the state song of Wisconsin also), which has plenty of sources. Can we have a speedy close on those that are pretty darned obvious speedy keeps? Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. User may have slight conflict of interest over East Carolina....76.248.147.199 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 Hang on before you close all of them, some do have merit though and there is a number of issues with lyrics on a number of them (see WP:NOTLYRICS) and in some cases they could be copyvio issues. Mtking ^(edits) 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the AFDs were apparently filed with malice, they should all be speedily kept. No vandal should be able to force an agenda like this. --Esprqii (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, then objective parties can renominate any appropriate articles. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy close them: they were not done in good faith, whatever the quality of the article or the notability of the topic. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this user have any relation to Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs)? The mass-nomination caught my eye. HurricaneFan25 00:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, based on interests. PGPirate has also been here since 2005. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Update: 78 of the articles nominated in bad faith have been speedily kept, while five were kept open due to delete !votes (Across the Field, Up With Montana, The Bells Must Ring, Buckeye Battle Cry, and Dear Old Nebraska U). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BEFORE is not policy or a guideline. The rationale for blocking him was his failure to follow this suggestion. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've should have refreshed the ANI page before closing some of the Afd's with delete votes. I think it's best to close of all of them for now. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering he posted that article about the ECU fight song SIX YEARS AGO, and somebody got the bright idea to nominate it for deletion now, I could see why he'd be miffed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Across the Field and The Bells Must Ring are still open at AfD. They should be speedily closed like all the others. Carrite (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting point. How is the Rutgers fight song notable, other than being connected with Rutgers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Done.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Request is it possible to shift all those speedy keeps off the AfD page for 11 January: they make the page a bit awkward. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a couple of collapsable boxes for the afd would do. The speedy keeps would be hidden from view but can still be accessed from the Jan 11 page if necessary.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good job!--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I think it is important to note that Mtking (talk · contribs) is seemingly a co-conspirator in this vendetta against college fight songs. He's gone through many of the oldest and obviously public domain fight songs and suggested their deletion after removing their lyrics and rendering any comments on those lyrics senseless. Lyrics are clearly allowed in certain cases since articles such as Happy Birthday to You,Ring a Ring o' Roses, or The Star-Spangled Banner would not be understandable without the lyrics. Hundred-year old fight songs are similar in this respect. In Up With Montana Mtking (talk · contribs) actually follows PGPirate (talk · contribs)'s AFD lead by deleting a comparison of three similar fight songs [140]. How can an article include a debate about why three cross-country songs from the early 20th century are so similar make any sense without including the lyrics to the songs? Mtking (talk · contribs)'s argument is that since the main source of information about a school song is the school itself it is not notable. Of course, this is true about almost ANYTHING about a university. He is clearly holding a grudge similar to PGPirate (talk · contribs) and his recent edit history suggests they're following the same path with different tactics. The shear number of such edits on the subject show that it cannot be seen as being done in good faith. - 50.135.30.251 (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, until yesterday I don't think I had ever come across PGPirate, and you will note from my comments above that that I said some had merit and do not support in any way his mass AfD. WP:NOTLYRICS is very clear " Quotations from an out-of-copyright song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article." As for the point about the source of information, it is not my argument, it goes to the core of WP:GNG when it says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" so if the source is the university it clearly does not meet the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Mtking ^(edits) 21:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone's day job must be a meter maid. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. WP:NOTLYRICS was clearly designed to avoid Wikipedia from becoming a pop-song lyric database and was not meant to apply to historical and culturally significant songs like the one's listed above or college fight songs in general. As someone who's had to deal with Mtking (talk · contribs) before, I can tell you he has a general antipathy for all things related to college sports. He follows me around to every page I edit, which is probably how he came across the aforementioned Up With Montana song. He's messed with the Montana Grizzlies, Montana Grizzlies football, deleted almost every picture associated with them and has even screwed with my home town of Missoula, Montana's pages. Pretty keen interest in the happenings of a small town in Montana for a guy in Australia who admittedly knows nothing about college sports. That this man is disruptive is an understatement. The guy's a stalker. - Dsetay (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

1. WP:NPA
2. I am not an admin and can not delete anything, if you upload a picture that does not meet usage policy it will get deleted.
3. I do not follow you to every page you edit, there are only six articles in which we have both edited.
4. As the above link shows I have not edited Missoula, Montana ever.

Mtki Ong ^(edits) 02:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

1. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, the one wikipedia policy you seem to have not memorized
2. Forgive me for saying you deleted. I should have written that you flag everything for deletion based on a technicality
3. Even six common pages is a hell of a coincidence. Plus, that does not include pages, templates, and files that you successfully got deleted.
4. The Missoula, Montana reference involved a photo you got deleted. Since you rarely deal with image files except those dealing with American sports, it was odd for you to ask to delete a flikr photo of a fish statue in Missoula based on a single, obscure, lower-court, copyright case in Chicago.
5. Regardless, the very WP:NOTLYRICS (an incredibly subjective guideline, by the way) you constantly refer to allows for lyrics in context. You just blindly delete them with no respect for common sense. That is disruptive and needs to stop. Of course the main source for these song articles comes from the university, which is better than just as every article on a television show (which no one seems to complain about) that is based directly or indirectly on someone watching that show. Personally, I would accept a university's own research on itself over the Boston Herald's entertainment section on America's Next Top Model as reliable. Should we also delete the history section of every university since the university itself is probably the only entity to have bothered researching it? Please, stop trying to regulate Wikipedia to death. Or, at least leave college athletics to people with a familiarity with the topic. You can't practice discretion and use fair judgement when you don't understand the subject matter. These aren't laws, they're guidelines. I'm begging you, please just go away.Dsetay (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, shouldn't most of the school song articles be changed to redirects and the material added to the school's main article as a short section? The AFD's mentioned above were speedily kept, but the two that apparently started this weren't. That seems ... odd. Ravensfire (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Now that the disruption is addressed, editors are encouraged to renominate the articles based on their individual merits rather than by drive by afd tagging.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Stifling the AFD's was just as disruptive. If you single out ECU for deletion but leave countless other obscure school songs stand, then something's rotten. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERCARROTS, Bugs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Not to start another war here, but I have some concerns about this user's history of uploading copyright violations. I very easily found some flagrant ones (especially , which was used on 50+ articles. The talk page has some links to new ones.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Kashif Siqqiqi legal threat

Resolved

 – off-wiki legal allusion referred to foundation

I'm here to report a possible legal threat, per WP:DOLT. Long story short - Kashif Siddiqi has been e-mailing me about his article, providing me with newspaper articles etc. so that I could use the reliable ones to expand it. All was fine. He then, out of the blue, requested deletion, citing fear of vandalism and concerns from his family, so I took it to WP:BLPN for advice; I received little help there, so I suggested to Siddiqi we could perhaps protect it to limit who can edit the page. My request at WP:RPP failed, as I kind of expected it would, and when I informed him of this, he said he now wanted it deleted and mentioned getting his lawyer involved - not in a threatening way I must add, but still. I've since taken it to AfD to see if the community agrees with deletion, and was advised there to record the legal threat with info-en@wikimedia.org which I have done; they in turn advised me to bring it here. Please note: I am visiting friends this weekend and will be unavailable to provide more information/e-mail evidence from 18:00 tonight (currently 17:15 in Britain)until Monday morning. GiantSnowman 17:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• The article is tremendously well cited, and does not contain the slightest piece of controversy or reference to anything off the pitch. As a capped competitor at an international level, the likelihood that this will be deleted at AFD/by community means is virtually nil. Have you advised him of that? WilliamH (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is why we wrote WP:LUC. The sources he provided you make it even more unlikely it will be deleted. All I can suggest, what I've done myself numerous times when talking with article subjects or their representatives, is that we have a BLP policy and take such articles very seriously, and go to extra lengths to try to protect them. -- Atama頭 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd endorse that suggestion and also advise the subject to consider WP:LUC. My impression of pursuing this via legal means is that it would be very expensive and achieve very little (if anything) on Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've WP:SNOW closed the AFD. There's nothing more to do here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

While I'd personally prefer an opt-out in cases like this, that isn't policy. I've looked through the history and I don't see any libellous vandalism. If there had been any, I would have considered permanent semi-protection to save the subject any nervousness about having an open bio. But since that's not justifiable here, there does seem nothing else we can do. But thanks for bringing it here. When a subject makes a complaint, even a seemingly unreasonable one, we do owe them a full review and consideration.--Scott Mac 00:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette issue with User:AndyTheGrump and acknowledgement by me, User:R-41, that I unacceptably swore back in frustration at him/her

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

Closing by popular demand. R-41: just ignore him. He's made his points, you've made yours, and it's unlikely either of you will convince the other, so if it's frustrating you to debate with him, simply stop doing it. 28bytes (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I am asking for a simple warning be given to User:AndyTheGrump to change his etiquette and no longer behave in a demeaning and abusive manner to me. AndyTheGrump, in response to a post I made, responded by laughing at me, writing "LOL!". He went on to haughtily say "Thank you for providing such convincing evidence that the author of this encyclopaedia agrees with my perspective on the matter." I acknowledge that in great frustration I swore two obscenities in response, I removed the obscenities from the discussion page out of respect for rational discussion to continue without hindrance by a stupid act of irrationality on my part - I will accept any reprimand for that action that you deem necessary should AndyTheGrump request it, or should you deem it necessary. But I will tell you that I am a well-intentioned user, I have been on Wikipedia since 2007 and have never been reprimanded for anything before, I do my best to rationally discuss in a Socratic manner issues, but I can't stand what is happening any longer, he is treating me like an animal when I've provided source after source and then he just laughs at me and snarls back at me in a haughty manner "thank you so much for giving me a good argument", he might as well have added insulting me by calling me "you loser". I have told him I won't tolerate this and asked for him to stop demeaning me, but he continued and in response to a statement I made in a discussion, he sarcastically said "Thank you for misrepresenting the arguments of the "Oppose" comments." - I didn't even state what I thought the opposed arguments were, so I was not misrepresenting them. I am being abused on the talk page for my conscientious efforts - I won't tolerate being treated this way.--R-41 (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll let the evidence speak for itself here: Talk:East_Germany#Satellite_state_of_the_USSR_or_not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How does your belief that I've misrepresented the side somehow legitimize you for laughing at me ("LOL!"), saying haughty and sarcastic "thank yous" and other things that are demeaning and completely disrespectful to the amount of effort I have put in to presenting the case for the "Support" side. I accept that I did wrong to you by swearing, now will you accept you have done wrong to me by laughing at me and being disrespectful.--R-41 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll let the evidence speak for itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

But you won't simply accept that you have done wrong. I accepted that I did wrong to you, why will you not do so to me?--R-41 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that these two users take this to WP:WQA. There is not really much that admins need to do here. No one is going to be blocked (yet), no articles need protection, no pages need deletion. Admins do not carry "magic warning powers" that somehow force users to behave in a certain manner; AndyTheGrump is clearly aware that R-41 objects to something he did, so there's nothing special for admins to do per se. If R-41 wishes to get outside comment on AndyTheGrumps behavior, then WP:WQA or WP:RFCU is the correct venue to do that. But this noticeboard is not the place for this sort of dispute. There is nothing for admins to do qua their admin tools, at this point. Suggest also that this thread be closed. --Jayron32 01:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not asking for him to be blocked, simply a warning to cease from doing this. Jayron32, could you please refer this material somehow, like copy and paste it to WP:WQA, I don't feel like re-writing all of this again, and I get going on to do something more productive and less frustrating.--R-41 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To your first sentence: Andy is aware you don't like something he did. If I said "R-41 doesn't like something you did." it doesn't add anything to the matter. If you wish to find other people to also not like what Andy did, try the places I told you. To your second sentence: If you want to do something more productive, please do so. That sounds like the best solution. I think that part of your statement makes the most sense. The first half of that sentence is just silly. --Jayron32 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

R-41, quite honestly, I believe you might be overreacting just a tad: you say that Andy is treating me like an animal and he might as well have added insulting me by calling me "you loser"; well, that's excessive. Ok, he wasn't particularly nice to you, but that's it. There's nothing there warranting a warning, in my opinion. I can see you're upset. My advice would be to just walk away for a couple of hours, brew a cup of tea and come back when you're calmer. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree this thread should be closed. Even if one accepts the evidence presented by R-41 as true, it is not sufficient to warrant administrative action. TFD (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

I'm exasperated and at a loss. This article is about a physics theory proposed by Antony Garrett Lisi (note that there are similar problems on that article, too). There are two distinct sides, both of which seem to not understand or care whatsoever about Wikipedia's policies, with only one or two editors (I consider myself to be one) in the middle. One side thinks that Lisi is, well, words that I can't use for fear of breaking WP:BLP. They think that the theory is complete bunk, hype, and a public relations travesty. The other side thinks that Lisi's theory is new, imperfect but promising, no different than any other new physics theory, and deserving of a warm limelight (and that the detractors are basically envious string theorists). The first side wants both articles deleted, or, at least, stubbed and left with no info about the science itself. Deletion is out of the question, of course, because there are dozens upon dozens of sources that discuss both Lisi and the theory (what happened is that the mainstream press got excited that this "surfer-dude" physicist, working outside of the academy, came up with a theory that set the physics world on edge). The other side wants the entire theory explained in great detail, both mathematically and scientifically, at a level that 99.9999% of Wikipedia readers could never understand. This is really also out of the question because there are quite a number of sources that say that, unfortunately, Lisi is simply wrong (the main paper was never even published in a peer reviewed journal).

I'm fed up with the two sides. Most recently, I've "threatened" to just start collapsing every discussion that calls for the article to be deleted, because that's so obviously not what Wikipedia policy says. I'm also sick to death of having to have the same fight over and over again with the ones who don't want anything removed. Furthermore, Lisi himself has been discussing this off site, and it is entirely likely that either Lisi or one of his supporters, as well as some of his direct opponents, are actively editing the article and/or talk page. Just recently, 2 editors have said that they're planning to take me to the Administrator's Notice Board for my threats (see Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything#Does Wikipedia need this article and, if so, what form should it take?). So I'm taking the initiative and doing it myself.

Of course, the question is inevitably, "What Administrative Action is requested here?" First, please review the conduct of all users there, and see if anyone needs to be blocked for BLP violations (of particular concerns there are posts by (User:71.106.167.55), such as [141]), or tendentious editing. See if anyone sees any meat or sockpuppetry. Please also review my own conduct, and trout or sanction me as appropriate--my frustration may well have gotten the better of me, especially in the last few days. Ideally, I'd like a neutral admin or two watching the talk page and stopping tendentious editing before it gets out of hand (as if the article were under discretionary sanctions). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An article written in the tone that is written in which contains the phrase "was not submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal" and "largely but not entirely ignored by the mainstream physics community" should send red flags waving. Honestly I'd support deleting it, we don't need any more pseudoscience here. And that is what that appears to be to me. That article seems to have rushed through AfD last time with ILIKEIT type "look, it is in the news!" support. That doesn't demonstrate a lasting notability (notability isn't temporary). This theory seems to have no lasting support or impact. Send it back to AfD, perhaps. Prodego ^talk 05:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An exceptionally easy decision. Mainstream science ignores it. So should we. Per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if true, that's not how policy works. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm an interested editor who hasn't done much with the article because it was outside of my expertise, but since Lisi's public presentations have focused on the visualizations of his theory which is within my geometric expertise at least.Qwyrxian has been patient and fair, although it was his deletion of a large portion of the mathematical aspects of the article that pulled me in [142]. I appreciated the detailed descriptions of the theory even if there was much I don't understand, and I'm one of the 99.999% too, in terms of judging its failings. There's advanced mathematics in the theory only really taught to math (or physics) grad students, although Wikipedia has a great deal to say about this advanced math, like Lie algebras of E8 and the subgroups. I find Lisi's paper and article represent an excellent inspiration for aspiring math students for a reason to try to learn more about this abstract math. Similarly for me the theory was the first attempt I ever saw that offered me a "map", that the hundreds of subatomic particles had a structure I could understand, and again, there's wide wikipedia articles on subatomic physics articles. So my interest in "explaining" the theory is to connect Lisi's use of weight diagrams to show known and speculated relations between the particle and charges of all these particles. These diagrams seem to do a great deal to help explain the relations between the particles to nonexperts, and are used in many papers, while wikipedia editors who added the physics articles haven't included them. As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question since Lisi still works on it, and his public presentations shows a progression from the standard model to various extensions which are speculative, ending with his E8 proposal. So it seems fair to me, that wikipedia, with its vast math and physics articles gain by Lisi's paper as an article, showing the progression of theories, and I think if there's people on wikipedia who are able to understand and summarize the model and reference their sources properly, it seems inspiring to those who are interested, and actually harmless to those who fear science is being destroyed by a speculative idea they don't like. So I'll keep learning, and if I can help, I will. It would be nice if the harshes critics could think of some constructive on the talk pages. Qwyrxian suggested rants be deleted, and I see his reasoning, but accept suppression can just makes ranters more self-righteous. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question". Possibly. Wikipedia isn't the place to close it. Take it elsewhere - our science articles are based on mainstream consensus. If you want to promote a new and radical theory, find a new place to do it. That isn't what Wikipedia is here for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

His work will exist whether or not we have a Wikipedia article on it. Indeed, we can even export this article somewhere else. But that mainstream theoretical physicists immediately reject it is all I need to know. Wikipedia's science articles need to be about science. Speculative theories that are completely disregarded by the mainstream don't belong, under the same sort of theory that leads us to the WP:OR policy. Prodego ^talk 06:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of our policy (I'm speaking against Prodego and AndytheGrump here) is that even fringe topics should be covered by Wikipedia, so long as there are reliable sources to cover it. And there is no doubt whatsoever that this paper and Lisi have been covered by both mainstream news sources (quite a bit) and scientific articles (a little bit). This is why we have articles on Water-fuelled cars, Hollow Earth, and Tired light. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of science only, it's a general encyclopedia, so even if Lisi's theory is pure bunkum (or just plain wrong), the cultural and historical aspects of it need to be adequately covered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My argument is that there is no historical or cultural significance. I can walk up to anyone on the street and I would venture not 1 in 100, maybe not even 1 in 1000 would have heard of this. It is also not significant in the scientific community, as evidenced by the mainstream scientific community ignoring it. So then who needs to be educated about this topic? Prodego ^talk 07:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That same man in the street will also not have heard of several dozen quite well-established and important scientific theories and likely doesn't know what continent Myanmar is on, so the "man in the street test" isn't terribly relevant. What is relevant are our standards on notability, and this clearly passes, given the coverage in mainstream reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if your average "man on the street" has heard of Immanuel Velikovsky but if you go to any university physics/astronomy department, most there have heard of him. "Woo" can be notable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Those have significance in the scientific community though. Prodego ^talk 07:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think of myself as one of the neutral ones. I know the theory very well, in almost all its intimate details, which is one of the reasons I was able to respond point by point to one of the editors pro-Lisi that is very stubborn when it comes to remove any part of the page and to add any criticism. At the same time I support the existence of the page and some degree of explanation of it and don't agree with all the recurring users and requests to delete the page or to erase each detail about Lisi's theory. Lisi isn't a person with his own theory of the world. His theory has flaws but it was coherent with the general approaches of particle physics and at least he holds a PhD in physics (just to say that it's better than the hollow earth theory). "As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question", this, unfortunately is a false statement. Lisi's theory is currently considered wrong because there are mathematical problems with it (as in how fermions actually are fermions in his theory). Of course, in the future Lisi might solve this, but he could be solving this just changing (at some degree) the theory. But the current version certainly is wrong. There is a published theorem that states it pretty clearly. In the year long discussion (at this point), I have written from some different IP's (they called me 24 or 98), although stating it was the same me, and just recently created this user because lately it was becoming difficult with the presence of many other IPs (so I first started using a name as signature, then I decided to actually create one because editor above Tom Ruen asked me for my talk page as a place where we could talk of some physics details in the attempt of including weight diagrams to explain other article physics articles and models, the official ones). I had to avoid editing other wikipages from the same IP given that this page brings people to harass you. Even Lisi in his offsite comments tried (ironically) to out me (who cares who I am anyways, haha) when he was the first one to be accused to be secretly editing himself the page. But Qwyrxian even if sometimes was at the point of being upset, I think is managing the situation quite well. It is rather hard to keep a neutral attitude when you deal with a page that is highly polarizing and at the same time you can't be weighing the two sides equally because the mainstream physics weighs more than the almost fringe theory side. ~GT~ (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Context note: This came up a week or so ago at WT:PHYS#An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. The discussion there may provide useful background as to how this fits in with the scientific community as a whole. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond my Ken. However, this isn't the place to have a debate about inclusion, but to discuss how to help Qwyrxian.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If Qwyrxian believes that users are acting disruptively and attempts to engage have failed, then it's time to work through the steps at WP:DR to build a case for that. If, on the other hand, everyone is acting in good faith but has widely divergent opinions on the issues being debated, it's time to go through the content-related steps at WP:DR. Both of these have already been pursued to some extent (pinging WT:PHYS for additional opinions on both aspects, and now pinging here for additional opinions/advice (mostly about behaviour)). If I understand correctly, the next steps are probably mediation (to defuse conduct issues) and either polls regarding specific changes or article content RFCs on broader issues (for content). It then gets kicked back up here if tendentious editing continues even with mediation and sufficient discussion to establish what content is and is not encyclopedic/appropriate. That said, it's been a while since I've been involved in anything like this (thankfully), so I may not be up to date on what the next steps are.

With regards to content-related discussion in this thread, a discussion of whether or not the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, or whether or not the article's description of its scientific merit matches reality, is relevant to some extent: who is being tendentious or editing non-neutrally depends on what the facts actually are. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Come on guys - this is what we have policies for.
• If it is notable, then it has passed the basic test for 'should it have an article.' It's been to AfD and been kept - the parties that think the keep decision was wrong have a further avenue at WP:DRV. We have plenty of articles that people don't like - that's not a good reason to delete them.
• If it is notable, purports to be science, but is rejected by the mainstream scientific community, then it can be dealt with under the guidelines for pseudoscience - which do not say that Wikipedia doesn't carry articles on pseudoscience topics.
• you can add all the content you like about what the theory says, but you do in fairness have to point out prominently (and with references) that mainstream science disagrees. And you have to bear in mind that it is not Wikipedia's role to debunk it, that is the role of secondary sources which can then be cited in the article.
• now does anyone need blocking for edit warring, disruption, personal attacks etc .....? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On disruption, Special:Contributions/71.106.167.55 has been the singular ranter, like [143]. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised (and disappointed) that we have experienced editors saying the article should be deleted. It's clearly meets notability guideline. Whether the theory is true or fringe is irrelevent and has absolutely nothing to do with notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with AQFK and with Elen's sensible scheme of action. Issue blocks to anyone being disruptive and edit the article according to our policies for fringe science (or failed theories). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I came to the talk page discussion late in the day [144] with a rather thorough analysis of the impact of Lisi's paper on the mainstream science community based on the science citation databases. I found that the impact of the paper had been very minor and suggested that the interesting features of the story were the sociological rather than scientific ones and the article should reflect this. I was immediately accused by Qwyrxian, falsely and on no basis whatsoever, of off-Wiki collaboration. He threatened to collapse the contributions of editors he disagreed with. Looking back over the debate I find his conduct to have been reprehensible. He acts as if he owns the debate. He has insulted, bullied and threatened to censor editors with whom he disagrees and then, when he still did not get his way, threw a tantrum by bringing the matter here. This behaviour is unacceptable. Qwyrxian self-confessedly has little technical knowledge of the subject, as is clear from the first paragraph of this thread and, more importantly, appears to have little grasp of the social dynamics of the scientific community or Wikipedia' policies on notability. This is a content dispute and should not have been brought to WP:AN/I. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

I brought the issue to ANI because 2 other editors told me they were going to bring my behavior here, so rather than wait in "fear" of that, I did it myself. I should not have accused you of off-wiki collaboration, and my apologies for that. The problem, as I said before, is that we know for a fact that there has been off-wiki promotion/denigration of these articles before, and we keep getting people who as Elen points out above, seem to forget that our notability policies don't in any way care that the theory has been rejected. My "threats to censor" were an attempt to do something to break the perpetual problem that occurs on that talk page of suggestions for deletion or stubbing that are not compliant with our policies. This approach is sometimes used on other talk pages where discussion is tendentious. If it was overbearing (the relevant diffs for my comments are [145] and [146]. However, I as far as I know, I haven't insulted, bullied, or threatened any editors--if I have, please provide diffs. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, I actually have a better grasp of our notability policies than you (and several other editors) do. Finally, while there is a content dispute, there's also a behavioral problem. If there is anyone with a load of time on their hands, I implore you--read through the last month or so of talk page contributions, and consider whether some of the editing is disruptive. Including mine--if I'm a problem there, I'll take whatever trouts, blocks, or topic bans are appropriate. I tried to walk away from this article once before (when it was mainly Scientryst and 76 that were going back and forth), but the terrible behavior there keeps drawing me back in, in some sort of vain attempt to remind people that we do actually have policies that apply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There may be a case for bringing the article to AfD for a second time as much has changed since the last AfD in 2007. The scientific community has now brought down its verdict on the paper, finding it to be of little importance through voting with its feet and not citing it in their literature. An AfD debate would provide a picture of current opinion easier to read than the to and fro rhetoric of the talk page. It would also bring the matter to the attention of the experienced participants on pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science. There is the problem of Lisi encouraging his fanboys to edit Wikipedia [147] so arguments will have to be scrutinised with care. As I said on the article talk page, I think that there is some sociological interest in the matter of how public relations promotion generated so much interest outside the scientific community in a relatively insignificant paper, so I might be persuaded to vote for a Merge or Redirect.

On a tangent: I am concerned by the premature closure of many AfD debates. For example the 2007 AfD of this article was closed after only six hours, giving some people no chance to respond. I think that debates should be open for at least 24 hours to cover the sleep/work cycles in different parts of the world. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Xxanthippe if you bring it to AfD, it will be Snow closed in a day or less because the article obviously meets WP:GNG. Again, I'm trying to say this as nicely and clearly as possible: Wikipedia does not consider the fact the fact that the theory is discredited to have any bearing whatsoever on whether the topic should have an article on it. Again, Water-fuelled cars is a perfect example--it's a completely obvious and ridiculous con, and will never be a valid scientific/engineering theory, but that does not mean that we should even consider it for deletion. You're attempting to apply your own standard of what belongs in Wikipedia, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there would be a snow keep as some contributors to this thread have gone further than me and called for a delete. Of course, there are always the Lisi acolytes to play their part. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Whether "snow" or not, it would undoubtedly be a "keep" as it's clearly notable. Arguing otherwise is really a waste of energy which could be put into balancing the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Xxanthippe: You're not listening. This theory's reception by the scientific community has absolutely nothing to do with notability on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent design, for example, is not accepted as legitimate by the scientific community, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia doesn't have an article about it. In fact, not only do we have an article on ID, it's passed both good article and featured article statuses. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that some people have not grasped the point that I made in the title "Does Wikipedia need this article and, if so, what form should it take?" (my italics) of the thread that I started on the article's talk page. The situation is that the consensus of the scientific community has found the paper to be a worthy try but a well-meaning failure and of no further interest within the scientific community. There are thousand of papers that come into this category and Wikipedia does not have articles about them. What is different here is that the paper has garnered interest outside the scientific community because of the public relation activities of its proponents (surfer-dude etc.). The only reason for interest in the matter is the promotional activities associated with Lisi and his supporters. These deserve to be developed further and the article on the paper subsumed into the BLP on Lisi. By implying that the paper still retains scientific credibility the article on it misleads Wikipedia's readers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, I hear you saying you want: (1) To make sure no unsuspecting readers of wikipedia will accidently come to the conclusion that Lisi's E8 theory has any credibility with the wider scientific community, and if there are sufficient documentation, you ought to be satisified? (2) To have minimimal details of the theory to be explained on wikipedia because "real scientist" think its bunk, not even wrong, etc. Well, I think (1) is satified by the existing content, and (2) is just your opinion, perhaps among many, but you justify it by claiming a hundreds of other neglected wrong theories that are unfairly ignored on Wikipedia. Well, maybe so, AND maybe notability is a game of hyped propaganda that honest scientists avoid in their humble incremental theories sitting in unread papers waiting to be discovered like sleeping beauty, if only the prince would stop looking at those hyped fake princesses on the movie posters. I wonder! Thinking of one of my favorite mathematicians, Kepler, he started his career at 25 with a beautiful bunch of bunk, Mysterium Cosmographicum, a crazy idea to explain why the planets have the spacing they do, from the circum/inscribed spheres of the five platonic solids and for a moment it fit all the facts as known then, with a bit of fudging, but no apparent reality to his theory, which could only fit a six planet solar system. But it was a wild intuitive jump forward, and when improved data from Tycho denied his theory, he moved on, and we have a beautful wrong model of the solar system. So I imagine Lisi's model is something similar. He took a leap of faith, and filled in the details as if it might be true, and it stands as a "real model" that may or may not represent reality, but is a model none the less, and he used hype and the public imagination to promote his idea, hoping others would be inspired, and surely still hopes. So I'm sure "honest" scientists who refuse to participate in hype, will sadly never get their papers in wikipedia, BUT perhaps there really are hundreds of wrong models out there that DESERVE a little hype, and could be notable on wikipedia for what they represent, and Wikipedia would be better for that. Who knows? I don't think science is harmed by showing its mistakes and open questions where attempts failed. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you diminish Lisi's paper too much. It is better than not even wrong, it has actually been proved to be wrong. Although a failure, it is an honorable failure. It at least provides the benefit that nobody is likely to make the same mistakes again. This is the standard operating procedure of routine normal science and nothing remarkable. I hope that Lisi will carry on his work and go on to do great things. But Wikipedia will write about those great things after they are achieved, not before. We do seem to agree that any Wikipedia material about this particular incident should be based on the hype, not the substance, because there isn't much of the latter. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC).

I tried to state your case to find common ground but I certainly don't think I agree the wikipedia article should only express the fact that it was a hyped theory, rather than basic details of the model itself which you say has been proven wrong. But there's a flaw in your argument that Wikipedia can't deal with except to state the facts - the counter-proof might not be true or complete, while Lisi yet offers a follow up paper with reasoning why the proof might not apply as claimed. So that's why supportive editors like User:Scientryst get a little testy about the wording of "wrong" versus "incomplete" versus a seemingly implied "intractable deadend", unworthy to look at. So I think there's a middle ground here, for a neutral voice that can keep the tension of the yet unknown. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I remind contributors that secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Primary sources cannot do this. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC).

And by quick count, that article has somewhere around 20 independent secondary sources. Now, I'm pretty sure some of those don't speak directly to notability (they may mention the work only in passing), but I know that at least 5 or 6 of them discuss the work in depth. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can see the independent sources all rubbish the paper, like this[148], or are you referring to the articles in the Daily Telegraph? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC).

I'm referring to the reliable scientific publications that say that Lisi is wrong, and I'm referring to the reliable mainstream publications that think that Lisi's theory was worth reporting on because Lisi was "cool" (or whatever). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So here we have a physics paper that has been ignored by the scientific community for five years, all the independent sources with any technical knowledge of the issue rubbish the paper, two popular newspapers say its author is "cool" and you want Wikipedia to have an article on it! It seems to me that if there is anything of interest here at all it is the author, and the article on the paper should be merged into that. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC).

XXanthippe, you seem not to understand completely something simple. Is Lisi notable for wikipedia's policy? Yes. Is Lisi notable, originally at least, because he posted his ToE paper on the arXiv? Yes. Then a reader that comes across this fact might want to know what the paper was saying, and why the scientific community considers it wrong. While the stories about Lisi's life belong to his personal page, the theory and why it is considered wrong belong to a page for the theory. Not having a place to briefly explain the paper wouldn't be a good wikipedia article. And having a paper explained in a page with a biography of a living person would also not be appropriate in a wikipedia page. There isn't much else to say. Now we can talk for hours about how much or how little we should explain, but it's a waste of time to continue to ask to merge the pages, since I think that there is no chance of that to happen. Ever. ~GT~ (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Xxanthippe's statements are completely counterfactual. There are at least three science magazines I know of that have covered Lisi's theory in depth: Scientific American, Physics World, New Scientist. The Physics World piece is especially good and objective, and it's a shame it seems to have gone missing from the article on the theory in recent edits. Several sources do describe the criticism of the theory by Distler and Skip Garibaldi (who now has his own page as a result, with a link to his rock climbing video), as well as Lisi's response to that criticism.-Scientryst (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a piece of nonsense that does the rounds every now and then. With the New Zealand surfer the error came from a misunderstanding about real forms of the exceptional Lie groups. Science reporting in the British media is notoriously unreliable, unless somebody like Simon Singh is involved. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you are making in your comment. Could you clarify? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC).

Out of interest, what New Zealand surfer? Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Jawadreventon

Jawadreventon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a troll, or severely lacking in competence. Examples of problems include:

• [149] Changing the block template on an IP that hasn't even edited since 2009
• [150] Posting a frivolous accusation of sockpuppetry against me, without even filing a case
• [151] Persistently censoring proper names often with misleading edit summaries, despite being warned on their talk page multiple times about it
• [152] Persistently resizing images to ridiculous degrees
• [153] Adding a random fair-use image to the talk page of an IP that hasn't edited for 2 months

I could keep going or include more diffs and examples of weird behaviour, but those alone illustrate my point well enough I hope. Anyone want to apply a large dose of clue please? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed his contribution history and indefinitely blocked him for disruptive editing. If he can convince an Administrator he is going to reform, he can of course be unblocked. His lack of response to messages on his talk page (plus his edits to other editors' talk pages) suggests this may not be likely. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

User:SergeWoodzing and implied legal threats

Since he won't take my word for it, can someone please educate Serge Woodzing concerning WP:NLT? This comment seems to about as close to a legal threat without actually saying "I will sue you" (referring to "slander" and a "public forum" and such).--Atlan (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No legal threat intended, just a request to strike what I find very embarrassing.

Vindictive and frivolous Frivolous posting here. Just an excuse to post on my talk page again, though h/s has been asked 3 times not to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SergeWoodzing on this. Rklawton (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What vindication do I get from this? I do not appreciate my comments being called slanderous and said he should avoid such terms. Noticing the other comment, I decided to post here, but if it's alright to say so then I apparently misinterpret WP:NLT.--Atlan (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should you be vindicated for being uncivil and for wasting our time on ANI with a frivolous complaint? Rklawton (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand the question. I asked because the post was called vindictive, not because I expect any kind of vindication. Please point out in what way was I uncivil, by the way.--Atlan (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. In that case, the answer to your question is obvious. Rklawton (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just asking because I thought you might be mistaking me for User:Alarbus, who the above comment in my first post was directed at.--Atlan (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Vindictive" stricken. Case of mistaken identity due to similar names. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. For what it's worth, I agree with your response to Alarbus (except for the use of legal language of course). You don't have to take that lying down. But it seemed to me pointing out WP:NLT to you myself had the reverse effect.--Atlan (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This comment is a clear breach of WP:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats. Serge needs to acknowledge that he now understands it is unwise to make "comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion". I am sure that if he clarifies that it was not his intention to issue a legal threat, there is no need for action here, although he has now used the word "slander" three times today to two different editors.[154] It should not be beyond his capability to politely request another editor to retract a comment without applying quasi-judicial pressure in an attempt to gain leverage, and I expect he will take notice of that in future. --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Seven Words You Can Never Say on Wikipedia: Slander, Libel, Lawyer, Lawsuit, Sue, Court, Defamation. Try to avoid any language like that in a dispute with someone. -- Atama頭 17:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not true in general. It's only true when an editor invokes those terms in an effort to intimidate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You forgot "TRENTON" and "NEW JERSEY".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"nobody comes back from Trenton knowing anything more than when he went"—Franklin Knight Lane.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "Hoboken" might qualify too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Checked the diff & I see no direct or indirect legal threat made. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you're reading the wrong diff: "Just to inform you cordially, that is directly slanderous as given in any public forum, even when used against somebody's alias." That's more than sufficient to give another editor the understanding that a legal threat is implied. There is no other reason for mentioning slander. --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. "Slander" is a legal term. Especially in the diff I provided, it can be seen as a legal threat. I am satisfied with Serge's answer that he didn't mean it that way, but I would caution against further use of the term. That's all I asked for.--Atlan (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

An introduction like "Just to inform you cordially" only adds threatening vague legal tone. Mr. Woodzing's club "Honor Watch" once sent me a letter by mail to my home address with legal advice. That was over a year ago, I am just adding this as background information. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I read this before anyone replied to this thread and same to a similar conclusion. Even if it was not intended as a legal threat, it comes across as a possible one. I suggest SergeWoodzing clarify that it is not a legal threat and consider the guidance provided here on how to avoid a repeat. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Dr Kuiper's input is misleading, just intended to smudge me in this discusssion, and includes untrue material (so what else is new?). There is no connection whatsoever between me and the "Honor Watch" organization.

Thank you to the rest of you for all your other helpful comments! I have already stated above that no legal threat was intended (some of you seem to have missed that). I have taken the ultimate advice given here to heart and feel very close to being blocked, so if that was the objective, it worked. Sometimes we all need reminders as to how Wikipedia works and doesn't work. Next time someone subjects me or anyone else I see to mud-slinging such as what Serge Woodzing intended was to call us "Degos", I will be more careful in responding. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The objective was to get you to stop using words such as slander so casually, not to get you blocked.--Atlan (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think I was using it "casually" at the time, but I know now that I shouldn't use it under any circumstances, no matter how gross any kind of denigrating accusations might be against me or other users. Thank you for your opinion about the objective here! It would be very nice if one of the administrators would agree with you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

RM closed by involved party

Could someone take a look at this? When 20 editors vote in an RM, I would expect it get an administrative closure. This was closed by an editor who openly voted in the discussion he closed. Kauffner (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It would have been better of course, if an uninvolved party had closed the discussion, although that's sometimes hard to find in these move discussions. Do you think it's likely this would change the outcome though? Otherwise we might as well leave it.--Atlan (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth I would have closed it the same way and I have no horse in the race so its probably not worth making a hassle over. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have undone the closure. It was an inappropriate closure, and I can see the argument made that it should go the other way, not withstanding the vote count. Let's wait for an uninvolved editor to close this. NW (Talk) 16:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This was my fault. I had posted User talk:Eusebeus#Your call for resolution, including by my oversight the incorrect statement You have merely posted the call, without having prejudiced yourself in argument. I apologize to Eusebeus and all others involved for my error. However I do believe that my post at his userpage otherwise accurately describes the situation. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look at this please consider that the discussion was only necessary because a previous Requested move was closed as a "consensus" with 2:1 participants. We are not talking about a move, but about restoring what should not have been moved in the first place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please close this issue one way or another? NW undid the closure and protected the page but that means the issue is still open and needs resolution. The debate is two weeks old now and there are several screenfuls of votes and comments associated with the proposal. THanks.DavidRF (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may, this issue appears at first glance to revolve around policy concerning WP:UCN, and might seem relatively straightforward in that respect. However reading through the lengthy discussion shows, first, the important distinction made between "common names" as opposed to "nicknames", and the point made that "Moonlight Sonata" is a nickname rather than a common name as understood by the WP:UCN guideline and examples.

Second, it should be noted that an entirely different strategy having nothing to do with common names has been used twice, but unsuccessfully both times, to move the Beethoven Piano Sonatas to different article titles, either wholesale all at once, or failing that, one at a time, apparently based on sonata titles as printed on one specific CD set:

• Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)#Requested move; and following immediately below,
• Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)#Requested move: Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) → Piano Sonata No. 1 in F minor, Op. 2, posted by the same movant who has brought this request to your attention now.

As Gerda Arendt has pointed out, this has been a long ongoing problem, with Sonata No. 14 being so far the only "victory" in getting a move approved, and that simply by a fluke due to no one having been aware of the proposal before it was accepted. To build on this single success, it was then followed up by another failed effort, at Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven)#Requested move. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As I write this, an uninvolved admin closed the discussion, the same way as the "involved" one had done. This could be closed as well, if you ask me. We learned. I would prefer to create content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion was closed in favor of Support by Mkativerata. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA blackout

As pointed out by Guy Macon over at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Blackout, we've managed to...erm, fumble one of our most serious questions in this poll. The full blackout option was not available when the poll began, and it's undoubtedly developing into a major issue at this point. We need to quickly contact all those participating in the section en masse with a request for clarification of their position while there's still time for them to respond.   — C M B J   13:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Try asking the operator of Thehelpfulbot. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes the bot can send out messages to any user talk page - all I need is a list of users and the message to give them. Thanks, The Helpful One 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so from what you said in your first post, I used AWB to get all the blue links on the page, I then filtered out to just include User: and User talk: name space, I converted all the User: space links into User talk: links and removed all duplicates. This gives a list of 312 user talk pages to post a message to. Is this the full list of users that you'd like to leave a message for? Best, The Helpful One 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Stephan Schulz Kansan Bulwersator Orashmatash Djsasso Jehochman Andrew Hampe Tony Fox Rschen7754 Prolog Mathias Schindler Teukros Ragesoss Jujutacular Protonk The most interesting man in the world Andreas Werle SarahStierch Maplebed Michaeldsuarez Ocaasi LoriLee Thparkth Vituzzu Selery Jean Of mArc Nightflyer JohnCD Jesant13 Kcook969 richard4339 Shadowjams Outa Zenimpulse Jon889 Julle Anarchistjim Jfeise FyreFiend Ed Brey Jeepday Ziko Cathartica Mailer diablo Walkersam Jed 20012 Sarah Pilif12p Robin klein Gmaxwell Aswn Zacmea TreyGeek Kangaroopower Feedintm Dkonstantinos Mr.98 The Blade of the Northern Lights Revelian KevinCuddeback Crazytales Seraphimblade Marlith P4lm0r3 Jessemv Twistie.man Zaixionito Yuuko41 Fluttershy activeradio UpstateNYer Ajraddatz Artoonie Drn8 Sonia CharlieEchoTango Cybercobra Seewolf Elektrik Shoos Vorziblix The Land Kainosnous killemall22 Ed! Bioran23 Capitalismojo Stevietheman

Here's a manually harvested list that includes affected participants and excludes those who expressed clear support for a soft blackout. As for message content, a simple one- or two-liner summarizing the situation will suffice.   — C M B J   15:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll convert those into user talk pages. As with regards to the message, could you provide me with exactly what you would like it to say - although I've been following SOPA, I've not been keeping an eye on it in as much detail as perhaps you have. I imagine the heading would be something like "Your input needed on SOPA", but what exactly would you like them to do? Thanks, The Helpful One 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's probably better that someone uninvolved compose the message, but the general idea of the solicitation here is to seek clarification from those who supported the measure at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Blackout before Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Full blackout came to be an option. Some of the folks in the above list expressed views that should rightfully be in the latter tally, and many others simply signed (and continue to sign) without distinguishing a preference between the two.

As a side note, we should probably do something at the bottom of that first section to prevent further use; perhaps some commented out cautions and a new "soft blackout" subsection below it. We've already got two more to add to the list: Fylbecatulous and 71.175.53.239.   — C M B J   15:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Heading: Your input is needed on SOPA Hi Administrators' noticeboard, You are receiving this message because you expressed an opinion at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Blackout before Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Full blackout was an option. Some users have just signed at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Blackout to express their support/opposition of some form of blackout, however it is unclear as to whether you support or oppose a full blackout. Please can you make your opinion clear at Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action#Full blackout as soon as possible. Thank you. Message delivered by Thehelpfulbot as per request on ANI.

That's the message I propose ^ any suggestions for improvement? The Helpful One 15:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Added as soon as possible because of time nature of message. The Helpful One 16:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Heading: Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative Hi Administrators' noticeboard, You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly. Thank you. Message delivered by Thehelpfulbot as per request on ANI.

There's my take on it.   — C M B J   16:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yours is better, I was trying to think of a way to write about the soft blackout but I couldn't find the section on the page, I'll start sending the messages now. Best, The Helpful One 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers.   — C M B J   16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. The Helpful One 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please add me to the list if possible. ty — Ched :  ?  16:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done The Helpful One 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this clarification enough, or am I expected to move my !vote to #Soft_blackout portion of the page? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

since tons of germans, only occasionally contributing to enw.p, re among the participants, i took care of issuing a note on the correction-note on en.wp-user discussion pages of early participants from de.wp there as well. thx for initiating the correction, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Potentially disruptive editor

User:Derpherpes uses what I consider standard Holocaust denier tactics at talk: Holocaust. The account was created yesterday, and the user seem to have no other interests - at least he has no constructive edit so far. I tend to simply block him, but would like to see some additional opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring, harrassment, false accusations of vandalism over a WP:LAME content dispute

• In 2010, a posthumous album of Michael Jackson material was released called Michael.
• There is a content dispute over whether this album should count as a studio album or a compilation album. This dispute has lasted for a year now. It is very WP:LAME.
• Both sides have edit-warred.
• There are frequent accusations of vandalism against those favoring one side of the content dispute, and editors repeatedly leave harassing notices on their user talk pages threatening they're going to be blocked. (Of course, edit-warring is blockable offense, but it takes two to edit-war.)
• I'm not so much concerned with content dispute itself, it's WP:LAME. But what does concern me is the edit-warring, harrassment, and false accusations of vandalism.

This has been going on and off for a year now. Today, there was yet another flare up. I'm not really too sure what to do about it. Maybe lock the article and give warnings? Please see the following discussions for the latest flare-ups.[155][156] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not ban all the offending edit-waring users from the article (or just from making any changes to the contentious bit). They can discuss it, or go to dispute resolution. Amy more changes after that, block them. The problem with protection, is they'll just return when it expires.--Scott Mac 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the editor who are edit-warring do make legitimate and valid contributions to other parts of the article, so I wouldn't like to see them article-banned, but a ban on the contentious issue would be fine. It's literally over whether the album is a studio or compilation album.

Also, I just discovered that one of the editors in the recent flare-up, Barts1a has an editing restriction that prohibits them from editing noticeboards. I didn't know about this and I've posted something on Barts1a's mentor's talk page.[157] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How do the sources categorize this album? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It may have been going on for a while, but there is very clear consensus that this should be described as a compilation album, not a studio album. See here. WilliamH (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@Bugs: I don't want to confuse content issues with conduct issues, but to answer your question, there are no secondary sources that we can find which explicitly categorize it as studio or compilation album. Most of the arguments on the talk page basically try to devine what an article means if it uses the word "studio" or "complation"/"compiled" somewhere in its text, or whether Jackson intended these songs to be released as an album. There is a primary source which does explicitly categorize it as a studio, but there are objections because it is a primary source.

In any case, I see that WilliamH has blocked one of the edit-warriors. Of course, it takes two to edit war, so let's see what he does with the other editor warriors and the more serious issues of harrassment and false accusations of vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In theory, if a fact can't be sourced then it shouldn't be included. It's not up to wikipedia users to determine what a fact should be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Ahmedunbreakabletato for 24 hours. Given that his edits have completely ignored this consensus for around a year and even an SPI case was filed, I am frankly amazed that that was his first block. As for other editors, their conduct certainly leaves a bit to be desired; on the other hand, if Barts1a is not allowed to edit noticeboards, it is not in the slightest bit surprising that this situation has unfolded. His etiquette leaves a lot to be desired, but he is right to undo edits that disregard consensus. Given that this has gone on for long, it's perhaps not surprising that people are construing "studio" edits as vandalism. They're not constructive, but they're meant in good faith and describing them as vandalism is not helpful. WilliamH (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@WilliamH: I've been watching this content dispute for a year now. You might not know this, but these asymmetrical blocks have been tried before but the basic problem remains unresolved. In fact, these asymmetrical blocks just make the problem worse, because one side of the dispute knows that they can edit-war to their heart's content with impunity. They frequently accuse and harass their opponents, again, with impunity. I came to this board because I'd like something done about this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• And exactly the right thing has been done: the enforcement of consensus. This would not have been protracted into a year-long edit war if the consensus had been originally upheld. WilliamH (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed with this warning.[158] I was looking for admins to help resolve the content dispute, not help one side win it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A content dispute does not require admin intervention, unless edits are constantly being made which do not reflect current consensus. One editor has been blocked as a result of not respecting it, and editorial/non-admin measures have been taken to remind editors that their edits must reflect established consensus and that they should support their changes by finding a level of mutual agreement among other editors. I'm very disappointed that your original message completely omitted the current consensus. WilliamH (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@WilliamH: Consensus is a discussion, not a vote. I didn't mention the vote for a couple reasons. First, it was flawed. Among other things, the vote was closed[159] by someone involved in the discussion[160]. Second, and much more importantly, I don't care about the content dispute. I already said that I think it's WP:LAME. I think I was very clear on that. What does concern me are the conduct issues: edit-warring, harassment and false accusations of vandalism. Are you going to do anything about that or just turn a blind eye? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I've no idea why it's labelled as one, but it's clearly not a vote and to dismiss it out of semantics like that is ridiculous. I have at no point suggested that Barts1a's behaviour is acceptable, and warned him that it isn't. I don't dispute that Moxy shouldn't have closed the discussion, although it apparently wouldn't have affected the outcome. The fact remains that there is a clear measure of agreement among editors on the compilation/studio issue. If you do not accept this because of its validity, or that it does not reflect consensus since that discussion, either stop ignoring it, or start a new one. WilliamH (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@WilliamH: I already told you - several times, in fact - that I don't care about the content dispute. My concern was with the methods being used to win the dsipute: edit-warring, false claims of vandalism and harassment. I see that you have cautioned one of the editors about false accusations vandalism at their talk page.[161] What about the other editors? What about the harassment? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As you have observed this for longer than I have, feel free to bring forward other editor's behaviour - I'm willing to comment on it/warn/block as appropriate. And it's not indifference for the content that's the issue, it's the lack of concern for/implementation of the given consensus around it. Not enforcing it is to not tell two opposing armies that their generals have signed an armistice. WilliamH (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as the content dispute aspect of this is concerned, the volunteers at WP:DRN do a good job at helping editors work through disagreements in a structured fashion;I suggest raising the issue there. Nobody Ent 12:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Aren't there better things that people can be doing with their time? Throw this dispute on WP:LAME, WP:TROUT all individuals involved, and have a couple admins watch the page. False accusations of vandalism (ZOMG YOU CHANGED THE PAGE WITHOUT CONSENSUS) need to be met with blocks. As for whether it's a "compilation" or a "studio" album does it actually matter? It's a bunch of songs. How about we call it a "Michael Jackson Album" and be done with it. N419BH 16:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As is already suggested, I'll be keeping an eye on the page. WilliamH (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple unfounded accusations of sock-puppetry against a new editor

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

Ched is right, there's nothing more for admins to do at this point. 28bytes (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm a new editor on Wikipedia. I created my account just after Christmas and began editing properly on the 4th of January after spending some time familiarising myself with some of the issues in the Israel/Palestine topic area, the subject on which I intend to primarily work. So far, almost all my content edits have been on one page of relatively minor interest [162] where I have successfully collaborated with two other editors to substantially improve the article [163]. Whilst working on that page I was present when two editors had, what I thought was, a minor dispute about phrasing regarding locations in the city of Jerusalem [164]. In the spirit of compromise I suggested a third alternative that I thought would be uncontroversial [165] but this led to me being made aware that I had stumbled into a contentious issue of longstanding [166]. I sought advice from another editor on how to deal with this and decided the best way forward was to seek a broad consensus that could be applied to the IP area as a whole rather than localising the discussion to the specific article. On these grounds I opened up an attempt to reach consensus at the IP collaboration noticeboard [167], sending invites to as many regular IP editors as I could remember the names of, plus all editors who had contributed to other discussions currently listed on the board.

Initially, the discussion here appeared to be of considerable value and held out some promise of achieving a lasting and stable consensus. However, after a few days a comment was made that drew my attention to allegations being made about me behind the scenes [168]. After familiarising myself with the wikipedia search engine I was able to find this discussion [169] in which I found a group of editors had effectively tried me in my absence and found me guilty of being a sock-puppet. Their explicit grounds for this conclusion amount to nothing more than a) that I know too much about Wikipedia to possibly be a newb, and b) that my userpage entry is suspicious [for both points see either side of this diff [170]. In addition, once this discussion had started, two fo the editors began a little inquisition over at my talkpage [171] and the 'transparent acting' in my responses, combined, apparently, with my excessive willingness to assume good faith, was analysed as providing additional evidence. All four editors came to conclusive determinations of my guilt on these exceptionally limited grounds. One of the editors disparaged my attempts to reach consensus on the Jerusalem issue as apparently being part of my cover (appropriate behaviour thus becomes evidence for nefarious doings).

I should note that, having perused some of the WP policy guidelines in the last few days I find that this behaviour apparently contravenes a whole host of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

'New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. ... Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". ... Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newbies_aren%27t_always_clueless

'Just because someone shows that they know what they are doing from there first edit, does not mean they are a sockpuppet, and we should not go around looking for a checkuser so this person can be indefinitely blocked. If they have done nothing wrong what-so-ever except knowing what they are doing, then leave them alone. They will probably turn out to be a net positive to the encyclopedia anyway, no harm done.'

In addition to operating in a way that is diametrically opposed to these guidelines, I would also note that WP:NPA describes (one version of) personal attacks as 'Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence'. An obvious factional battleground mentality has also been adopted here, with me being assigned to a 'side' [172] in what these editors conceive of as a largescale fight across the whole IP area (an understanding which, regretably, appears to be quite broadly accepted), despite my very limited number of edits apparently because I fell into an issue that they consider 'hot'. Finally, and most importantly, there is a complete and obvious failure to assume good faith here.

If this discussion about me had been a hermetically sealed affair then my only objection to the conclusions would be based on principle. However, it is clear that the approach these editors have taken has practical effects that are detrimental to the collaborative project of building an encyclopedia. I'll leave aside the enormous damage such an approach is likely to have on the retention of new editors in this area and focus on immediate practical issue. The conclusions arrived at by these editors rapidly had an effect on others, with an admin with whom I have had no contact at all asking for background checks to be run on me by another admin as 'an obvious sock' [173] and my status as a sock-puppet being alluded to, and made the subject of humour and debious associations on another user's talk page [174]. Most significant, though, is the fact that the conclusions reached about me have tainted my attempt to reach a consensus in collaboration with other IP editors with there now being an apparent expectation for me to edit in a certain way to prove my good faith to those 'calling for my head' [175]. In addition to the taint that now attaches itself to my editing, I'm unclear on how it will be possible for me to get involved in editing any page with which these editors are involved as it is clear that they will not assume good faith when dealing with me. And given that these editors are amongst the most active in the IP area it will not be possible to avoid them without withdrawing completely from the topic.

I have posted a reply to the claims being made about me [176], perhaps a little long and with some unnecessary minor snarkiness, and have asked the four editors to take three steps in order to repair the situation: 1) Stop describing me definitively as a sock-puppet in the absence of evidence; 2) If they want to gather evidence on the question, then they should submit it through the appropriate channels and allow a decision to be made by the admins, rather than taking it upon themselves to make this judgement; 3) That they affirm that they will approach my editing with an assumption of good faith. Since only one editor has seen fit to respond to my comments (and his reply includes a pretty explicit statement that he cannot assume good faith when dealing with me [177] and I have been studiously ignored by the other three (who have continued editing in the meantime), I have decided to bring the issue here for discussion and comment.

What I would like: 1) For uninvolved editors to counsel Brewcrewer, Jiujitsuguy, MichaelNetzer, and Biosketch on the appropriate ways to interact with new editors and to urge them to change those attitudes that are destructive of any chance of collaboration and achieving consensus in a very difficult topic area. 2) Advice for me on how to deal with editors who are flat-out unwilling to assume good faith on my behalf. 3) General comments and advice on how to move forward. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

On 3): see WP:TLDR and WP:BOOMERANG. Don't post a thread this long, seeking to "counsel" four different editors, here! Doc talk 12:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback re: format. It would be helpful if you could let me know which parts I should have left out so I can edit the post to make it more suitable. I thought it best to err on the side of comprehensiveness but if that is wrong then my apologies. Regarding your last sentence, you've lost me a bit. Are you saying that this issue doesn't belong here? Or is it just the format that is inappropriate for the venue? Or should I make a separate post for each of the four editors? Or should I not be asking for counselling (not sure why you feel that word needs scare-quotes) at all? Or some combination of the above? Basically, how should the issue I have raised be addressed and where?BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's highly unusual that a brand-new editor would launch a heavily-researched AN/I report against 4 separate users. Like... it never happens. Call me crazy. Doc talk 12:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're crazy; please assume AGF. Nobody Ent 12:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Doc is hardly crazy, and AGF doesn't mean that we check our brains and instincts at the door, especially considering the topic area, which is subject to ArbCom restrictions that have resulted in blocked and banned users. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A policy of assuming good faith becomes essentially meaningless if it is made subject to instincts and intuitions formed in the absence of any real evidence. 'Assume good faith unless your instincts tell you not to' is a recipe for any user to assume bad faith whenever they want, simply by reference to 'having a bad feeling' about someone's intentions. Whilst assuming good faith is obviously silly in the face of actual evidence, surely putting the assumption aside must be an evidentially grounded step?BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Think of it in terms of the "presumption of innocence." People accused of crimes come before the jury with the presumption that they are innocent of the crime, and evidence has to be provided to convince the jury if they are to be found guilty. But once there is some evidence -- even the evidence of our instincts (this not being a court of law) -- it is reasonable for there to be suspicions. As Carl Sagan once said, having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that our brains fall out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure instinct can be construed as evidence under any possible meaning of the term but I do take your point. The problem is not with suspicion, which I have said I accept, but with the rapid slide from 'suspicion' to definitive statements of fact on the flimsiest of grounds. One can be suspicious and still assume good faith. One cannot both conclude that someone is acting in bad faith and still assume good faith. That is precisely where the problem lies. Instinct is a prompt to further thought; it cannot be allowed in any context of rational discussion to be a replacement for further thought or the engine driving a confirmation bias. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

BHB, best response to backchannel accusations is too simply ignore them.

Effective communication on Wikipedia requires more conciseness.

At this point, Brewcrewer et. al. should either file an WP:SPI or cease the sockpuppet allegations until they are ready to do so (per Sean.hoyland's excellent advice [178]. Nobody Ent 12:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@BMK - Might I direct your attention to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newbies_aren%27t_always_clueless. I'm a research academic working in an area that requires precise research and referencing (as I can demonstrate by emailing you from my university account and also sending you a link to my institutional webpage - just indicate where I can send the mail if you have a publicly listed account). I'm getting more and more bemused that so many people should think that doing some light research and finding out what procedures I should follow is evidence against me! Why have these guidelines if you are going to throw people under the bus when they actually follow them!BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

May I point out that "Newbies aren't always clueless" is simply an essay, which means that it's just someone's opinion, and that it carries little to no weight at all. (It's not even a good essay, and has been substantially edited by only one person, which gives it even less weight. You'd be well-advised to quit citing it as if it meant something.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If the reaction you're receiving surprises you your research was incomplete, or you made a false assumption that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are coherent. Nobody Ent 13:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC) -

Heh, yup, that much is clear :-). I'm still stumped by this catch 22 though. Had my research been more complete (to be honest, I think I covered the basics adequately (= too well)) and I had expected this response the appropriate thing to do would have been ... to fake incompetence? BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just one response, and it means nothing. There are plenty of others out there who can respond, and hopefully they will. I'm not saying I'm 100% right, as I have no way of knowing that. Anyone else? Doc talk 13:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of clarity - 'this response' referred to the general response to me (you are now the sixth editor to express the same view, and the second admin) rather than your response in particular. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

First, as already noted, always be concise. Second, always make sure you have tried to resolve the issue directly with the editor(s) in question. Third, the first line of your report should point out the specific user(s) being reported (of course, you MUST advise them that they have been reported). Fourth, being accused of being a sock, without someone having the balls to actually file the SPI report is uncivil, and incivility is usually dealt with at WP:WQA in its early stages. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - your first point has been taken on board and I'll try to curb the habit of a lifetime in that area and I'll bear the formatting issue re: relevant users in mind in the future (the editors in question have all been informed of my post here on their talkpages). On your second point, I have tried to work this out with the editors in question over the last two days. Sadly, only one of them has been willing to respond to me at all and then only to emphasise that he cannot speak frankly to me without breaching Wikipedia's guidelines on assuming good faith. Thanks for the steer re: the appropriate forum; I'll take that into account if any similar problems arise again. I'd just like to add a short comment with regard to language: I didn't mean to file this in such a way as to be construed as 'reporting' the relevant editors but, rather, the situation, which I think is a very difficult one for a new editor to be put in. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at it. The IP area, despite our best efforts, is no holds barred. Consider editing in the area of medieval literature; it is far more peaceful.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, and may well go over to ancient philosophy at some point as the articles there need a bit of work (this is my real area of expertise), I'm not convinced that a counsel of despair is appropriate here. As long as new editors are driven away from the IP area by the 'regulars' things aren't going to improve there. My hope had been to be a fresh voice that might have been able to push for consensus without being tarred with the brush of years of previous edits. I think it's a genuine shame that four days was all it took to make such intentions redundant, as its clear that a significant faction has already decided I cannot be even handed. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

BHB did notify the editors in question. Nobody Ent 13:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I was just trying to provide a concise guide to filing, and where to file.

Moving on, BHB should know that there are subject areas of Wikipedia (indeed, even around the office watercooler) where nastiness, sniping, and "getting-your-backs-up" abound. I highly recommend that until any user understands the ebb and flow, and is able to handle the contentious air in those areas, that they monitor, engage in discussion, and only make minor noncontroversial edits. You should also know that if any of your edits/suggestions appear to mirror/mimic past ones, then someone's going to suggest you're a WP:SOCK ... there is a very defensive posture there, and a lot of people with long memories. It's all about building trust. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur, and additionally recommend being the other duck. Nobody Ent 14:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow that advice in practice, although I must say in terms of principle that it sounds a little as if contentious editors in the IP area have been able to defy wikipedia's ideals and conventions to such an extent, and for so long, that they have been allowed to secede from the project as 'owners' of that topic area. If new users are being urged by admins to conform to the non-policy based expectations of the topic owners rather than being able to expect the regulars to conform to wikipedia's own standards then something has gone pretty badly wrong. That aside, if reality demands that I work with the situation as it currently is, then so be it. But in practical terms I'm still unclear on how I can build trust when my attempts to do so up until now have themselves been treated as evidence that I'm up to no good and just trying to hide the fact. I have made no contentious edits, have successfully worked with two other editors and, so far, have only worked on one article of very minor import. Being the other duck is fine from a personal perspective and is a good suggestion for conserving energy and promoting efficiency but I'll have to see whether it works in action when assumptions of my bad faith don't just annoy me but undermine attempts to reach consensus, as they have done recently. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my advice is 100% in line with standard policy, with some common sense tossed in for good measure :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A fair amount of common sense. Frankly, I'm astounded when I read BHB's posts, and I, like Doc and BMK, refuse to automatically AGF when I see this stuff. Newbies who dive into contentious areas, stir things up, complain to ANI in incredibly detailed dignified tones - well, I could go on - trigger ABF for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Detail and dignity induce bad faith in you?! How do you suggest that a bright person who spends his working life writing in a detailed (and normally dignified :-)) manner adapt for wikipedia? I note that no one has taken up my offer to actually be informed of my real identity, which would at least put my basic understanding into context. Nobody has brought up any problems with my editing. Nobody has offered any evidence at all other than the fact that I have a vague idea about what I'm doing (which is not acceptable grounds for accusations of sock-puppetry according to policy). Nobody has suggested I am a puppet of anyone in particular, only that 'he just must be!' the puppet of someone. Please show me the guidelines that allow you to assume bad faith on these grounds.BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And just to add two extra points. Firstly, if you are going to claim that I have 'stirred things up' I assume you can provide a link to support that claim. Secondly, as far as diving in to contentious areas, what happened to the recommendation to 'be bold' that I seem to remember was displayed fairly prominently somewhere when I set up my account? Is it 'be bold except where people own a topic area and might take offense', plus 'assume good faith except when you don't feel like it'? I confess to being genuinely astounded that what I thought were basic principles of wikipedia apparently carry no weight at all with a considerable number of admins and experienced editors. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, using capital letters is much better. :-) BHB, I suggest that bright newbies (and not-so-bright newbies) poke their toes into the Wikipedia rather than diving in. BTW, I'm not accusing you of anything, just commenting that my immediate reaction to your edits is one of skepticism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to stand on my dignity here :-) and note that I've been using caps instead of bold since I started editing as I haven't worked out how to bold and italicise yet. I've mentioned this previously before using them but decided not to do so this time in search of the recommended conciseness. See where a lack of detail and comprehensiveness gets me! BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Guess I'm not being clear because you apparently didn't get my point, which wasn't even an important one. I was attempting to be humorous by indicating that your use of caps supported your newbie status, as opposed to some of the other things I said, which I felt did not support your newbie status - that was all.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I did get the humour (although I thought the joke was based on being shouty like an offended newb) and my response was meant in the same way. Wikipedia clearly needs built in emoticons :-) ;-) 8-0.BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

yep .. "detailed dignified tones" are never going to go over well here </sarcasm> — Ched :  ?  16:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• @Bbb .. then file a WP:SPI — Ched :  ?  16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. "Put up, or shut up...shit or get off the pot...fish or cut bait" ... pick one :-) ... if not, drop the WP:STICK because you're simply being uncivil (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, I can't tell whether this is directed at me, at Ched, or at someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, it's directed at anyone to whom it applies :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Even with the smiley, not particularly helpful. To the extent your comment applies to me, and in response to Ched's comment, I have not accused BHB of being a sock puppet. I have said only that I am skeptical that he's a newbie. There's a big (I'm practicing bolding) difference between not being a newbie and being a sock puppet. I have no evidence (I haven't even looked for any) of BHB being a sock puppet, and if I did, I would report it to WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is, and was, a general comment using "you" the same way the French use "on". My feelings about continually accusing others of being a sock without submitting an SPI have been on my userpage since Yeshua played halfback for Jerusalem U. I never suggested you personally had accused anyone - indeed, I though this report was about 4 different individuals that do not share the same name as you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ched - There is, of course, a vast grey area between what one suspects may possibly be true and what one can prove is true, and, as BHB says above, it is in this area that AGF operates. I also take BHB's point above concerning the "rapid slide from 'suspicion' to definitive statements of fact on the flimsiest of grounds." As long as BHB's actions do not support the supposition that he is sock, then he should be afforded all the good faith that can be mustered, but BHB should also understand that in editing in the IP area -- which is under ArbCom restrictions for good reason -- he has chosen to enter a hornet's nest, in which good faith can, and will, be used up very quickly.

I have not looked at whatever actions prompted Brewcrewer et al. to suppose the BHB might be a sock, but his actions here are alone certainly sufficient to raise that possibility, so I wouldn't be surprised to find that they had reasonable grounds for suspicion. If BHB came expecting that a pre-emptive strike would immunize him to some extent against future scrutiny, that was a very bad tactical error, since he will now instead be under enhanced observation. (And if so, this would be BHB's cue to back out of editing, citing the usual complaints at how terrible the editing environment at Wikipedia is, etc. etc. etc.)

If, however, BHB is indeed the newbie academic he claims to be, I offer him, on behalf of myself and the entire community, apologies that he has been recieved in this way, and express the hope that he will stick around and contribute productively once he gets the hang of how things work. I'm not sure that anything more can be said at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, one other thing: practical advice to BHB:

• ignore the people claiming you are a sock, if they have evidence they will file an SPI, nothing will come of complaining here -- that is, no admin is going to take action against them (or you) at this point;
• edit in a productive, non-contentious and uncontroversial manner and there are unlikely to be future complaints;
• stay away from AN/I (that's my advice to everyone, most especially myself), as good things hardly ever come of it;
• if you're trolling, please have the decency to be ashamed.

Make of this what you will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment on etiquette - While I personally wouldn't touch the Israel/Palestine area with a bargepole, the low WP standards in that topic area don't seem to be a justification for starting a discussion on a personal Talk Page "User:X is a sock", invite emails, and not notify that editor. Surely there are WP etiquette guidelines that prevent this? If not there perhaps there should be. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no requirement to notify an editor if you mention them on your own talk page, as opposed to opening a discussion here or an WP:AN, and perhaps on other noticeboards. I, for one, would oppose such a requirement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Observation I really doubt that anyone is going to do anything here in any administrative capacity. We all got together, had a nice chat, and got to know each other a bit. Don't forget to pick up your t-shirts on the way out - I think we can probably call for lights out. aka: closing the thread. Paging Dr. 28bytes, paging Dr. 28bytes .. please see the patients in room 302 — Ched :  ?  04:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:AmblinX

I have arguing with this user ((AmblinX (talk · contribs)) back and forth about him/her adding trivial information about the age difference between two actresses on the television series Last Man Standing. I have asked he/she to start a discussion on the talk page but he he/she has refused. The person has even accused me of vandalism for removing the content and "warned" me about it, me, a six-year Wikipedian. Can an administrator speak to this person, please. QuasyBoy 19:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. You were supposed to notify AmblinX when you posted here about him.

2. Both of you are edit-warring, and if you don't stop you likely will be blocked.

3. That is a lame edit war.

-- Donald Albury 20:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

AmblinX notified, 3rr warnings to both and calling a ANI request lame isn't helpful. Just ignore it if don't want to assist. Nobody Ent 20:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never been blocked before and I will not be because of this person. I already aware that I reverted twice within the last few hours. AmblinX seems like he/she has been burned on Wikpedia before and is on this "I'm gonna take it anymore" emotional trip. Lastly, this is a very lame edit war, couldn't agree more. QuasyBoy 20:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I already reported the problem with user QuasyBoy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring
Also I warned the user at his talk page, about reverting other users valid edits on an article.
Reverting or deleting valid information because of personal choice is against the wikipedia rules.
For example: It should be borne in mind, however, that reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism or violations of the BLP policy) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting
User QuasyBoy is deleting valid information because of personal taste in other article too, I did everything I could to warn him about his behavior.
I at every moment of this incident always complied with the wiki rules.

Link from the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuasyBoy#Disruptive_editing_on_Last_Man_Standing_.28U.S._TV_series.29
 AmblinX  20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is literally the lamest thing I've ever seen. And not just on wikipedia, I mean in my entire life. Edit warring for edit warring's sake. I would suggest that QasyBoy has a mild ownership issue with this article: is it really so important that AmblinX's sentence is omitted? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Equally, is it really so important that AmblinX's sentence be included? It is absolute trivia which IMMHO is hardly crucial/useful/important to the project. Oh darn, you like trivia, don't you! Never mind, both already 3RR warned so maybe this incident is about to snuff out anyway.Moriori (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha. Glad to see there are some editors out there who still do their reading.... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_Man_Standing_(U.S._TV_series) I explained why these few words are absolutely relevant and not at all trivial.
In short: this never happened in a sitcom in a long long time, I couldn't even find 1.  AmblinX  22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To the user's credit, he has taken the discussion to the talk page and stopped edit warring. However, his most recent comment in the discussion comes up short in the civility department. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

At least he has a sense of humour, I guess. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Move of Volkswagen Beetle

Volkswagen Beetle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was moved to Volkswagen Type 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without consultation. I have requested a page move already but given that this is a long-standing, high-traffic article with a well established WP:COMMONNAME I bring this matter here hoping for a quicker resolution. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bushranger. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Taskstired

Could an admin sort out the mess created by Special:Contributions/Taskstired moving Israeli-occupied territories to Arab-occupied territories please ? I think the article probably needs indefinite move protection and the editor needs to be blocked. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think its sock of Sk8rownot (talk · contribs)--Shrike (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The faster way to deal with such issues is to report them to WP:AIV--Shrike (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the move and indeffed Taskstired (talk · contribs). It is not the first account which is made autoconfirmed only for making a clearly controversial article move. Materialscientist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Since the move needed to be reverted by an admin because these editors always make an edit to prevent the move being reverted by non-admins, I'm not sure whether tasks like this are within scope of AIV. Should they be listed here or at AIV ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Shrike is right. Each account was editing behind a different proxy, both of which I've blocked. Both accounts were created a long long time ago to evade CheckUser, and I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye. If other accounts resurface, whacking them when they appear and potentially semi-protection will be the most effective way of dealing with this, and please report them to SPI where the underlying IP/proxy can be blocked. WilliamH (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yo

Can someone please make this an autoconfirmed account so I can upload some images I made? Cheers, Gary Dobson & David Norris (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll want WP:RFP/C ... and you'll also want to recall the username policy does not permit shared accounts (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And this name, which refers to the convicted murderers of Stephen Lawrence, is most unlikely to be unacceptable. RolandR (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"unlikely to be unacceptable" :D Gary Dobson & David Norris (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely unacceptable. Username softblocked. Tiderolls 13:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ericl

This user is too much to handle. I need some help. He keeps removing notable candidates and replacing them with non-notable ones. I've tried to explain consensus to him but he won't stop. He's doing this across three pages: Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012‎, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012‎, and Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. His talk page shows years of just not getting it. He uses bad references, adds unsourced material, creates pages on non-notable topics, and edit wars. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• If you have a proposal, I might have a second. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT doing that. I've been doing this stuff for years, and have been revising the articles in question with GOOD references and sourced material. For some reason Mr. Saturn wants to list a number of fringe candidates as major ones, and I keep trying to either get rid of them or downgrade them to where they belong. There's no consensus on what is considered "notable" here. In previous elections, a minor candidate was considered "part of the group" if he or she was on the ballot in several states. People like Vance Hartke and Patsy Mink weren't considered "major" candidates, i.e., had no chance of being elected. But they were listed because they were on the ballot in quite a few states. ON the other hand, take a look at Stewart Greenleaf, a Pennsyvania State Senator, who decided to get some local publicity by getting his name on the NH ballot. He told the local paper back home "I'm NOT running for president."Notice the word NOT. If someone says they're not running for something, doesn't that mean they're not running for something? Especially if they're not on the ballot anywhere? Which reminds me, when did Mr. Saturn take over coverage of the 2012 election articles? If you check my page out. I've been on very few of these revert wars, and I generally use good references, and the stuff I generally put up stays.Ericl (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose he be blocked for a short duration. Consensus on the page is for candidates with wikipedia notability to be listed. This has been explained to him, yet he refuses to listen. He is someone that believes Facebook is a reliable source. Should someone editing since 2005 really believe something like that? He obviously has not read wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and time shows that he probably has no intention of doing so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Facebook is a reliable source if someone announces something about him/herself on his or her page. When one person states there is a consensus when there is none, it's not exactly to be believed. I've never heard of him before. Could someone please show me where everyone had a consensus on this? I never saw it on any of the discussion pages in question.Ericl (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's on several talk page archives. See this for example.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean where you said this?: "Rather you should use "Candidates that participated in debates" and "Other candidates". This will prevent edit wars.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) " That was the consensus and that's what I was trying to do. Each and every one of the minor candidates in NH had local papers print articles on them. I've checked, besides, like I said in another thread, the race has started, which means the rules have changed. There's going to be lots of deleting and reorganizing. If you go to the beginning of the 2008 article (if you can still find it) you will notice how vastly different it is now than when it was in November or December of that year. That's going to happen again this time out. Ericl (talk)

Here is the consensus for the candidates page. As I said, being on the ballot is not completely necessary to be considered a candidate. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was not on any state ballots and yet he was able to win the nomination at the convention.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, but the rules were different in 1968. Most of the caucuses were in 1967, and they mostly consisted of county committeemen asking who among them wanted to go. We're talking about the rules of the game NOW, and as I said elsewhere, while no one was on the ballot six months ago, now it is different, and barring a death, scandal or criminal indictment, nobody not on the ballot is going to get the nomination. In 1976, if you remember, there was a backlash against Jimmy Carter in the primaries, but it was too late to stop him, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. There was a revolt of sorts at the 1980 convention against him (I was there and I remember it well), but Carter's people whipped everyone good. Look at the 1972 Democratic convention article. They tried to stop McGovern there, but they couldn't. The Republicans were worse on this point, and with the rules now in effect, unless all the anti-Romney candidates withdraw and get a new candidate on the ballot by Super Tuesday, there's just no way anyone not on the ballot anywhere would have a physical chance....Some obscure state senator Pretending to be a candidate might work well before anyone else is on the ballot, but if s/he's not on the ballot anywhere, then s/he's not a candidateEricl (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• William, considering the response here (and on my talk page) we have possibly a two-fold issue: lack of competence and unwillingness to listen. The simple convention is to include bluelinks, to not accept Facebook, etc. If someone says "Facebook is an acceptable source for someone's announcement" while completely bypassing notability (by our standards), then one wonders if they should be editing in the first place. (Ericl, you are wrong: we do have "consensus on what is considered 'notable' here.") We could block, but there may not be an immediate threat of disruption, but perhaps a probation (i.e., threat of a block) or a topic ban is in order. I'd like to hear what more experienced admins have to say here, and what you might think of a topic ban or probation. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't the point. the point is that some minor candidates who were no longer running, notably Greenleaf, who said he was ONLY running in NH, were deleted. BTW, I am NOT incompetent. If something is buried deep in the archives so that almost no one can find it, there's really no way one can considered something settled. especially if something's in flux as it is.Ericl (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling for blocks on ANI for a content dispute where there is no consensus isn't appropriate. On Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012‎ and Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012‎ Ericl and WSS are the only editors who have used the talk page this month, and on Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 the other editor who commented appears to support Ericl's position. RFC the issue. Nobody Ent 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. There is already consensus for this. As you can see, another editor already reverted Ericl's additions. The issue is competence, and I think Ericl should be blocked until he reads the policies and guidelines of wikipedia and demonstrates that he can edit competently and abide by consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How about more recent diffs of what you consider "incompetence"?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All of his edits to the pages I've linked show incompetence: his failure to follow MOS, his failure to understand consensus, and his failure to understand what constitutes a reliable source; he thinks Facebook is a reliable source. Just look at all the problems posted on his talk page. This is someone who has been editing since 2005, and they still haven't learned how to properly use wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen recent diffs in support of your contentions. Generalized statements like asking us to "look at all the problems posted on his Talk page" aren't a substitute for clear evidence. You also originally stated that he added unsourced material, but I don't see diffs in support of that, either. At worst, based on what you've said so far, it sounds like he may not meet your standard of competence, which is a far cry from being objectively incompetent. You have to justify a block based on recent activity for it to be considered preventative rather than punitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure I have. I've done hundreds and hundreds of articles. Just because I disagree with you (you still think the 1968 rules are in effect) doesn't mean that I'm incompetent. This is basically a pissing contest (if you'll pardon my French), and Mr. Saturn is throwing a hissy fit. Ericl (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Flatulotech smearing on Wikipedia

Flatulotech (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account used to smear Anwar Ibrahim (who recently was acquitted of sodomy charges in Malaysia) by selectively lifting sources to "prove" Mr Anwar's guilt on Wikipedia. He's been conducting a slow edit war (also by using other anonymous IP accounts) at Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials by pushing material which has been rejected outright by other editors. Questionable edits:

• [179] this one is gold
• [180] misleading paragraph characterizing bits classified information by 3 agencies as proof that "the sodomy charges were accepted as factually justified by foreign intelligence sources"
• [181][182][183][184][185][186]
• 120.151.54.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 203.82.92.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 110.159.4.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 141.0.8.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 141.0.8.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 42.241.18.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 114.73.82.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• [187] - unnecessary quotebox to prove his point

The list of diffs provided above shows that Flatulotech is not editing in good faith and should be banned immediately to avoid wasting other editors' energy dealing with his nonsense. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 13:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed due to repeated violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:IDHT; in short, disruptive editing Wikipedia can do without. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for block

Hello, I'm sorry if I'm in the wrong place, but I'm requesting a block on User:Boribreizh. His talk page can be found here. He blatantly vandalized pages, deleting entire sections. Please help. Agent 78787 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki13 reported Boribreizh at WP:AIV: [188] Glrx (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Boribreizh blocked 2 days: [189] Glrx (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ericl

This user is too much to handle. I need some help. He keeps removing notable candidates and replacing them with non-notable ones. I've tried to explain consensus to him but he won't stop. He's doing this across three pages: Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012‎, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012‎, and Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. His talk page shows years of just not getting it. He uses bad references, adds unsourced material, creates pages on non-notable topics, and edit wars. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• If you have a proposal, I might have a second. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT doing that. I've been doing this stuff for years, and have been revising the articles in question with GOOD references and sourced material. For some reason Mr. Saturn wants to list a number of fringe candidates as major ones, and I keep trying to either get rid of them or downgrade them to where they belong. There's no consensus on what is considered "notable" here. In previous elections, a minor candidate was considered "part of the group" if he or she was on the ballot in several states. People like Vance Hartke and Patsy Mink weren't considered "major" candidates, i.e., had no chance of being elected. But they were listed because they were on the ballot in quite a few states. ON the other hand, take a look at Stewart Greenleaf, a Pennsyvania State Senator, who decided to get some local publicity by getting his name on the NH ballot. He told the local paper back home "I'm NOT running for president."Notice the word NOT. If someone says they're not running for something, doesn't that mean they're not running for something? Especially if they're not on the ballot anywhere? Which reminds me, when did Mr. Saturn take over coverage of the 2012 election articles? If you check my page out. I've been on very few of these revert wars, and I generally use good references, and the stuff I generally put up stays.Ericl (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose he be blocked for a short duration. Consensus on the page is for candidates with wikipedia notability to be listed. This has been explained to him, yet he refuses to listen. He is someone that believes Facebook is a reliable source. Should someone editing since 2005 really believe something like that? He obviously has not read wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and time shows that he probably has no intention of doing so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Facebook is a reliable source if someone announces something about him/herself on his or her page. When one person states there is a consensus when there is none, it's not exactly to be believed. I've never heard of him before. Could someone please show me where everyone had a consensus on this? I never saw it on any of the discussion pages in question.Ericl (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's on several talk page archives. See this for example.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean where you said this?: "Rather you should use "Candidates that participated in debates" and "Other candidates". This will prevent edit wars.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) " That was the consensus and that's what I was trying to do. Each and every one of the minor candidates in NH had local papers print articles on them. I've checked, besides, like I said in another thread, the race has started, which means the rules have changed. There's going to be lots of deleting and reorganizing. If you go to the beginning of the 2008 article (if you can still find it) you will notice how vastly different it is now than when it was in November or December of that year. That's going to happen again this time out. Ericl (talk)

Here is the consensus for the candidates page. As I said, being on the ballot is not completely necessary to be considered a candidate. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was not on any state ballots and yet he was able to win the nomination at the convention.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, but the rules were different in 1968. Most of the caucuses were in 1967, and they mostly consisted of county committeemen asking who among them wanted to go. We're talking about the rules of the game NOW, and as I said elsewhere, while no one was on the ballot six months ago, now it is different, and barring a death, scandal or criminal indictment, nobody not on the ballot is going to get the nomination. In 1976, if you remember, there was a backlash against Jimmy Carter in the primaries, but it was too late to stop him, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. There was a revolt of sorts at the 1980 convention against him (I was there and I remember it well), but Carter's people whipped everyone good. Look at the 1972 Democratic convention article. They tried to stop McGovern there, but they couldn't. The Republicans were worse on this point, and with the rules now in effect, unless all the anti-Romney candidates withdraw and get a new candidate on the ballot by Super Tuesday, there's just no way anyone not on the ballot anywhere would have a physical chance....Some obscure state senator Pretending to be a candidate might work well before anyone else is on the ballot, but if s/he's not on the ballot anywhere, then s/he's not a candidateEricl (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• William, considering the response here (and on my talk page) we have possibly a two-fold issue: lack of competence and unwillingness to listen. The simple convention is to include bluelinks, to not accept Facebook, etc. If someone says "Facebook is an acceptable source for someone's announcement" while completely bypassing notability (by our standards), then one wonders if they should be editing in the first place. (Ericl, you are wrong: we do have "consensus on what is considered 'notable' here.") We could block, but there may not be an immediate threat of disruption, but perhaps a probation (i.e., threat of a block) or a topic ban is in order. I'd like to hear what more experienced admins have to say here, and what you might think of a topic ban or probation. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't the point. the point is that some minor candidates who were no longer running, notably Greenleaf, who said he was ONLY running in NH, were deleted. BTW, I am NOT incompetent. If something is buried deep in the archives so that almost no one can find it, there's really no way one can considered something settled. especially if something's in flux as it is.Ericl (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling for blocks on ANI for a content dispute where there is no consensus isn't appropriate. On Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012‎ and Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012‎ Ericl and WSS are the only editors who have used the talk page this month, and on Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 the other editor who commented appears to support Ericl's position. RFC the issue. Nobody Ent 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. There is already consensus for this. As you can see, another editor already reverted Ericl's additions. The issue is competence, and I think Ericl should be blocked until he reads the policies and guidelines of wikipedia and demonstrates that he can edit competently and abide by consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How about more recent diffs of what you consider "incompetence"?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All of his edits to the pages I've linked show incompetence: his failure to follow MOS, his failure to understand consensus, and his failure to understand what constitutes a reliable source; he thinks Facebook is a reliable source. Just look at all the problems posted on his talk page. This is someone who has been editing since 2005, and they still haven't learned how to properly use wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen recent diffs in support of your contentions. Generalized statements like asking us to "look at all the problems posted on his Talk page" aren't a substitute for clear evidence. You also originally stated that he added unsourced material, but I don't see diffs in support of that, either. At worst, based on what you've said so far, it sounds like he may not meet your standard of competence, which is a far cry from being objectively incompetent. You have to justify a block based on recent activity for it to be considered preventative rather than punitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure I have. I've done hundreds and hundreds of articles. Just because I disagree with you (you still think the 1968 rules are in effect) doesn't mean that I'm incompetent. This is basically a pissing contest (if you'll pardon my French), and Mr. Saturn is throwing a hissy fit. Ericl (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Flatulotech smearing on Wikipedia

Flatulotech (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account used to smear Anwar Ibrahim (who recently was acquitted of sodomy charges in Malaysia) by selectively lifting sources to "prove" Mr Anwar's guilt on Wikipedia. He's been conducting a slow edit war (also by using other anonymous IP accounts) at Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials by pushing material which has been rejected outright by other editors. Questionable edits:

• [190] this one is gold
• [191] misleading paragraph characterizing bits classified information by 3 agencies as proof that "the sodomy charges were accepted as factually justified by foreign intelligence sources"
• [192][193][194][195][196][197]
• 120.151.54.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 203.82.92.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 110.159.4.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 141.0.8.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 141.0.8.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 42.241.18.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 114.73.82.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• [198] - unnecessary quotebox to prove his point

The list of diffs provided above shows that Flatulotech is not editing in good faith and should be banned immediately to avoid wasting other editors' energy dealing with his nonsense. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 13:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed due to repeated violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:IDHT; in short, disruptive editing Wikipedia can do without. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for block

Hello, I'm sorry if I'm in the wrong place, but I'm requesting a block on User:Boribreizh. His talk page can be found here. He blatantly vandalized pages, deleting entire sections. Please help. Agent 78787 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki13 reported Boribreizh at WP:AIV: [199] Glrx (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Boribreizh blocked 2 days: [200] Glrx (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist and Occupy Wall Street

Amadscientist removed some longstanding information from the article. I reverted, and he reverted back before discussing. Since I thought that the complaint was that I had used the

The discussion has been extremely frustrating: as I see it, he does not understand or accept policy. He says what he did did not violate BRD. He has made statements such as that it is undue weight to quote from CNN with blockquotes, saying "I can see the heads exploding [at] FOX News." When I offered to paraphrase instead of quote the text, he said "we don't paraphrase," and also said the quotes were a breach of copyright and that they were misused per this guideline. He wouldn't go get more opinions at a noticeboard when I suggested it. He said "for WP:BRD to apply....you need to show how there was consensus for your edit." He also said there were opposing opinions to the quoted text, but failed to provide any when I asked. He also assumed bad faith saying "No, sorry...it is you... attempting to justify your edit in ways that are very misleading sir." After his last revert, he dismissed me thus: "you may continue to edit war or take this to a notice board."

In short, I know this may not be up to the standard of blocking, but it is very disruptive. I don't know where else to take it, so please instruct me what to do instead of reverting. B^e——C_ritical 02:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably best for you to take this to WP:DRN. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously! That place? You wait for eternity before anything happens there. And they make you fill out a form that takes far too long. But okay, I'll do that if no one here is willing to talk to him or something. B^e——C_ritical 03:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Block this editor

User:180.183.11.6, a sock of User:OSUHEY, is reverting my reports to AIV. Can I get an admin to bring this to a speedy resolution? Marcus Qwertyus 06:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron on AfD

The following discussion is closed. 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 put an article up for deletion on the basis that it essentially duplicated material that was covered elsewhere already or could be covered elsewhere easily and at first there were several delete votes citing that basis. Then User:Northamerica1000 gave a keep vote basically suggesting, based off the fact the material wasn't present in the two most general articles on the subject, that somehow I was making up that it was covered elsewhere, while mentioning a list of sources even though my argument did not challenge the article on notability. The creator of the article reiterates that editor's argument and so I note that my objection was not about notability, specifically stating where the information was already included or could easily be included.

After several more editors pushed for a keep vote citing Northamerica I noticed they are all in the "Article Rescue Squadron" and that the article had been tagged for "rescue" from deletion by Northamerica. While the group is ostensibly about improving articles so they will be kept, their only real contributions in the AfD have been to make keep votes, with some of them doing nothing more than citing the previous argument for why the article should be kept and emphasizing the keep argument's "compelling" nature. Noticing that this was a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS I added a tag to clarify this was not about a majority vote. User:Dream Focus removed the tag claiming this was not canvassing and accusing me of making a "bad faith assumption" about the rescue tag.

Despite attempting to discuss it at Northamerica's talk page the editor is clearly not interested. He insists his actions do not amount to canvassing, claiming he only notified four users who had edited the page before (not addressing the impact of the rescue tag itself), and throws out WP:CENSORED for no apparent reason. Northamerica then accuses me of complaining and disagreeing with Wikipedia's policy on notability, even though I had repeatedly said my reason for the AfD had nothing to do with notability.

The broader issue is that this group seems to serve more as a vehicle for inclusionists to canvass for keeping articles nominated for deletion than as a means to legitimately improve Wikipedia in general. Evidence for this can be found in the language on using the rescue tag calling on members to "comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen" as a nice way of telling members of the group to vote keep on any article with the tag. As noted on Northamerica's talk page, the very idea of tagging an article for "rescue" after it is nominated for deletion violates WP:CANVASS as it "preselects recipients according to their established opinions" as opposed to a neutral notification of all interested editors.

Dream Focus is particularly blunt about this inclusionist agenda-warrior behavior. That user's page reads at times like some sort of inclusionist manifesto with a long list of "successes" and at other times like an explicit instruction manual on how to game the system in favor of the inclusionist position. The userpage has been recognized as such a blatantly abrasive soapbox that it has been nominated for deletion twice, though naturally the members of the Article Rescue Squadron "save the day" each time.

My thought is that the only feasible way to stop this kind of activity without getting rid of the group altogether is to explicitly restrict anyone in this group from getting involved in AfDs and limiting them explicitly by policy to only editing the article itself when it is nominated for deletion. Otherwise, it appears they will continue to be a force of disruption in pursuit of their higher purpose.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a function called "Articles for Deletion" and you're concerned that an "Article Rescue Squad" is overly inclusionist? How about seeing it as a corrective to ingrained systemic bias? In any case, what, exactly, are you asking admins to do here, or are you just generally bitchin' and moanin'? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Forget this inclusionist deletionists nonsense. That isn't relevant here at all. What's on my user page and the fact that it got nominated twice for deletion but was seen by people, including those not part of the ARS, as being related to Wikipedia and thus allowed, has nothing to do with the current issue. Canvass rules state you can contact everyone who has participated in a previous AFD, or discussed things recently on a talk page of an article nominated. There is no rule against that. AFD is not a vote. If reliable sources have been found that give significant coverage to an issue, then the article is saved, and if not it is destroyed. All Wikiprojects have it where you can list AFDs related to them. Dream Focus 07:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This exact concern with the ARS has been raised a number of times in the past, and there's never been consensus to restrict their activities in anything like the way you suggest (AFAIK). Indeed, I strongly oppose any such restriction. The ARS, on paper, serves an extremely valuable function. That's not to say I entirely disagree with your underlying complaint. There is, more often than not, a pretty big difference between the intended-on-paper effect of a rescue tag and the tag's actual effect. Just remember: AFD is not a vote. Policy wins, not a cavalcade of keep or delete votes. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Some members of this squadron came to an AfD I nominated recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines, but they have made a reasonable contribution there. While I do think they are making a fair effort to improve articles, I have to share TDA's concerns after seeing what is happening with the AfD he has brought up. We have to be careful that the rescue tag in combination with a rescue "squadron" does not lead to some unintended votestacking effect. We cannot avoid the fact that a selected group with a known opinion (leaning towards keeping more articles), get's notified by this.

The idea that it are not the votes that are counted, but the policy based points, is a nice ideal, but does it also work that way in practice? I think the votes do sway the opinion, maybe not of the closing editor, but of the other people who vote or comment in the AfD. And if the votes are not counted, then why do we give a vote? Then we can as well just comment (which is what I am always doing) and let the closing editors count the policy based points from all the comments. If the votes are not counted anyway, then why do we worry about votestacking and canvassing? Answer: it is a problem because the vote count actually does play some role, no matter how much we try to dream otherwise. And that's why it is a problem when a rescue tag on an AfD article starts pulling in "squadron" members who then all vote "Keep" because the article has their project rescue tag on it.

I see two things that could help with this. 1) the rescue project could make more clear to its member that "Keep" is not the only way that an article can get rescued. "Merge" and "Rename" are two other possible votes/outcomes of an AfD in which the material gets kept and can get improved by this rescue team. So I would expect to see a little more variation in their AfD votes. 2) Restricting the rescue team members from voting in AfD is rather drastic. I don't think that's necessary. But it might be good when rescue members mention their membership when they vote in a AfD that was tagged for rescue. That wouldn't hurt. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

From the ARS' own project page: "The Article Rescue Squadron is not about arguing on talk pages but instead about editing articles... adding sources and rewriting the text to remove or reword unsuitable content [, which] will help other editors decide if the article should be kept or deleted... The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes...". The problem appears to be that some ARS members (mentioning no names) seem to view their role as votestackers rather than editors: I've often encountered ARS members at AfD who's only contribution to either article or debate was "meets GNG" or similar (again, I'm deliberately not providing names or diffs, this shouldn't be a witchhunt), but such arguments will be discounted by any competent closing admin. This is an issue with individual users, rather than with the ARS Project as a whole. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you see reliable sources already found by someone, click on them and agree they are reliable, then what else would you say? Everyone looks at the references and either agrees that is sufficient coverage or they argue that it isn't. Dream Focus 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• AN/I is not really the right venue for this. What the ARS is doing here is pretty much what the ARS does; as always the closing admin has the discretion to disregard poorly considered votes (keep, delete or otherwise) or votes that don't address the rationale presented for deletion. If the closing admin weighs such votes improperly in your view, DRV provides a remedy. If you're looking for a more broad debate on the ARS, you'll need to put together an RFC. 28bytes (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• There are no AFD members that comment in every single article tagged for Rescue, spamming "keep" about. That has never been a problem. Those that show up usually look over the list and only click on something that catches their interest. There are articles tagged which none of us respond to. If I can determine with 100% certainly an article should be deleted, I do post "delete" at times. If not, I usually just ask questions, or don't comment at all. Dream Focus 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Advocate here. It seems blatently clear to me that a great many life preservers are thrown not to improve the article, but as a clarion call to get ARS members to participate in AfD discussions. They don't necessarily need to get all their members out to vote; three or four of them will usually sway many AfDs in their favor. I've also seen ARS members add sources that barely mention a topic at all, then claim that that means that it passes GNG and must automatically be kept. Those sources are essentially no better than if the article wasn't sourced at all. And very rarely do I see ARS members get an article to DYK or GA quality, or even B or C class. They often just improve an article just enough so it allegedly passes GNG. And that's another problem with ARS members...many of them disdain notability guidelines, particularly the specific ones like WP:POLITICIAN, which they choose to ignore, claiming only GNG matters. I've even seen ARS members start threads on ANI against people who nominate articles for deletion based mostly on the fact that they didn't like their nominations. This has gotta stop Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I have to agree. I have rarely seen the squadron be helpful in an article. Usually all it is, is a call to come and stack votes when I see the template put on the article. The rare times I see an attempt to put any effort into fixing the article its with links that only have a passing mention of the subject and don't actually help with anything. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to see the main rescue template be done away with entirely, honestly; one troublesome wikiproject does not have a right to advertise itself in article-space as they do. Let them reword Template:ARSnote and use that to flag the AfDs only if they like, just as other wikiprojects do. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with most of what PBP said. The ARS is of course entitled to its own opinion about the notability guidelines, wrong though it is. But their template amounts to canvassing for inclusioniosts, their members frequently attack AfD nominators and people they perceive as enemies, and they try to save articles with dubious sources because they want to beat their enemies, not improve the encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• As the comments below are mostly about the tag it should be noted the main page of the Wikiproject itself does not really respect WP:CANVASS. Under the rescue template instructions there is a section for Usage with the following in boldface:

As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen.

This reads like an instruction for any member of the group to vote keep on any tagged article. Other parts do say they are not about casting keep votes, but there is not an actual instruction against everyone just voting keep on the AfD when an article is tagged.

It is also not just North's actions that are at issue. As noted before, Dream's userpage has several comments that are little more than advice about how to game a deletion discussion in favor of keep while railing about the horrible deletionists. That editor's page is also at times a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC in its demonization of deletionists. Given that Dream is often voting keep right alongside North I think both of these editors are exhibiting problematic behaviors that need to be looked at.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see much use to this thread. If you don't like the actions of an individual editor, usually an Rfc or an Mfd of their userpage is the best way to proceed. If you object to the general idea of the ARS, you could bring the whole thing to Mfd--it's been done a few times before but maybe this time you'll get consensus. My suggestion is to monitor the pages that are tagged for rescue and counter what you see as frivolous votes with policy-based arguments. Or create a rival WP:WikiProject Policy and Guideline Based Articles for Deletion Comment Squad? (Maybe something a bit pithier though.) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• My opinion about the rescue tag (diff):

  Most articles marked for rescue are not improved, despite ARS' professed purpose of improving articles at AfD ("The Article Rescue Squadron is not about arguing on talk pages but instead about editing articles."). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devolvement, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CanSat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semi-vegetarianism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Day New York (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Smalltalk, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Respiratory Care Foundation for some recent examples. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkstars is a particularly telling example—a member of ARS marks an article for rescue merely because the article was relisted with no other voters. Goodvac (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Goodvac (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You link to AFDs where members found references proving that the subject was notable and met all requirements for an article. That is what we are there for. If you want the information into the article, just copy and paste it over yourself. Dream Focus 14:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps better to judge any tag by its successes, and not its failures, not by who uses it, and definitely not by assuming bad faith in its use. Besides being listed as a member or ARS, I am a member of

Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, and

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles,

...all being projects that include on their project page links to AFD delsorts of article of concern to those projects:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

or as in the case of WP:URA, they list articles that have issues needing to be addressed.

The above are projects where my editing skills occasionaly prove helpful to the project through proactive article improvement. And worth noting, is that far more often than with ARS tags, the tags from these other projcts do not result in improvements nor prevent deletion of unsuitable articles. Interestingly, if being tagged through delsort for input from projects (other that ARS) results in a keep or a delete, we do not cry foul nor cry canvas.

Should ARS tagging have better instruction? Perhaps. But a tagging NOT resulting in an article being improved is never a reason to not use such tags nor declare them somehow useless. The ultimate goal of any such tags is the improving of articles to better serve the project. The use or not of such tags is not predicated upon success, but upon hope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Northamerica1000 should be banned from using the {{rescue}} template. Frankly, I don't see any point of it other than to canvass and I am tempted to send it back to TfD again. However, here are some examples of the tag being abused.

• TLG Communications
  • Northamerica1000 tags article for rescue
  • [201] Is a brief mention, not even an entire sentence
  • [202]] Is also a brief mention but actually has 3 sentences
• Lena Cruz
  • Northamerica1000 tags article for rescue
    • 3 ARS members !vote ([203] [204] [205] keep at AFD without making improvements to the article
• Cinnamon challenge
  • Northamerica1000 tags article for rescue
  • Northamerica1000 does major improvements to the article that satisfies GNG (rescued the article) but leaves the tag in place (effectively canvassing !keep votes, no other purpose now that article has been fixed)
    • Two keep !votes ([206] [207]) having made no changes to the article
• Cyrus Pahlavi
  • Tagged for rescue, AFD resulting in delete
• Russian Social Terms
  • Tagged for rescue, AFD resulting in delete
• Children's Philanthropy Center
  • Tagged for rescue, no improvements by Northamerica1000, AFD resulted in delete

All of this is actually an improvement over his previous typical drive-by {{rescue}} tagging [208], none of which received any improvement during the taging that would save it from AFD, but it's clear the tag is being used to canvass !votes rather than to improve.

Overall, I dislike Northamerica1000 but I'll firmly admit that he/she does a lot of work to improve articles that are up for deletion. My point point of contention is the overuse/abusive use of the {{rescue}} template. He/she clearly uses it to canvass rather than to suggest someone improves the article.--v/r - TP 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(an aside:) User:TParis informed me of this discussion. My being involved in the discussion at the above linked AFD for Lena Cruz was NOT due to or a result of the rescue tag. I was alerted to the article by that other tag placed on the article... the one by User:Gene93k: "Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)". However, I did not perceive Gene's use of the tag which alerted me to the article as either misused or canvassing. Further, my opinion there had absolutely nothing to do with the rescue tag... being based upon my own WP:BEFORE, the sources found and offered by others, and my conclusion that the project would be far better served by application of WP:ATD's suggesting nominators check for sources for an unref'd article and rather than force cleanup through AFD, instead consider tagging the article for issues... and in this particular case, notifying WP:BIOG or WP:URA through appropriate tagging would also not be misuse of tags or canvassing. A deletion based upon someone else not yet fixing an addressable issue, is not always the best option.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you cherry picking AFDs like that? Childrens Philanthropy Center had one member of the Rescue Squadron say keep in it, that NorthAmerica1000. This should prove that tagging something for Rescue doesn't automatically bring over keep votes. It also shows that in places where most people said keep, they still delete some articles. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_Social_Terms Three of us said Keep, it encyclopedic to have that, with only one person agreeing with the nominator to delete that. Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Article_list shows what articles are currently tagged, by who, and what the result is when the AFD is over. Dream Focus 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not some people vote keep sometimes is rather irrelevant since posting to a illusionist group where it can be safely assumed that in most (not all) cases its likely to get a keep instead of a delete is clearly doing it for the canvass value and would violate the part of canvass which says not to post invites to editors clearly on one side of the issue and not to both sides. -DJSasso (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of Childrens Philanthropy Center was to demonstrate a case of an article that couldn't be rescued but was tagged anyway. Honestly, the tag is pointless because if you do the work to determine if an article is rescuable, than you are 3/4ths of the way to rescuing the article yourself (ie, you've found refs).--v/r - TP 20:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Other Wikiprojects are informed of AFDs to bring interested parties to them. I don't really see any difference here. Someone believes that the article is notable and request help in finding reliable sources to back that up, and those of us wishing to help show up and do so. I'd like to see what people who don't regularly but heads with the ARS members in various AFDs have to say. Obviously if you are determined to delete something, and people show up and interfere with you getting your way, some would be upset about that, and start complaining about those on the other side of the argument with them. And we could just as easily cherry pick examples of someone clearly notable, who had people show up and say delete without bothering to even click the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, and find that had a detailed article about them in the New York Times. Dream Focus 20:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I picked articles and AFDs based on whether the rescue tag involved improvements by the ARS improvements by Northamerica1000 or just keep !votes. I saw none tagged by Northamerica1000 that involved improvements by other ARS members. Feel free to prove me wrong. The rescue tag should be removed once improvements are made to an article. The {{rescue}} template is a big notification to folks who are self-identified "inclusionists" and violates the "Audience" part of WP:CANVASS. (After EC) And other Wikiprojects do not have a problem with the "Audience" portion. There isn't a bias to include articles by other projects.--v/r - TP 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Other Wikiprojects are likely to have varying viewpoints on if an article should be kept or not. A wikiproject whose sole purpose is to save articles from deletion is clearly not in the same category as most wikiprojects. Its no wonder that many people consider the ARS as WikiProject:Canvass. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support: It does seem like Northamerica and others are using the tag for the wrong reasons. Northamerica can improve articles all he wants (provided the references he uses are of proper quality and he follows all relevant guidelines), but I think he should step away from tagging them for rescue. TP, you're absolutely right the the template should go if it continues to be serially misused. Failing that, I honestly believe you shouldn't be allowed to participate in an AfD of an article you tagged for rescue. One or the other, not both Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Please see the instructions for use of the rescue tag, at WP:RESCUETEMPLATE. I didn't create the instructions for this template, I just abide by them. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• oppose Although I would hope that closing admins at AfD have the nous to ignore a chorus of bleating "keeps" with nothing to back them up. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• In my experience they don't. Not unless the bleating comes from IPs or new users. I find most admins loathe to throw out a bunch of keep !votes that are based on faulty logic, often going with a no consensus so they don't have to make that hard decision. This is one of the fundamental flaws with AfD. This whole dance we do to write "!vote" when the reality is that it very clearly is a vote. In all my years here, I've repeatedly seen junk arguments used to keep articles which really shouldn't be here, but survive on admins who seemingly just tally it up and call it.--Crossmr (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – I don't use the rescue template for any reason other than tagging articles for rescue that I consider to be notable topics, which could use more sourcing, copy-editing, inline citations, and general clean-up. Per WP:RESCUETAG, the instructions for placing the template are as follows:

"Our main focus is on articles on notable topics going through Articles for deletion (AfD) that:

• Need references
• Are written poorly
• Lack information readily available
• Need cleaning up."

Perhaps this discussion should be about the instructions for use of the rescue tag, because I always only follow the instructions. Use of the rescue tag is not canvassing, it's placing a template on an article per the instructions. I have no control how other Wikipedia users !vote in AfD discussions whatsoever. I have never canvassed or messaged anyone to post a "keep" !vote in an AfD discussion whatsoever. I was disappointed to see that a user I haven't communicated with much has started this discussion by stating that they dislike me from the start; an unfortunate style in which to begin a discussion, in my opinion. I'm neutral about the individual who started this discussion myself, however. If you don't like the tag, for whatever reasons, then please feel free to send it to templates for discussion. The title of this discussion, "canvassing", and then my user name directly below it is misleading, in my opinion.

Regarding the statement above about not removing the rescue tag after performing article improvements, again, this is due to the instructions at WP:RESCUETAG on the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject (verbatim):

"Removing a rescue tag:
It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before a deletion discussion is complete. The XfD process usually takes a week, and the tag is in place for less than that. Let the XfD closer remove it when the XfD tag is removed or the item is deleted. In all cases remain civil, and assume good faith that other editors are working to improve Wikipedia."

Removal of the tag prior to the AfD's closue is against the instructions for use of the tag, per the WikiProject's instructions. Thus, again, perhaps a discussion about the rules and guidelines of the WikiProject itself is in order. If I were to remove the tag prior to AfD closure, that would go against the instructions for use of the tag. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• A Wikiproject cannot invent rules for its own benefit and then point to those rules when their behaviour is questioned, expecting everyone else to respect and abide by them. Reyk _YO! 21:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but removing a wikiproject's templates and tags without consensus is disruptive. Best to have that discussion first. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I joined ARS two days ago because I noticed that many tagged articles are indeed notable. I only consider it canvassing with individual editors and I do not consider it a rampant group of inclusionists that hijack AfDs with keeps. Dream Focus, for example, tagged a magazine article for rescue. Although the consensus was delete, I see why he did it. Even though the fact that the magazine's claim to notability was unreferenced, there was still a strong claim. I would be fine with the article being recreated if that claim was verified. Northamerica, on the other hand, has misused it. I would say though that the majority of ARS members do not use it wrongly. Sure it can even cause canvassing when it is used correctly, but that is what closings admins are for. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have only followed the instructions for use of the template. Perhaps consider working to obtain consensus to change the instructions for use of the rescue template itself. The title of this discussion, "canvassing", and then my user name directly below it is misleading, in my opinion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• That instruction page was created by a group of ARS users, hardly backed by community consensus. Goodvac (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Then address perceived issues and create a consesnsus for what those instructions might say. What is the sense of banning someone who did NOT create the instructions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban Per the examples offered showing that AFD is not just a headcount and that closers properly weigh the merits of an AFD discussion before closing. When ANY project tag is added to an aricle at AFD, tt is either improved or it is not. That such tags alert those most often willing to improve articles, no matter the project or the tag, acts to improve the project. Forbidding someone from involving themselves in discussion of something that they have tagged in their hope that others more capable to do so might actually do so, does not improve the project. In order to avoid drama from those who dislike the tag I have myself for many many months avoided tagging aricles for rescue. This does not mean the tag is useless or that it is any more an act of canvassing than any other tag set to alert those who might be able to improve artcles for the project, that something needs their eyes. A use of such tags does not always result in an article being improved. Failure does not mean that such tags are useless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I could accept that if there was stronger evidence showing that the results of the {{rescue}} template was improved articles rather than !votes at AFD. I saw very few times in Northamerica1000's rescue tagging where improvements were made by other ARS members (plenty he fixed himself and I nod him for that) but as I've shown above, it more often results in !votes.--v/r - TP 22:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone having a sense that something is improvable and then alerting others who may be more qualified to address issues is a better argument for addressing usage instructions, than it is for banning someone who uses it in good faith... even if the result was unsuccessful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(after multiple E/Cs) I have to agree with TParis here; at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Elleore, there are three ARS members (and Radiofan (talk · contribs), whose essay makes it clear that he's a member, even without the tag on his page) who argued to keep the article. Northamerica1000 did some expansion work (including adding two reviews of the single book which contains a section relating to this micronation), but the fundamental notability issue remains (one book whose value as a source is open to question, and a single website hit with a cursory overview of the "nation's" claims). And yes, there was a rescue template tossed onto this article before the four ARS votes rolled in. (The article was kept, for what it's worth.) I don't know that this rises to the level of a topic ban, but it's food for thought.Horologium (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming off-topic, re-discussion of an AfD here. It's one-sided to only mention how users of a WikiProject !voted and omit discussion and analysis about how other users who are not a part of the WikiProject !voted. It's also unfair and overly-assumptive to state that I am somehow knowledgeable in advance about what other Wikipedia users may hypothetically type on their computers after a template has been placed in an article in accordance with the instructions for using that template. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Regarding the examples above, provided by creator of this discussion:

• TLG Communications - I've personally added more sources to this article after this discussion was began. See article. It takes time to do research, write, add sources, etc. No stipulation exists that all work has to be done at once. A significant part of use of the rescue template is to divide the work among Article rescue squadron WikiProject participants, in the interest of improving articles that are tagged for rescue. Of course, I have no control over what other users actually do or don't do.
• Lena Cruz - I have no control over what other users do on Wikipedia whatsoever, how they !vote, their actions, etc. I didn't canvass these people whatsoever or ask them to contribute to the article on their talk pages. I'm not responsible for other people's behaviors and actions.
• Cinnamon challenge - It's against the instructions at WP:RESCUETEMPLATE to remove the template once its been placed. These are the instructions.
• Regarding the articles that resulted in delete - Firstly, I don't have access to them, as they've been deleted. It is unreasonable to expect that all articles tagged for rescue will be kept, just as it is unreasonable to expect that all articles nominated for deletion will be deleted. Regarding the Children's Philanthropy Center article, could you point out specifically how "no improvements" were made? I recall doing some edits to the article, but don't have access to it, because it was deleted. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You edited that article two times. One was to throw the ARS tag on, and the other was to change the size of the picture. Those were the last two edits to the article. Horologium (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Northamerica1000 made 9 edits. Of the other 7, 5 were minor formatting changes, 1 was addition of "{{stub}}" and 1 was removal of a prod tag. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this, User:28bytes, I recall doing some work on the article. It's difficult to ascertain without access to it. The creator of this discussion stated that I made no improvements to the article (above). I now disagree with that assessment, as I work to improve articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of fairness and transparency I have temporarily restored the page history here while this discussion is ongoing. 28bytes (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you User:28bytes. Your administrative capacity here is appreciated. It can be confusing when one administrator makes a statement that two edits were made to a deleted article, and then another administrator comes along and corrects the statement, without people being able to view the actual material. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to clarify, Horologium means you editing that article two times since it was nominated for AFD. The two edits are as they describe above. The point is that no improvements were made once the rescue template was added.--v/r - TP 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no stipulation of being on a timer to do additional work after adding a template to an article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

When you are discussing and article that is up for deletion, there is a timer. Horologium (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not about a timer. If you made changes to "improve" the article, than what purpose was the {{rescue}} template? You already made changes to improve it, didn't you? If you add a rescue template, that implies there is more to be fixed and my point is that nothing happened. That seems to be either 1) There was nothing to improve and the article was misused on an unsalvagable article, 2) The article was improved to meet notability guidelines and the rescue template was used to canvass keep !votes, or 3) The article was not improved to meet notability guidelines and the rescue template was used to canvass keep !votes. What other purpose was the rescue template for that article?--v/r - TP 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Unfortunately, the preliminary wording of this discussion is very misleading, typecasting me as a canvasser when in reality, I've only followed the instructions for use of the rescue template. I am writing this statement for the record, so that it's included after this discussion has been archived. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wikiprojects are welcome to establish their own 'instructions', but local consensus within the project can't override the broader consensus in policies like WP:CANVASS or others. If the ARS page had a few lines saying that its members could, for instance, procedurally close any AFD at will simply on a whim, it should be obvious that even if everyone on the project agreed, they would still be held responsible for their actions if they actually acted to that effect. Even for things like the rescue template, the fact that it exists does not equate to tacit approval of its use. Wikipedia's policies still (and almost always) apply. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose AFD is chronically ill-attended to the point that discussions are carried forward from week to week in a vain attempt to stir up interest. For example, various features of the Gettysburg battlefield were recently taken to AFD in a spree and, in most cases, such as McMillan Woods, I am the only editor to have responded. In other cases, such as Patoli no-one has responded at all. In such circumstances, it is good to stimulate discussion and Northamerica1000 is to be praised for his vigour and energy in doing so. Warden (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing 1) any cause for administrator action, or 2) any allegation that the encyclopedia has been harmed by the presence or use of the rescue template. This seems like an entirely unimproved discussion vs. the last N+1 times it has happened. However I will admit that I have had my own suspicions that NorthAmerica1000 is actually a returning sockpuppet of one of the community-banned hyper-inclusionists, whose names will readily come to the minds of those who've been around the ARS debates for a while... Jclemens-public (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is my first and only Wikipedia account. Your suspicions are incorrect in this case. I'm not another person that you may be thinking about, in this case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think it's fair to publicly accuse people of sockpuppetry without providing any supporting evidence. If you have good reasons for thinking Northamerica1000 is a returned banned user, this is not the place. You know the way to WP:SPI. Reyk _YO! 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between a suspicion and an accusation. I am perfectly capable of running an SPI, but have not done so as the evidence for such is not sufficient. You tell me, though: Do you think NorthAmerica1000's editing pattern reminds you of any of the folks in question? If so, then you know where I'm coming from. If not, then my suspicion is unshared and can be appropriately disregarded. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's disgusting that a member of ArbCom can so blatantly and flippantly drop unsubstantiated innuendo like that, myself. As soon as you go mouthing off your "suspicions" in a public forum like this, they become "accusations." Please apologize or resign your post. Carrite (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am confused as to what purpose {{rescue}} actually even serves. Do the articles tagged with this template merit saving over ones that are not tagged? Surely, if an article can be proven to meet GNG, the ARS member will be better served finding the reliable sources and dumping them on AfD, rather than tagging the article with the template and getting meaningless "keep" votes? —Dark 02:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rescue" as it is being used, does nothing that AfD doesn't already do: draw attention to articles in trouble. One might argue that "rescue" could be used to save articles before their nomination for deletion, but we have numerous other tags for that already. As it is currently used, "Rescue" is used almost exclusively to canvass editors intent on disrupting a routine and useful process - one that helps maintain Wikipedia's credibility: deleting articles that fail to meet Wikipedia's standards. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it creates both a local notification and a centralized list of articles that at least one editor in good standing believes can and should be improved. Not just "kept", but improved such that a keep outcome can be made more evident. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I hadn't heard about the ARS before, but I can report on my recent encounter with them. I nominated this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines, specifically stating that reliable 3rd party sources are lacking. Northamerica came in, added three poor quality references (two primary sources and one questionable mention), a rescue tag, and voted keep. Not much later, DreamFocus, another ARS member, came in to add a keep vote. I find it hard to believe that Northamerica (with 35000 edits in half a year, and plenty active in AfD) doesn't know that primary sources are not useful to establish notability. Adding such sources by an experienced editor looks a bit disruptive to me. Cannot we expect that experienced members of the ARS should know better than most of us what kind of sources are reliable and needed to establish notability? It is not so much the use of rescue template that is a problem, but adding very low quality sources and then consider the article "rescued" and vote "keep", that is bothersome.
  

While I do not think that Northamerica is using the rescue template with a deliberate intention of canvassing (agf here), I do think the members of that project are well aware that putting on this rescue tag has some "unintended votestacking effect" in certain cases. And that's what we see in several of the mentioned examples. I would be more convinced of Northamerica's good intention in all this, if he just aknowledged that this can become a problem (as we saw in Sesame Street rumors AfD, where several ARS members came in to add their Keep vote after him). NA himself could step in there and point out that too many ARS members are voting keep, pointing them to their own project guidelines that advise against just voting rather than improving/rescuing. Now it is only normal that this activity raises eyebrows. If NA agrees, then all we need to do is wonder how to solve this problem. Personally I would do away with the rescue template. It serves no purpose that is not already served by the existing tags that can be put on any article. The ARS can do its job just as well without this rescue template. They can go through the list of AfD just like all of us. The rescue tag has become nothing but a "canvassing-light" tool. We don't need to punish editors for using a template that has been accepted or at least tolerated by the community up to now. We can just do away with the problematic (and unnecessary) template. I would just hope that in the future the members of ARS bring proper quality sources if they want to rescue an article, and that they also consider "merge" or "rename" as possible votes which also "rescue" the content of the article, but not necessarily in the form of a standalone article. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The cherry picked examples prove nothing. One could easily pick stacks of counter examples demonstrating considerable improvement by Squad members. E.g. Kinetic architecture, which is now one of our finest and most attractive short articles. In future, if admins want to start threads against excellent content building editors, please can they keep their irrelevant, nasty, judgemental opinions about who they "dislike" to themselves. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Bans are not things to be lightly imposed, and the evidence that wrong-doing has occurred is thin at best. I suggest you try an RFC/U on that editor if you feel strongly that the community would find his acts sufficiently objectionable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this transparent attempt to shackle a productive editor. Lena Cruz was kept, how is that a misuse? CallawayRox (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Here's an example of how I used the rescue template in the Kashless.org article, the revision history for the page. Notice how I first found reliable sources and added them to the article, and then based upon the existence of reliable sources, decided that the topic was notable per WP:GNG guidelines, at that point adding the rescue tag. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have done no wrong. Perhaps this section of the discussion should be renamed to "Following instructions for the use of a template" – Northamerica1000 should be banned from using the {{rescue}} template, despite following instructions for the use of the template. No personal offense is intended here toward the creator of this discussion. The very initial wording of the discussion is inaccurate and problematic, because it is a synthesis that mis-characterizes and typecasts me as a canvasser, simply by adding a template to an article, a template that any Wikipedia user can use. WP:CANVASS doesn't pertain to the addition of templates to articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Lastly, to address the following comment stated by the creator of this discussion:

"All of this is actually an improvement over his previous typical drive-by {{rescue}} tagging [209], none of which received any improvement during the taging that would save it from AFD, but it's clear the tag is being used to canvass !votes rather than to improve."

Notice how I made improvements to each and every (accessible) article that is listed in this link above. (I can't access the Edvin Hebovija link, because it was deleted.) This was not "drive-by" tagging whatsoever. Part of the use of the rescue template is to notify other Article rescue squadron members about topics that are perceived to actually be notable which are nominated for deletion from Wikipedia. Notice how all of the examples except one resulted in the article's being retained on Wikipedia. Use of the rescue tag in each of these articles was entirely congruent with the tags instructions at WP:RESCUETAG. It is a mis-characterization to refer to correct use of the rescue template as "typical drive-by rescue tagging", and inappropriate to state my actions as such. Again, I didn't create the instruction set for use of the template, I just abide by them.

Perhaps this administrative user who created this discussion should focus their efforts upon working to obtain consensus to change the actual instructions for use of the template, rather than singling me out and providing examples which actually show correct use of the template. Perhaps the creator of this discussion didn't read the instructions for use of the rescue template prior to creating this discussion. There is no stipulation that once a rescue tag has been added to an article, the person who placed it is then obligated to only work on that one article. Also, per common sense, I'm not responsible for whether or not other users contribute to a tagged article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – I shouldn't be banned from placing any template in good faith on Wikipedia articles. All of my personal uses of the {{Rescue}} template have been in accordance with the instructions for use of the template. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. In the past, I have noticed that Northamerica does not comply with the instructions: "As part of this tag's use please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and benefit our readers." He will slap on the tag but with no indication in the AfD discussion as to why. I once approached him on this on his Talk page, and, as I recall, he removed my comment. Because he didn't comply with the template's instructions, I removed the template. If anyone insists on diffs for all this, I suppose I can go back in history to find them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Creator of this discussion may have a conflict of interest an ulterior motive, against ARS

The creator of this discussion has expressed an opinion about the Article rescue squadron itself in their delete vote at the templates for discussion page Here.

"Obvious delete Not rationale can be presented for keeping. There are two keep arguments, 1) That it brings editors attention to an AFD. However, so does an AFD tag. 2) That it notifies the ARS project just like any other project. However, no other project has a biased "keep" from the get-go. See "audience" under WP:CANVASS. This template's purpose is to turn the tide of an AFD by creating a centralized location for inclusionist editors to scream "OH MY GOD, WE'LL LOOK KILOBYTES OF PRECIOUS DATA"!" --v/r - TP 14:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion may have been based upon the creator's personal opinions, rather than violation of Wikipedia policies. It also doesn't seem that the individual referred to instructions for use of the template prior to beginning this discussion. The creator of this discussion believes that the Article rescue squadron is biased, based upon their statement above. Due to this professed opinion about ARS, it conversely appears that the rationale for the creation of this discussion may be based upon their personal opinion of ARS as a whole. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's another, in response to a Keep !vote on the same page:

"Keep: The template has clearly served the goal of improving the encyclopedia over the years, which should be the highest priority and trump other concerns." —Torchiest talkedits 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"I doubt your assertion "improving the encyclopedia". I think the overabundance of crap topics that get saved by ARS hurts the encyclopedia's credibility."--v/r - TP 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Signed— Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you understand what a conflict of interest is. That's when someone trusted to be impartial stands to gain personally by favouring one option over another. It's not when someone expresses the same opinion in two different places. Reyk _YO! 23:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I entirely understand conflict of interest. The person who singled me out and has proposed that I be corrected for doing no wrong has some bias against the Article rescue squadron and the existence of the rescue template. To make it clearer for you, I've striked-out part of the section, and renamed it to, "an ulterior motive, against ARS". There is a conflict of interest in this case. The editor that placed my name here has motives against the Article rescue squadron WikiProject and article rescue in general. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Objectivity (journalism). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, that's the best you got? I laugh at you.--v/r - TP 17:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Significant Moderate bias concerns. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Rescue. This administrator may have problems correctly interpreting General notability guidelines (WP:GNG, et al.), and has stated that topics that pass WP:GNG are unworthy for publishing in Wikipedia, referring to them as "crap topics." Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not paper. I don't laugh at such concerns. However, I don't have any personal problem with you, as we haven't even ever met personally. Wikipedia is just one aspect of the world, it's not a medium to judge others in personally. Peace to you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Pooh. A lot of topics that are kept at Wikipedia are indeed "crap topics". That doesn't mean that an editor who refers to them as such has any problem interpreting WP:GNG. First, GNG is a guideline, not a policy, and an article can be deleted if it arguably meets WP:GNG. Second, at AfD, we are guided by the notability guidelines, but the decision is made by consensus. What you really mean is that TP doesn't agree with you. So what else is new?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Topic notability is based upon guidelines, to avoid the interjection of subjectivity regarding topics that should or shouldn't be in Wikipedia. What if these "crap topics" the individual mentions are actually notable per guidelines? Should there be a dictatorship denying readers this content, based upon their subjective opinions? No. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What admin action is being asked for here?

None that I can see. Section should be re-closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why there is this constant hurry to close this section? It was already closed and re-opened yesterday. There was clearly some kind of "incident" being reported. And there is a request to ban an editor from using the rescue tag. More than a few editors have weighed in on it already. Can't you just let this run its normal course? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Banning discussions are supposed to take place on AN. Here, we ask admins to take specific actions for specific incidents. What admin actions are being requested?, because the banning discussion is, frankly, a farce, and motivated by ideology rather than facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And why have these noticeboards become so fragmented? This is utterly confusing and impractical. Why not have one complaints noticeboard and let the admins put category tags on it as they see fit? The person who opened this section started by reporting an incident, didn't he? If the ensuing discussion crosses the lines into the territory of one of 20something other noticeboards, then is that his fault?

There is often something funny going on. If a certain discussion continues in one place, then after a while somebody will point out that it belongs on AN and not AN/I. But if the person who started the section opens related topics on other noticeboards, then he may get accused of forum shopping. That's a convenient catch 22. How is any new or even reasonably experienced editor supposed to make sense of that? And now you can probably tell me that this is something that should be discussed in yet another place. Yes, thank you. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, what is it you want an admin to do? This is not B&M central, it's an admin's notice board to draw the attention of admins to a problem so they can use their tools to correct it. What do you want them to do? Block someone? Protect an article? Delete something? Just what, exactly, is being requested? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" (see top of page). I agree board discipline broke down in 2011, if not earlier, but it's a systematic problem. Nobody Ent 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it my job to say what an admin is supposed to do? I am merely in the role of a witness here, and I should tell the admins what they should do? Somebody else started this section and again somebody else put in some kind of ban request. I am not even supporting the ban request as you can see in my comment. But is it up to one person to decide that this ban request will not succeed and hence close this early? You ask me "what is being requested" and next you try to close this with the message "request will not succeed". Well, then there must be some request, isn't it? And there are already some votes on that request. I find it strange that there is such a hurry to close this section (for the second time). MakeSense64 (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI's function changed to include general discussion at least as early as last March Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers_requesting_administrators.E2.80.99_advices_to_launch_a_study. Nobody Ent 11:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive731#Bell_Pottinger Nobody Ent 11:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually made a very specific request regarding this group. Their tendency to flood any AfD of a tagged article can really only be seen as canvassing. You may think they have a "good" purpose, but I am sure every group that seeks to game the system believes they have a "good" purpose. What matters are the results. I honestly do not see how banning this or that user from using the template is going to change much. Getting rid of the tag may be more helpful, but as long as the group has some way to rally its members to an article on AfD the result will remain the same. I do recognize that the principle of the group is great. That is why I suggested barring members of the group from commenting on AfDs if an article has been tagged. Doing that means they keep their tag and their group, while we don't get them bombarding an AfD with keep votes so they can actually focus on improving an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So the reward for doing the work of improvement would be that you don't get a say in the matter while idlers who do nothing can vote to delete your hard work!? Apart from being a perverse incentive this is still not a specific request for admin action. Warden (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion that someone with an interest in improving the project be banned from discussing improvements runs contrary to policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so dramatic. The reality is that without barring them from discussion on AfD, the project will forever by a vehicle for canvassing no matter who gets banned or blocked in the interim. Either the group is disbanded or it is barred from getting involved directly in the AfD. From what I can see, those are the only two ways to stop the group from being used to canvass articles in favor of the inclusionist perspective. That the group's page says it is not about voting keep is irrelevant if all the people who are part of the group are free to vote keep anyway and no one intends to stop it. Might as well tell members not to shove beans up their noses.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion implies that admins count heads rather than weigh AFD discussion merits per guideline and policy. And choosing to impune 400 members of an entire project because of perceived actions of a very few is also unhelpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is basically appealing to the way Wikipedia should be, rather than dealing with the reality of how Wikipedia actually works. Admins do, inevitably, act based on votes. Expecting them to evaluate the value of each individual claim and then balancing those claims with value against policy while figuring out how consensus applies is expecting admins to essentially decide for themselves whether each article is worthy of being kept or not. Sometimes there are indeed good and obvious reasons to discount votes, but it is not always easy to suss out. Also, I have a feeling if admins start ignoring an overwhelming number of keep votes because they are from ARS members there will be cries of "bloody murder" by editors like Dream (as has been the case if you look at that editor's user page), regardless of whether said members offered valuable arguments or not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see comments I've posted regarding this matter, directly above the "Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue" section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is none. Deletionists are wasting everyone's time...as usual. So, rather than improving articles, you have yourselves another fine (ha!) discussion about nothing. Way to go! Pyp! --WR Reader (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• An RfC/U for NorthAmerica strikes me as the appropriate thing to do. I also think that the ARS tag is a kind of canvassing, though--it's the very categorization and the listing on the ARS page that bothers me. But behaviorally speaking, I think a case can be made for an RfC here. The problem with NA, besides the walls of text and the wikilawyering, is the amount of utterly trivial 'references' they add, claiming that just about every fart is notable cause it was reported on in the Okefenokee Monthly. This discussion here will not go anywhere, however, and should be closed. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Northamerica's tagging does bug me. North tagged an article for rescue because of one book (significant coverage) and two download pages saying that sources do exist. I'm not sure if he really believes that download pages help show notability together with the book source. SL93 (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

{Moved to Village Pump: Policy by Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC))

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