Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive750

Arkellproductions

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

---

Please be on the lookout for User:Arkellproductions and his friends and sockpuppets who originated from YouTube where they posted a retarded comment on my video taken from a boat off the coast of Maui and thought the sound of a boat hitting a large wave with some ocean water splashing at me, was a sound of me sneezing. I explained what was REALLY going on but there was no sign of understanding and they not only continue to think I sneeze, but also they decide to escalate the situation and then comment on other videos and move to Wikipedia to vandalize my userpage. Once Arkellproductions got blocked, he apparently had a sockpuppet (or another friend) to continue vandalizing my userpage. This ongoing obsession with believing that I am a sneezer, happened two weeks ago so I thought the situation was over but a new sock recently showed up on YouTube when I got a comment that reads "maybe you sneezed and scared him off". NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 15:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What you're looking for is page protection. Blackmane (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've protected your user page indefinitely from editing by new and unregistered users. Should you want your user talk page similarly protected (doubtful as it may prevent genuine editors from contacting you), contact me. Regards, --RA (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but if I was purely looking for page protection due to excessive vandalism I'd go to WP:RFPP. But in this situation I am talking about a sock farm that originated from YouTube (and eventually reached Wikipedia). NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 16:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they have all been blocked with the last instance being over two weeks ago. Page protection will mean that if they re-appear again here they will be less able to vandalise your page. We can do nothing about here about the comments on YouTube. --RA (talk) 18:43, 30 April 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.

Let's talk about Ervin Zádor...

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – No admin action needed. Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

nice bloke, wasn't he?

Anyhow, earlier today I reverted a death claim on his article as I couldn't find any evidence of it (and it was added by a rather suspect user). Then later I see an IP added the claim, and I have now found some news stories - all in Hungarian, and all in the last couple of hours - and seen it updated on Hungarian wiki (at the time of my original revert, he was still alive on that). So I've updated the article and "dead"ed him.

So why am I bringing this to ANI? Simply because - I don't speak hungarian, and google translate barely does. This could be a hoax given the original user - I've no idea. So... some more eyes would be helpful. Egg Centric 21:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you request that the claims be properly verified before updating the page? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If you can't verify it, don't claim it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Give the guy a break, he's trying to do the right thing. Having said that - wrong forum - no admin action needed. Village pump might be better. Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

I don't speak the language but the linked Hungarian articles have enough recognizeable words to look like obituaries to me. You can generally get language help at WP:RDL pretty quickly. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Block review, please

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

---

I have no doubt that User:Distributor108 is going to start a jeremiad about the indefinite block I just applied to his account, which is why I'm bringing it up for consideration here. In brief: user harassed others with vandalism warnings, and after a lengthy process I unblocked him to give him another chance. He returned to his old pattern immediately, and the evidence is on his talk page under the block notice. I gladly submit to your scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support indef He was provided the chance to get a WP:CLUE, and enough WP:ROPE ... and decided to use the WP:ROPE instead (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I get the impression that this person is not a native speaker of English. If true, this may be contributing to a poor understanding of his tone in dealing with others. -- Avanu (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support At his RfA [1] he seems to have an adequate understanding of English and a clear agenda. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block for an entirely predictable return to the same battleground behaviour - I've already commented at User talk:Distributor108 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Very good block, especially considering this edit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  Oh dear, that was nasty -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  Holy moly I hadn't even seen that. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) Looks like a sane and sensible block to me! Pesky (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support this block as well. Baby, bathwater, bath tub and floor tiles all out the window please. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Nobody Ent 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Good block. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support and now the wider editing population knows why Sri Lanka articles are such a war zone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Good block. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 16:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Sarek's link and what happened to Ecoleetage after a similar email. Nyttend (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support, and I am wondering if this is a sock of User:Ecoleetage/User:Pastor Theo. --MuZemike 17:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Was Ecoleetage ever a jerk on-wiki? I don't recall that. Ecoleetage and Distributor have me and Bwilkins in common, that's it. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Ecole was exceedingly good at not giving that appearance on-wiki, even more so when he re-emerged as the good Pastor. I've little real doubt he's got more socks, but this account exhibits pretty much the opposite behaviour to Ecole and not in a way which would make for useful socking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  It was done by him and User:Astronomyinertia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.117.82 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support because of the diff Sarek provided, and because anyone who says "Holy moly!" deserves our support,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas ... Seriously, we're starting to be able to pick out at a casual glance those who Do Not Get It, never will, and only say yas'm-I'll-be-a-straight-shooter-from-now-on-sheriff for long enough to get unblocked the first couple of times out. Ravenswing 21:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I like to hope against all hope. I wouldn't be surprised if every single editor I've ever unblocked (with one exception) gets indeffed again soon, but I don't really mind. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Distributor108 has posted (yet another) unblock request, which (I know I'm ABFing here, but hey after that many warnings and blocks...) pretty much reeks of "I'll say sorry if it will get me unblocked" Blackmane (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support, 'nuff said. Bmusician 10:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• If no one minds, I'm going to close this as (unanimous) consensus reached regarding the block and Distributor108 remains indef'd Blackmane (talk) 13:30, 1 May 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:Handcuffed - inappropriate image gallery?

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – Images removed by User:Drmies no admin action required at present. Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

I'm never sure which way the pendulum is swinging on questionable images on user pages, so rather than remove the images myself, I thought I would ask for opinions here. User:Handcuffed has, among other things, images of a man being anally penetrated by a strap-on dildo, a woman in a small cage, a bound woman wearing a ball gag, and a penis in some kind of clear plastic chastity belt. Are such images appropriate for a user page? I believe that I could remove the images per WP:UP, but I would like to avoid a back and forth on exactly which images there are appropriate and which aren't, so it would nice know how the community feels about this particular case. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with their removal, per the Foundation's recent statement on avoiding shock value. There is no expectations of visiting a user's page to find explicit/extreme images, even if they are hosted at commons and used legitamately in articles about those specific topics on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think UP is quite clear on the matter. I have removed the entire gallery. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

None of those look very comfortable at all! 140.247.141.142 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I took absolutely zero offence at any of these images. I visit a user's user page to learn about that user, their choice of images tells me a lot about their interests. If I'm dealing with them I do it solely through their talk page, and I'd be surprised if I was the only one. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

UP is also there to prevent all kinds of mishaps. Say there's an educational project, and for one reason or another they run into that user page. Try to explain that, as a teacher. "Yeah we're working on an encyclopedia, and indeed he's getting it up the ass while rimming another woman. Now, we were talking about reliable sources..." That's not censorship, it's common sense, as far as I'm concerned. IP, for all we know the pegging lady was quite comfortable. She could put her beer down on the guy's butt and watch TV, or knit. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on it, but I think images can be added to a list that limits their use--preventing their use on user pages (I think that was done to irritate 4chan a while back). Might be a good idea to do that with some of the more, uncomfortable, images our cuffed friend had on his page. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be more like censorship, given you aren't considering the circumstances? And who gets to decide which images are automatically not user page friendly? There might be circumstances where one image, for instance, is justified on a user page but a gallery is not, or inclusion may be dependent on the context in which it is displayed. I'm also no expert, but that just kinda triggered a reflex in me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Who gets to decide? We do, in the form of the community. We vote all the time on whether someone's actions are egregious enough to warrant site or topic bans, and these are based far less in rigid standards than in our subjective opinions. Ravenswing 01:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the list is at MediaWiki:Bad image list, I guess images are supposed to have been used for "widespread vandalism" before they're put there--so not sure if these would qualify. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not strictly required and I have added a couple of pics there. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• the images do shock me, and I knew exactly what to expect from their descriptions. They have a valid place place on appropriate subject pages, pages where one would expect such images from the page titles. They would probably shock a large majority of our users, and they would not know what to expect from the page title on which they were used in this case. User pages are not for unlimited self=expression, but a service to users in general, and nothing which would make reasonable users uncomfortable is suitable there. Reasonable users does not include extreme prudes--by now, extreme prudes can be expected to know enough to stay away from Wikipedia, which is not designed to accommodate them. I will never compromise by removing an image however extreme that is used for an encyclopedic purpose, The use here was not of that nature. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. What an interesting group of censors-in-denial we have here. Do stop kidding yourselves. Of course you're censoring this stuff. It may be justified. (I'm not totally convinced.) But it's still censorship. I just hope that your respective moral compasses have not been totally destroyed by having to view material you have deemed unsuitable for others to see. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if the word "censorship" didn't have a tendency to drive people hysterical, folks would be less cautious in using it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 1 May 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.

Protection of Greg Bahnsen

The following discussion is closed. 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's obviously someone out there with a problem. For years, anon IP's regularly add a name to this article, probably a breach of BNP. It's low level - probably one attempt every couple of weeks. I seem to be the de facto custodian of the article, reverting the addition over and over. Previously this article was protected from editing by anon IPs but the protection has expired. Given that this problem hasn't gone away in years, can this article be protected again please. --HighKing (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:09, 1 May 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.

Socking and edit warring at Saint Thomas Christians

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

---

Over the past few days there has been a spate of edit warring from clearly connected editors: Jogytmathew ( blocked for 24 hours on April 29), TomGeorge55, and now the IPs 117.196.142.146 and 117.196.134.214 have been instating the same types of edits. As the accounts appear to be socks hopefully dealing with them will take care of the problem, otherwise semi-protection may be needed. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been informed that another editor made a request at WP:RFPP, which I didn't see.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Semied for a week. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editor

90.218.255.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

A couple of weeks ago I reported this IP editor here, who I suspected was deliberately adding false information or at best just guessing, and was advised to keep an eye on it. Since then the dubious additions have continued and all messages have been ignored (I tried asking them to just reply on their talk page to confirm if they'd read them and got no response), the only reaction to messages is that they stop or slow down for a day or so and then gradually pick up and continue exactly as before. This latest edit appears to be false (explained why in my revert). The persistent style errors have continued too, although these are less harmful they are also an indication that this editor is either wilfully ignoring or unable to understand the messages they are receiving.

This is a long-term problem, I think this person has been editing like this for over a year across various IPs (see here and here) but even taking just the current IP, they have over 1,000 edits since February. Even if I AGF that the errors were not deliberate, an editor who cannot understand or will not even acknowledge concerns about their edits is disruptive and I think at least a WP:COMPETENCE block is necessary. January (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am a proponent of blocks for incompetent editors who are highly incommunicative. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• I would agree with Drmies perspective, although I'm a failure at blocking. I've been in many ANIs this week and have yet to block anyone ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Go to AIV. Or ask Sitush for someone who needs to be blocked; I think he has a hit list. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not enough vandalistic edits to be considered a vandal. Plenty of legitimate edits. Doc talk 03:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how we can allow them a few vandalistic edits because they also make edits which look legitimate. As with the edit I highlighted above, it sometimes takes a bit of research to tell which is which and I'm concerned that some of the false edits are going unnoticed because they look innocuous at first sight. This, which I'm pretty sure is false (Ross King describes himself as "from Knightswood" in this interview stayed in the article for a week. January (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that edits like this are not good, as they introduce things into referenced material where the reference does not support it. Doc talk 06:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disruption is still disruption. Once all possible good faith solutions have been exhausted, the block is the only tool we have left, and I like having it on the table at ANI rather than being acted upon unilaterally. I'm not convinced that adding one more template is going to have any more effect than the 15 or so recent and existing ones on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The user has continued editing in the same vein while this discussion has been going on. According to this edit Kate Garraway's hobbies include sleeping. They are also making dubious additions of notable residents to city/district articles (I tried sourcing a few and found nothing). January (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Blocked IP strikes again with vandalism

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

---

Sorry to both the admin team, I appreciate how busy things can be around here. I previous notified ANI about an IP who went on a disruptive escapade, vandalising articles, refactoring talk pages, and posting personal attacks/harassing users for no reason. Discospinster (talk · contribs) issued them with a 31 hour block on April 29. However, since the block has expired, the IP has continued to post attacks. Firstly by telling Discospinter to "go to hell - fuck you", and also blatant vandalism on Snow White and the Huntsman by changing the word huntsman to "cuntsman". I think its time someone dealt with this one severely. And if possible, as a precaution, would it be possible to semi-protect my user page, as I have an inkling that the IP may go on a rampage and start vandalising that too. Thanks folks - Wesley☀Mouse 10:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Just remembered Dennis Brown informed me the other day to report this to AIV next time it happened; so done just that. Wesley☀Mouse 11:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

A racist ranting about "white slaveowners" on "African American"

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

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=490144930 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=489978779

Have already had problems with this guy (made an ANI a few days ago, apparently he's got a huge history of abusing other editors, edit warring, etc)

Heavily implies that black Africans are "superior".. rants and raves about "white and native american slaveowners".. want to suppress any mention of admixture on African American and keep it as a purely "black african" page. It's just so obviously the racist rantings of a black supremacist. Sorry but WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY have really been stretched to their limits by this user - BAN THIS RACIST, please. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Leaf Green Warrior, please stop throwing the word racist around like it's children's candy. You've referred to all the editors who disagree with you at Talk:African American as racists, and it's time to stop. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What Malik said. I see nothing racist in these edits. What I do see is some incredible naivete in this one. One-drop theory, anyone? Also, a bit of clicking reveals that this user of fewer than 200 edits has already been blocked once, has managed to piss off a bunch of other editors (including apparently everyone on that talk page) and a bunch of administrators, and is in possession of a battlefield mentality mounted on top of a soapbox. If this keeps up the user should acquaint themselves with another probably racist guideline, WP:BOOMERANG (possibly derogatory of Australian Aborigines...). Earlier, user declared themselves about our edit-warring policies in the defense of some race or other--see their talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The previous thread (don't know how I missed it--maybe I'm racist) is here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive749#Insults_from_user. It seems B-Machine also has a bit of a temper, but I'm not really very offended by this comment: though the words "troll" and "racist" are used the tone is markedly different from Warrior's. B-Machine has been blocked for harassment, for this remark--but that was in 2010. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Malik "You've referred to all the editors who disagree with you at Talk:African American as racists" - this is a lie. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The bigger problem with respect to the article African American has been Leaf Green Warrior. He has been blocked once for a 3RR violation and has twice been warned by administrators here User talk:Leaf Green Warrior#April 2012 and here User talk:Leaf Green Warrior#Courtesy reminder...... (the administrator is John Carter). Despite the warnings, Leaf has continued to accuse anybody who disagrees with him as either a racist or a person guilty of racism.

He has been forum shopping and this current charge is just another example of this. Others are here [4] and here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive749#Request for support - racism, improper admin conduct? and here Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 April 24#I feel like I'm outnumbered by ignorant people on an article. What should my next move be?. The theme is always the same -- Leaf is right and everyone who disagrees with him is not just wrong but is a racist or ignorant.

The pattern of response from other editors is likewise the same. Nobody agrees with his charges, nobody agrees with his content position, and many well intentioned editors have asked him to cool it. Apparently, according to this warning, Leaf has also used different identities in the past for this type of conduct.

The pure audacity for Leaf to charge other editors of what he is doing regularly is astounding. Warnings and good advice and a 24 hour block have not changed his behavior. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sweet mother of spam! Can we just keep this directly related to the ANI report, as opposed to discussing the intricacies of African Americans? In my opinion, the editor I made this ANI about posted racist comments. If you disagree that this was racist, then fine, just say so and state a simple reason, no point in ranting about irrelevant concepts. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You obviously did not come into this ANI with clean hands. It is certainly relevant to examine whether the accuser is even more guilty of the alleged offense than the accused. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the last ANI [5] I expressed some disappointment in both editors, including B-machine for this [6], although I made it clear that LGW wasn't blameless and offered "however, if either ends up here again soon, I would likely be less gentle in my approach, as would others. " and I stand by my statements. In the two examples offered, I see what I consider "heated debate", not racism. I'm known to be quite tolerant of heated debate that falls short of incivility as I believe it is an essential part of discussing controversial topics. However, I am not very tolerant of people falsely claiming that someone else is a racist, simply because they disagree, or simply stirring the pot to bully those that object to them. I would agree that a boomerang is likely overdue, and would gladly support anyone wishing to implement it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

See above Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Leaf, you really need to take a few deep breaths and consider what's going on around you, that you find yourself so completely isolated from all the editors here in the project. Consider that maybe you are mistaken, or at least that you are going at the matter in totally the wrong manner. I'm a classic cracker (Scots-Irish and English, some Cherokee on my granddaddy's side), but I don't perceive Malik's history here to be one of racism; indeed, he's one of our most solid editors on race-related issues. This is neither a Klavern nor a Nation of Islam site; this is a bunch of fallible human beings, each doing the best we can to uphold our standards here in a civil and impartial manner. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Malik"? The ANI I filed is about B-Machine, not Malik. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Orange Mike, but B-Machine is the subject of this filing, not me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The pattern is the same, as is the conclusion, since you are one of the "either" in that statement. I've already said that Malik's B-machine's actions were not actionable. Your actions are, and the prior ANI demonstrates this point. We are not puppets here solely to examine the diffs you bring to us, we are fellow editors and will always consider the behavior of all parties in the dispute. In this dispute, I believe your actions to be in bad faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop droning on about Malik. This ANI is about comments made by B-Machine, not Malik. Learn to read before commenting on ANI please. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:02, 1 May 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:Doktorbuk - removal of cited content and 3RR violations

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

---

Please see the history of Sandwell Council election, 2012. User:Doktorbuk keeps reverting sourced, neutral content without discussion in violation to the 3RR policy. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Instructive indeed. Bear in mind that Doktorbuk has been editing in good standing for eight years when you read the following interactions:

• revert vandalism, made NPOV
• Please stop removing referenced material from the Sandwell article. Please read WP:VANDALISM.
• Undid revision 489936321 by Doktorbuk (talk) vandalism

This, for a trivial little spat whereby Doktorbuk removed a Daily Mirror-referenced bit of local drama where the local Labour party accused the Tories of "sabotage" for running a candidate with the same name as the Labour one on grounds of wording and weak sourcing. Note no talk page interaction at all: straight to declarations of vandalism and then off to ANI. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to identify any other recent interaction malfunctions between Lugnuts and the rest of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Tumperwad isn't applying a neutral point of view towards me, due to a recent discussion he's raised. I urge another admin to look at this, and ignore his bias. Lugnuts (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The thing is, Lugnuts, I really don't think you should have brought this here. Have you spent time looking at United Kingdom local elections, 2012 ? You will see "Details" linked to individual articles. Not one of these contains links to the kind of stories you are trying to include in Sandwell's article. You will also note that, despite your best efforts to create stub articles, they all include full candidate details for each and every ward. This is because, after an AfD process, the community ensured that any article has to contain enough encyclopedic material to justify its existence. I fear you are not after creating these articles to contain full ward-by-ward details with each and every candidate, and therefore are creating more work for the UK politics community than is necessary.

With regards to the article itself, I note you were probably vandalising Wikipedia in the first place by creating the article. If we go to the history, we see this - [7]. The article is incomplete - with only one ward and the 'trivial' story linked to it, which I contend to be against RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and NPOV, as I have said in each and every edit summary. You have ignored my edit summaries. You included a blank Liberal Democrat candidate - against the processes carried out by the UK politics and election community. You did not bother to seek the other nominated candidates - I contend you did this because you ONLY wanted to include the trivial news story. I suggest that you have no interest in the UK local elections, as your contributions show you don't, and therefore started the article just to make some kind of 'point' about the candidates or the comedic nature of the story. Are you a member of the Labour or Conservative parties? Why did you include the words "election sabotage" in the article?

I am one member of small team of UK politics and election community members who are very proud and protective of the work we do each year to ensure that the Wikipedia articles on each and every British election is to a high standard. I asked you on your talk page to point me to any other article which links to this kind of campaign event or story. I doubt you will answer this request, or find an example. The community strives to keep these articles NPOV. You are striving to do the exact opposite. I am not guilty of vandalism. I spent this morning typing each and every candidate into the article to make sure it reached the minimum standards expected by Wikipedia - you have spent the day causing minor acts of vandalism, creating stub articles with no intent to fill in the details of candidates nominated or complete the 'index' article at United Kingdom local elections, 2012, and submitting a vandalism request for WP:POINT-y reasons,.

In summary, I am trying to avoid UK election articles having links to POV material, RECENTISM/NOTNEWS stories, and general trivia. I therefore do not agree that I am a vandal as charged doktorb _words^deeds 12:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I included the term "election sabotage" as that was the term reported in the press. I wont insult your intelligence by explaining that one. Hardly trivial at all - this is just the sort of hook that DYK would cream for. Lugnuts (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• We cannot accept "election sabotage" from the Daily Mail. Also, maybe Doktorbuk broke the 3R line, but so did you. This minor content issue is not for ANI, and I have removed the content in light also of Thumperward's notes above. Such claims need rigorous sourcing, not tabloid articles. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the word "sabotage" as that was giving Doktorbuk such a problem and it's cited from multiple sources. Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There was an election in California in 2006 where two people named Kathy Finley both ran. Though that election was for an at-large position, and they weren't really running "against" each other since there were enough open seats for both of them. The news stories were amused about it at the time. This one seems to have more potential since it's possible that it was done on purpose. ☮Soap☮ 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Soap. Lugnuts (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also note that Doktorbuk, despite having "8 years of experience" on WP, is now removing references from articles without any reason why. See here and here. How is that acceptable? The correct answer is that it is not. Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Lugnuts, it is worth noting at this point that you have not answered any of the direct questions I have put on your talk page. You have conducted yourself on my talk page with uncivility, goading and sarcasm. I spent this morning finding ward details and candidates for the forthcoming election, including finding a direct source to the specific council's SOPN - what constructive work towards the project have you done? doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I've started all those articles you couldn't be bothered to do, for one. I don't respond to bullying demands from you on my talkpage. Please be more civil. Please explain why you are removing references? This vandalism is not acceptable and you should know better. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are showing signs of not reading my comments on your talk page. I explained why there were so many gaps - we prefer to source all wards and each and every candidate, following an AfD process at which a stub article was considered not encyclopedic material. Hence the project (with only a limited amount of editors and resources) prefers to spend time on getting an article right, and doing it slowly, than getting dozens of articles wrong, quickly. As for this claim of removing citations, I have to point out that I REPLACED, not REMOVED, providing the article with the specific link to the council's SOPN. doktorb _words^deeds 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you REMOVED the references. Is the ref there with your edit? No. That's removal. Disgusting that someone who claims to have 8 years worth of experience on here can't grasp that. Lugnuts (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I replaced one reference with another - my replacement was the specific council's SOPN, which is relevant to the specific article. doktorb _words^deeds 10:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Coda

I have chosen to retire from the project rather than continue with this matter. doktorb _words^deeds 14:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I looked forward to discussing this with you. Obviously, you have nothing to hide by disappearing.... Lugnuts (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It means he has nothing to hide, Chris. Lugnuts (talk) 19:03, 1 May 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.

"Keep local" files uploaded by retired editor

As Giano appears to have really retired this time, is it acceptable to remove the {{Keep local}} templates from the files he uploaded? This would apply to files uploaded by Giano, Giano II, and GiacomoReturned. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that Giano expressly asked others to look out for those images, so it's best to leave things as they are. Anyone who wants to copy them (as opposed to move them) to the Commons can do that, if it's not done already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag? What does retirement have to do with it? 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And is there a reason a notification of this discussion wasn't left on his page? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Notice posted. Nobody Ent 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As commons is out of the foundation stated project scope and apparently under the control of a really small clique of editors - we should stop moving any files there - and office action remove the ability to allow uploads to the commons and start keeping all files here so as to limit/totally remove any value commons has moving forward. - Youreallycan 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about the merits of Commons, merely what to do with these files. I don't think anyone's opinion (positive or negative) of Commons is welcome here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, no one gets to own a discussion here. YRC makes a valid point. The people who run commons are not to be trusted. But at present, it's general practice for those bots to move free photos to commons. Is there anything special about these particular photos, that they shouldn't be "shared"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of whether to move X from A to B logically would include the merits of B. Nobody Ent 23:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

His retirement (un-huh) doesn't change his edits. Among those was the insistence that those files be kept local. Lacking a good reason to change, they should be left as requested. Resolute 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The way things are done currently, there's no justification for "keep local", unless there's a question about whether they are free. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One justification I have heard mentioned is that Commons does not inform the original uploader when the files are nominated for deletion or other important changes are made to the files. There have been instances where uploaders that are not active on Commons have had their files deleted without them being informed, and some acrimony was the result. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Resolute here: the justification for keeping it locally is that's what the uploader requested. It's generally polite to respect the wishes of the uploader unless there's a compelling reason not to. I'm happy to have my free images moved to Commons but it'd be a bit rude for me to disregard the express wishes of someone who didn't want that. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, hold on thar, Baba Looey. Since when does the uploader of a photo get to "own" that photo here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say we were required to honor their wishes. Just that it would be courteous. 28bytes (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I really hate, and don't understand, everything about the way we handle "files", throughout the entire project. Not that this statement is particularly relevant here, but if youreallycan gets to rant then so do I!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• While this isn't entirely a rant, I can explain quite simply why Giano (in his various accounts) took to marking his images "keep local". Images that were uploaded to Commons mysteriously got deleted. Some got overwritten by people who uploaded a different (and usually inferior) image. Some got corrupted when there was a drive to change formats, thus adversely affecting featured content on this project. None of this was visible within this project, because it all happened at Commons. Some of the images (like floor plans) that he was revising or that were incomplete got uploaded and then deleted as being out of scope. I don't understand this kneejerk desire to strip this project of its contents just because there's something similar within the WMF umbrella. There are quite a few editors who would rather swim in boiling oil than have to log into Commons. Heck, this project downloads a copy of images from Commons when the image is going to appear on the main page - because Commons doesn't protect them adequately enough.

  This is an attempt to change the English Wikipedia policy on retention of images, done through the back door. Let's not establish a precedent that weakens the ability of this project to maintain its quality, directly or indirectly. Risker (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm less worried about mysterious deletions than I am about the active vendetta conducted by a couple of the porn hobbyists there against images uploaded by their critics. I opined in a deletion debate there a while back and first thing you know, lo and behold, the same day or the next a few old images I had uploaded were all of the sudden tagged up by one of the usual suspects there. It was a truly amazing coincidence. Since then, I'm using KEEP LOCAL on everything. Those people are out of control, in my opinion. Under no circumstances should anyone overrule the uploading editor's probably well-justified wishes regarding the keep local tag. Duplicate the piece for Commons if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What were the grounds for deletion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking back, I see it was one file deleted out on a template discrepancy; after being flagged I switched out one template for a more precise one ("PD-work of Soviet government," I recall) and Our Hero deleted it anyway, even though the template was absolutely valid. Other of my uploaded files were merely mentioned in a generally snarky and unspecific comment. It was 100% "payback"... Carrite (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: Main Page files that exist on Commons are usually protected by bot these days. {{Uploaded from Commons}} is only used in rare cases. —howcheng {chat} 17:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I never interacted with Giano much, but in general I'm not much in favor of messing around with someone else's files; especially when they're not around to address any questions. If it were a matter of improving an article - sure, but I can't fathom that en.wp is so depraved of disk space that there's a need to go about deleting things just for the fun of it. — Ched :  ?  11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I greatly disapprove of this Commons bashing. Anyway, the point here is that the uploader gets to choose whether to upload to Wikipedia or to Commons - except, that is, according to the WP:Image use policy, a gallery of indiscriminate images should be moved to Commons. These images are not AFAIK indiscriminate, so there is no mandate to move them to Commons. There's no prohibition on public domain images at WP. An editor can legitimately upload to both projects, thereby hedging their bets regarding which one will be more infected by deletionists in the future. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you study the way the Xandlerliptak case was handled, you will discover that commons has no ethical intregrity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Relevant notes: Users of an image are notified when it is up for deletion on Commons, by User:CommonsNotificationBot. Images are re-uploaded to En on request by User:Commons fair use upload bot as fair use candidates. Wikipedia has every opportunity to recover files that are deleted on Commons. I don't object to users uploading Commons-compatible files to enwiki if they find it more convenient or don't know any better, but trying to suppress a move just because Commons is better at detecting copyright violations is trying to do an end-run around the licensing resolution. Dcoetzee 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a really impressive misrepresentation of why {{keep local}} exists, which Risker summarizes accurately above. Personally, I have no problem with my images (over 400 of them now) being hosted at commons. But lets not pretend that there aren't very legitimate issues facing Commons which led to things like this. Besides, there is nothing preventing someone from copying such files to Commons, but the request that the local copy not be deleted in the process is fair and legitimate. Resolute 02:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If anyone can name one file deleted at Commons which is not a copyvio and was in use or would have been kept at enwp, I will undelete it myself. Such an outcome is unacceptable. If there is a personal vendetta going on, keep local is just avoiding the conflict so the same Commons users can go on to hurt others - it's not a solution. If visibility of changes are an issue, another bot can be set up to notify people about new versions. Keeping two versions of files will just end up doubling the work of anyone who wants to make updates to files or file description pages. Merging the divergent histories of thousands of file description pages is not my idea of fun. Dcoetzee 09:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Some months ago, Centpacrr uploaded a photo of himself, and Fastily deleted it, then refused to talk about it. Centpacrr had to go through all manner of hoops on commons to get it reinstated. It shouldn't have to be that way. That kind of thing is another reason I find commons wanting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lets respect the wishes of the uploader unless there is a good reason not to --Guerillero | My Talk 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Frankly speaking, I do not see any problem here. An image CAN be uploaded to Commons and at the same time kept locally. This will protect it locally from possible improvement of the description which can be done on Commons but not seen here, but otherwise I see no problems (assuming the image itself is not problematic).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment First of all if users uploaded to Commons they would be notified if one of their files was changes. And you can even mark "E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed" on Commons so all uploaders have to do is to add the files they want to monitor to their watch list. You can add hundreds of files in a few seconds if you want so the argument "I do not get a notice if file is deleted or changed" is not valid. Just move all the files to Commons add the files to the watch list and then delete. Then you get a notice when your files are changed. It is easy and simple!

And why should uploads have a veto? If I create an article I can't add a "Keep your hands away from my article!"-template.

The problem with having the same file in two places (or more) is that if there is a copyright issue you risk that all versions of the file is deleted. I have found several files on lb-wiki and ms-wiki where the original file on en-wiki was deleted years ago as a copyvio. And if someone corrects the description it will not be visible everywhere. So you risk that someone reads an out dated and pehaps wrong description.

The only logic and wise thing to do is to move all free files to Commons and to make sure that there is enough editors on Commons to watch and "nurse" the files. --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• The two TfDs on the template - and the most recent was just last year - had strong consensus the template was valid and should stay. Its text "The uploader or another editor requests that the local copy of this file be kept." has already been tested by the community and found to be acceptable. It has no restriction on an image being available at Commons. The OP here gave no reason why the template ought to be removed or his wishes no longer respected, and I can see no reason to stop doing so even if the user has turned their back or simply left. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong concensus? Like a few hundred users saying "Keep it"? Or a handfull of users that do not like Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make false assumptions. I like Commons just fine, but believe we should respect the uploader's wishes unless there is a compelling reason not to. My question at the top of this thread – "Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag?" – remains unanswered. If there is a compelling reason to remove the tags for these particular images, please let me know, because I have not heard it, despite specifically asking. Again, please do not assume that everyone who respects uploaders' preferences has anything against Commons. 28bytes (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is this dicussion still ongoing? There are enaugh issues with commons to respect the wishes of the uploader. In this case our featured content should not be at the mercy of the throublemakers at commons. Agathoclea (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you remove "at Commons" and insert "from Germany", "from France", "from China" etc. you could probably be called a racist. I thought that the idea of wiki was to work together and improve and not spread hate... Please visit Commons and talk to some users. You would probably find out that not all users on Commons are dicks. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sure - and there are some fantastic contributors producing the finest work. But there is a hardcore set of editors that ruin it. In the case of the editor whose pcitures we talk about who had pictures used in featured content overwritten spoiling featured content. Also the reputation of commons is sullied by virtual exhibitionists who like flashing porn at every impossible corner. Agathoclea (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Overwriting files - with the exception of the uploader's consent - is generally against the policy of Commons and should be immediately reported.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the time, if you go looking for nudity or sexuality images, you will find them on Commons. Yes, you may even find them where you didn't expect them, because the images are correctly named and categorised to reflect their content. There is no conspiracy to "flash porn at every impossible corner", there is however a desire to not have things deleted simply because people don't like them. As for the overwriting files thing - yes, it happens occasionally, but if it weren't possible, surely that would mean all featured articles on en.wp should be fully protected, nay, globally locked to prevent ALL editing, including by admins. It's a wiki, sometimes you get vandalism, either intentional or unintentional. You revert it and get on with life. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone overwrite we can revert and we can protect the important files so that ip-users and brand new users can't edit them. We can even protect high-risk / high-use files so only admins can edit them. But we can't protect all files. Files on en-wiki are also vandalized and sometimes it take years to find out. That is how it is on a wiki. The best would be if 20, 200 or 2.000 good users would visit Commons more often and give a hand. And if you spot a problem feel free to make suggestions (blocks, protections edit filters ...). --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that deletion discussions on Commons seem to be have a lot of random closures that seem to be based on ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT rather than copyright or scope. Such abberences do not inspire confidence in Commons processes.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Keep local" is just a compromise to appease editors who complain when their images are moved to commons. If the editor is retired, the only reason for the template is moot, and the images should just be moved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons says "Do not transfer files when the uploader specifically requests that their files are not moved to Commons." What am I missing here? 28bytes (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't forbid that files are moved to Commons unless there is a copyright issue. You could equest that the local file is not deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC

Well, "moved" implies deletion here. "Copied" is fine, anyone has the right to copy any free images to Commons. (Although, of course, if anyone prefers their work not be hosted on Commons, it would be courteous to respect that preference.) 28bytes (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be the license violation. I prefer the my pictures should not be used commercially, however, I do not reasonably expect that anybody would respect this my wish since the license states otherwise. Though I personally would probably not copy a file on Commons if the file page here says that the uploader has a strong opinion on the matter, even if it is legally sound.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be the license violation? 28bytes (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To require that the file does not get uploaded on Commons. If the file has been uploaded anywhere under CC BY-SA and does not have issues, it can be uploaded on Commons irrespectively of what the uploader thinks about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Yes, requiring it is not permitted, although requesting it certainly is. I think your approach of choosing not to copy an image against the uploader's wishes is a very responsible one. 28bytes (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone only allows files on Wikipedia under the condition that they are not moved to Commons, we already have a perfectly valid template for that: {{di-replaceable fair use}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on people, why is this even an issue? Have people nothing better to do? I thought we have backlogs of thousands and thousands of transferable images, whose uploaders have stated no objections against transfer, more than the transferrers will ever be able to handle? Can't people just go and work on a few of those, and leave bothering about those few special ones for later? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request: User:Admarkroundsquare

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

---

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

It appears this user was hardblocked by User:Orangemike for nothing but their user name, which included their freely disclosed company name (Round Square). The entry in the block log reads:

User:Admarkroundsquare – "14:06, 26 April 2012 Orangemike (talk | contribs) blocked Admarkroundsquare (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{spamusernameblock}})"

This block was in direct violation of WP:ORGNAME:

"Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username."

as well as WP:UAAI:

"Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted, and users who adopt such a username may be blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional. However, users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username."

Instead we have a situation here where an individual freely disclosed their association, did not make a single problematic edit, yet is blocked from creating another account that is compliant with user name policy. This is wrong. --JN466 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

All other concerns aside, it's incorrect to hardblock but leave a softblock template for an editor - we owe it to our users, all of them, to provide accurate information with regard to things they can or should do, and preventing someone from creating an account while telling them "all you have to do is create another account!" is poor adminning, no matter what they've been blocked for. OrangeMike, you really ought to take some care in lining up your blocks and your block notices to avoid issues like this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Page histories: useful things! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Cf. [8]. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Fluffernutter, OrangeMike didn't leave a {{softerblock}} template; someone else came along and replaces the {{uw-spamblock}} he used with a new template, but didn't alter the block type accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected. ErrantX, that made things a bit awkward. Double-check these in the future? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, that didn't even occur to me :) sorry. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Take action on bad edits, don't kneecap editors on general principles — that's the consensus policy. Orgname has been misinterpreted in this case, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• It's not an unblock, but I'm going to modify the block so that they are free to create a new username without jumping thru any more hoops, and leave a message to that effect on their talk page. If anyone wants to overrule me and just unblock altogether, feel free, I won't mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm just curious, has anyone just asked Orangemike to unblock? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There was a long prior conversation at Wikipedia:AN#Orange_Mike where Orangemike defended the block and made clear he did not want to be bothered. --JN466 22:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Floquenbeam's solution, and that's what I'd do if I was handling this myself. Everyone, lay off the rhetoric, we had quite enough of that the last time through. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:04, 1 May 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.

"Keep local" files uploaded by retired editor

As Giano appears to have really retired this time, is it acceptable to remove the {{Keep local}} templates from the files he uploaded? This would apply to files uploaded by Giano, Giano II, and GiacomoReturned. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that Giano expressly asked others to look out for those images, so it's best to leave things as they are. Anyone who wants to copy them (as opposed to move them) to the Commons can do that, if it's not done already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag? What does retirement have to do with it? 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And is there a reason a notification of this discussion wasn't left on his page? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Notice posted. Nobody Ent 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As commons is out of the foundation stated project scope and apparently under the control of a really small clique of editors - we should stop moving any files there - and office action remove the ability to allow uploads to the commons and start keeping all files here so as to limit/totally remove any value commons has moving forward. - Youreallycan 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about the merits of Commons, merely what to do with these files. I don't think anyone's opinion (positive or negative) of Commons is welcome here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, no one gets to own a discussion here. YRC makes a valid point. The people who run commons are not to be trusted. But at present, it's general practice for those bots to move free photos to commons. Is there anything special about these particular photos, that they shouldn't be "shared"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of whether to move X from A to B logically would include the merits of B. Nobody Ent 23:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

His retirement (un-huh) doesn't change his edits. Among those was the insistence that those files be kept local. Lacking a good reason to change, they should be left as requested. Resolute 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The way things are done currently, there's no justification for "keep local", unless there's a question about whether they are free. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One justification I have heard mentioned is that Commons does not inform the original uploader when the files are nominated for deletion or other important changes are made to the files. There have been instances where uploaders that are not active on Commons have had their files deleted without them being informed, and some acrimony was the result. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Resolute here: the justification for keeping it locally is that's what the uploader requested. It's generally polite to respect the wishes of the uploader unless there's a compelling reason not to. I'm happy to have my free images moved to Commons but it'd be a bit rude for me to disregard the express wishes of someone who didn't want that. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, hold on thar, Baba Looey. Since when does the uploader of a photo get to "own" that photo here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say we were required to honor their wishes. Just that it would be courteous. 28bytes (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I really hate, and don't understand, everything about the way we handle "files", throughout the entire project. Not that this statement is particularly relevant here, but if youreallycan gets to rant then so do I!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• While this isn't entirely a rant, I can explain quite simply why Giano (in his various accounts) took to marking his images "keep local". Images that were uploaded to Commons mysteriously got deleted. Some got overwritten by people who uploaded a different (and usually inferior) image. Some got corrupted when there was a drive to change formats, thus adversely affecting featured content on this project. None of this was visible within this project, because it all happened at Commons. Some of the images (like floor plans) that he was revising or that were incomplete got uploaded and then deleted as being out of scope. I don't understand this kneejerk desire to strip this project of its contents just because there's something similar within the WMF umbrella. There are quite a few editors who would rather swim in boiling oil than have to log into Commons. Heck, this project downloads a copy of images from Commons when the image is going to appear on the main page - because Commons doesn't protect them adequately enough.

  This is an attempt to change the English Wikipedia policy on retention of images, done through the back door. Let's not establish a precedent that weakens the ability of this project to maintain its quality, directly or indirectly. Risker (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm less worried about mysterious deletions than I am about the active vendetta conducted by a couple of the porn hobbyists there against images uploaded by their critics. I opined in a deletion debate there a while back and first thing you know, lo and behold, the same day or the next a few old images I had uploaded were all of the sudden tagged up by one of the usual suspects there. It was a truly amazing coincidence. Since then, I'm using KEEP LOCAL on everything. Those people are out of control, in my opinion. Under no circumstances should anyone overrule the uploading editor's probably well-justified wishes regarding the keep local tag. Duplicate the piece for Commons if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What were the grounds for deletion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking back, I see it was one file deleted out on a template discrepancy; after being flagged I switched out one template for a more precise one ("PD-work of Soviet government," I recall) and Our Hero deleted it anyway, even though the template was absolutely valid. Other of my uploaded files were merely mentioned in a generally snarky and unspecific comment. It was 100% "payback"... Carrite (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: Main Page files that exist on Commons are usually protected by bot these days. {{Uploaded from Commons}} is only used in rare cases. —howcheng {chat} 17:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I never interacted with Giano much, but in general I'm not much in favor of messing around with someone else's files; especially when they're not around to address any questions. If it were a matter of improving an article - sure, but I can't fathom that en.wp is so depraved of disk space that there's a need to go about deleting things just for the fun of it. — Ched :  ?  11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I greatly disapprove of this Commons bashing. Anyway, the point here is that the uploader gets to choose whether to upload to Wikipedia or to Commons - except, that is, according to the WP:Image use policy, a gallery of indiscriminate images should be moved to Commons. These images are not AFAIK indiscriminate, so there is no mandate to move them to Commons. There's no prohibition on public domain images at WP. An editor can legitimately upload to both projects, thereby hedging their bets regarding which one will be more infected by deletionists in the future. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you study the way the Xandlerliptak case was handled, you will discover that commons has no ethical intregrity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Relevant notes: Users of an image are notified when it is up for deletion on Commons, by User:CommonsNotificationBot. Images are re-uploaded to En on request by User:Commons fair use upload bot as fair use candidates. Wikipedia has every opportunity to recover files that are deleted on Commons. I don't object to users uploading Commons-compatible files to enwiki if they find it more convenient or don't know any better, but trying to suppress a move just because Commons is better at detecting copyright violations is trying to do an end-run around the licensing resolution. Dcoetzee 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a really impressive misrepresentation of why {{keep local}} exists, which Risker summarizes accurately above. Personally, I have no problem with my images (over 400 of them now) being hosted at commons. But lets not pretend that there aren't very legitimate issues facing Commons which led to things like this. Besides, there is nothing preventing someone from copying such files to Commons, but the request that the local copy not be deleted in the process is fair and legitimate. Resolute 02:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If anyone can name one file deleted at Commons which is not a copyvio and was in use or would have been kept at enwp, I will undelete it myself. Such an outcome is unacceptable. If there is a personal vendetta going on, keep local is just avoiding the conflict so the same Commons users can go on to hurt others - it's not a solution. If visibility of changes are an issue, another bot can be set up to notify people about new versions. Keeping two versions of files will just end up doubling the work of anyone who wants to make updates to files or file description pages. Merging the divergent histories of thousands of file description pages is not my idea of fun. Dcoetzee 09:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Some months ago, Centpacrr uploaded a photo of himself, and Fastily deleted it, then refused to talk about it. Centpacrr had to go through all manner of hoops on commons to get it reinstated. It shouldn't have to be that way. That kind of thing is another reason I find commons wanting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lets respect the wishes of the uploader unless there is a good reason not to --Guerillero | My Talk 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Frankly speaking, I do not see any problem here. An image CAN be uploaded to Commons and at the same time kept locally. This will protect it locally from possible improvement of the description which can be done on Commons but not seen here, but otherwise I see no problems (assuming the image itself is not problematic).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment First of all if users uploaded to Commons they would be notified if one of their files was changes. And you can even mark "E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed" on Commons so all uploaders have to do is to add the files they want to monitor to their watch list. You can add hundreds of files in a few seconds if you want so the argument "I do not get a notice if file is deleted or changed" is not valid. Just move all the files to Commons add the files to the watch list and then delete. Then you get a notice when your files are changed. It is easy and simple!

And why should uploads have a veto? If I create an article I can't add a "Keep your hands away from my article!"-template.

The problem with having the same file in two places (or more) is that if there is a copyright issue you risk that all versions of the file is deleted. I have found several files on lb-wiki and ms-wiki where the original file on en-wiki was deleted years ago as a copyvio. And if someone corrects the description it will not be visible everywhere. So you risk that someone reads an out dated and pehaps wrong description.

The only logic and wise thing to do is to move all free files to Commons and to make sure that there is enough editors on Commons to watch and "nurse" the files. --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• The two TfDs on the template - and the most recent was just last year - had strong consensus the template was valid and should stay. Its text "The uploader or another editor requests that the local copy of this file be kept." has already been tested by the community and found to be acceptable. It has no restriction on an image being available at Commons. The OP here gave no reason why the template ought to be removed or his wishes no longer respected, and I can see no reason to stop doing so even if the user has turned their back or simply left. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong concensus? Like a few hundred users saying "Keep it"? Or a handfull of users that do not like Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make false assumptions. I like Commons just fine, but believe we should respect the uploader's wishes unless there is a compelling reason not to. My question at the top of this thread – "Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag?" – remains unanswered. If there is a compelling reason to remove the tags for these particular images, please let me know, because I have not heard it, despite specifically asking. Again, please do not assume that everyone who respects uploaders' preferences has anything against Commons. 28bytes (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is this dicussion still ongoing? There are enaugh issues with commons to respect the wishes of the uploader. In this case our featured content should not be at the mercy of the throublemakers at commons. Agathoclea (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you remove "at Commons" and insert "from Germany", "from France", "from China" etc. you could probably be called a racist. I thought that the idea of wiki was to work together and improve and not spread hate... Please visit Commons and talk to some users. You would probably find out that not all users on Commons are dicks. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sure - and there are some fantastic contributors producing the finest work. But there is a hardcore set of editors that ruin it. In the case of the editor whose pcitures we talk about who had pictures used in featured content overwritten spoiling featured content. Also the reputation of commons is sullied by virtual exhibitionists who like flashing porn at every impossible corner. Agathoclea (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Overwriting files - with the exception of the uploader's consent - is generally against the policy of Commons and should be immediately reported.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the time, if you go looking for nudity or sexuality images, you will find them on Commons. Yes, you may even find them where you didn't expect them, because the images are correctly named and categorised to reflect their content. There is no conspiracy to "flash porn at every impossible corner", there is however a desire to not have things deleted simply because people don't like them. As for the overwriting files thing - yes, it happens occasionally, but if it weren't possible, surely that would mean all featured articles on en.wp should be fully protected, nay, globally locked to prevent ALL editing, including by admins. It's a wiki, sometimes you get vandalism, either intentional or unintentional. You revert it and get on with life. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone overwrite we can revert and we can protect the important files so that ip-users and brand new users can't edit them. We can even protect high-risk / high-use files so only admins can edit them. But we can't protect all files. Files on en-wiki are also vandalized and sometimes it take years to find out. That is how it is on a wiki. The best would be if 20, 200 or 2.000 good users would visit Commons more often and give a hand. And if you spot a problem feel free to make suggestions (blocks, protections edit filters ...). --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that deletion discussions on Commons seem to be have a lot of random closures that seem to be based on ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT rather than copyright or scope. Such abberences do not inspire confidence in Commons processes.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Keep local" is just a compromise to appease editors who complain when their images are moved to commons. If the editor is retired, the only reason for the template is moot, and the images should just be moved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons says "Do not transfer files when the uploader specifically requests that their files are not moved to Commons." What am I missing here? 28bytes (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't forbid that files are moved to Commons unless there is a copyright issue. You could equest that the local file is not deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC

Well, "moved" implies deletion here. "Copied" is fine, anyone has the right to copy any free images to Commons. (Although, of course, if anyone prefers their work not be hosted on Commons, it would be courteous to respect that preference.) 28bytes (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be the license violation. I prefer the my pictures should not be used commercially, however, I do not reasonably expect that anybody would respect this my wish since the license states otherwise. Though I personally would probably not copy a file on Commons if the file page here says that the uploader has a strong opinion on the matter, even if it is legally sound.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be the license violation? 28bytes (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To require that the file does not get uploaded on Commons. If the file has been uploaded anywhere under CC BY-SA and does not have issues, it can be uploaded on Commons irrespectively of what the uploader thinks about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Yes, requiring it is not permitted, although requesting it certainly is. I think your approach of choosing not to copy an image against the uploader's wishes is a very responsible one. 28bytes (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone only allows files on Wikipedia under the condition that they are not moved to Commons, we already have a perfectly valid template for that: {{di-replaceable fair use}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on people, why is this even an issue? Have people nothing better to do? I thought we have backlogs of thousands and thousands of transferable images, whose uploaders have stated no objections against transfer, more than the transferrers will ever be able to handle? Can't people just go and work on a few of those, and leave bothering about those few special ones for later? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Want admin interference for dispute in Kashmiri Pandit

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

---

Kashmiri Hindus (also known as Kashmiri Pandits) are a small minority community in Jammu & Kashmir. The section of the article is Kashmiri Pandits' Exodus from Kashmir (1985–1995). From the year 1985, Kashmiri Pandits were being specifically targeted by Islamic militants due to their religion. U can read more about their ethnic cleansing in Jammu & Kashmir here : [9], [10]. In 2009 Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to recognise 14 September 2007, as Martyrs Day to acknowledge ethnic cleansing and campaigns of terror inflicted on non-Muslim minorities (Kashmiri Pandits) of Jammu and Kashmir by terrorists seeking to establish an Islamic state. (Here is the resolution :Senate Joint Resolution 23, 75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—2009 Regular Session])

User:Fowler&fowler removed this well-sourced content from the article Kashmiri Pandit here :[11] and typed following in the edit summary : Since when did Oregonians become experts on South Asia. 9 out of 10 couldn't spot Kashmir on a map to save their lives. There was no proper reason given by User:Fowler&fowler for this edit.

I identified it as vandalism and restored the content removed by him. But next was the turn of User:Sitush who reverted my edits and asked for discussion. I discussed the matter here[12], in which he couldn't give any strong argument for the removal of content. The content was definitely relevant and was present in the article since very old time. So, the content should be restored. SubQuad (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SubQuad, all but the last paragraph of the above is a content dispute. I presume that you did not see the huge notice regarding the purpose of this particular noticeboard. The correct course in content disputes, if you believe them to have reached a stalemate on the article talk page, is outlined on dispute resolution page.

Of the last paragraph, the last sentence is also a content dispute. I'll let others comment on the rest of it, so that you get some uninvolved input, but will point out that (a) you are is a fairly newly registered contributor and there is no doubt in my mind that you are having difficulties with our Five Pillars, WP:BLP etc; and (b) I would encourage you to go back to the talk pages of the various articles and try to talk these things through again. Sitush (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SubQuad posted this thread at the top of the ANI page; I have moved it to the bottom, although in chronological terms it should probably be up there ^ a little. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been the other editor involved here, and the problem as usual resides with the person arguing with Sitush. The two of us are trying to work things out with him, and this thread really isn't helping anything. In most cases I'd be inclined just to block the account for general asshattery, but I don't think SubQuad is entirely without potential, so I'm willing to wait and see if he's willing to listen to the firm prodding from us to use talkpages. A discretionary sanctions notice has been issued, so if things continue to go downhill I or another admin can take the necessary actions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this thread about Kashmiri Pandit, Fowler&fowler, or Sitush? It is not entirely clear what the OP expects from ANI. --regentspark (comment) 23:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Regents park - Sir, This thread is about our dispute on Kashmiri Pandit- [13]. I am sorry for a confusing title earlier. SubQuad (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler could have left a less rhetorical edit summary, but he's right. The Oregon legislative assembly is not an expert body on the sociopolitical landscape of India. Proper sourcing would be something an academic journal, or at the very least a major newspaper quoting an expert. Anyway, this is not the place for content disputes, you want WP:DRN. SÆdon^talk 04:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Unblock request: User:Admarkroundsquare

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

---

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

It appears this user was hardblocked by User:Orangemike for nothing but their user name, which included their freely disclosed company name (Round Square). The entry in the block log reads:

User:Admarkroundsquare – "14:06, 26 April 2012 Orangemike (talk | contribs) blocked Admarkroundsquare (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{spamusernameblock}})"

This block was in direct violation of WP:ORGNAME:

"Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username."

as well as WP:UAAI:

"Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted, and users who adopt such a username may be blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional. However, users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username."

Instead we have a situation here where an individual freely disclosed their association, did not make a single problematic edit, yet is blocked from creating another account that is compliant with user name policy. This is wrong. --JN466 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

All other concerns aside, it's incorrect to hardblock but leave a softblock template for an editor - we owe it to our users, all of them, to provide accurate information with regard to things they can or should do, and preventing someone from creating an account while telling them "all you have to do is create another account!" is poor adminning, no matter what they've been blocked for. OrangeMike, you really ought to take some care in lining up your blocks and your block notices to avoid issues like this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Page histories: useful things! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Cf. [14]. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Fluffernutter, OrangeMike didn't leave a {{softerblock}} template; someone else came along and replaces the {{uw-spamblock}} he used with a new template, but didn't alter the block type accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected. ErrantX, that made things a bit awkward. Double-check these in the future? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, that didn't even occur to me :) sorry. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Take action on bad edits, don't kneecap editors on general principles — that's the consensus policy. Orgname has been misinterpreted in this case, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• It's not an unblock, but I'm going to modify the block so that they are free to create a new username without jumping thru any more hoops, and leave a message to that effect on their talk page. If anyone wants to overrule me and just unblock altogether, feel free, I won't mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm just curious, has anyone just asked Orangemike to unblock? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There was a long prior conversation at Wikipedia:AN#Orange_Mike where Orangemike defended the block and made clear he did not want to be bothered. --JN466 22:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Floquenbeam's solution, and that's what I'd do if I was handling this myself. Everyone, lay off the rhetoric, we had quite enough of that the last time through. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:04, 1 May 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.

"Keep local" files uploaded by retired editor

As Giano appears to have really retired this time, is it acceptable to remove the {{Keep local}} templates from the files he uploaded? This would apply to files uploaded by Giano, Giano II, and GiacomoReturned. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that Giano expressly asked others to look out for those images, so it's best to leave things as they are. Anyone who wants to copy them (as opposed to move them) to the Commons can do that, if it's not done already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag? What does retirement have to do with it? 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And is there a reason a notification of this discussion wasn't left on his page? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Notice posted. Nobody Ent 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As commons is out of the foundation stated project scope and apparently under the control of a really small clique of editors - we should stop moving any files there - and office action remove the ability to allow uploads to the commons and start keeping all files here so as to limit/totally remove any value commons has moving forward. - Youreallycan 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about the merits of Commons, merely what to do with these files. I don't think anyone's opinion (positive or negative) of Commons is welcome here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, no one gets to own a discussion here. YRC makes a valid point. The people who run commons are not to be trusted. But at present, it's general practice for those bots to move free photos to commons. Is there anything special about these particular photos, that they shouldn't be "shared"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of whether to move X from A to B logically would include the merits of B. Nobody Ent 23:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

His retirement (un-huh) doesn't change his edits. Among those was the insistence that those files be kept local. Lacking a good reason to change, they should be left as requested. Resolute 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The way things are done currently, there's no justification for "keep local", unless there's a question about whether they are free. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One justification I have heard mentioned is that Commons does not inform the original uploader when the files are nominated for deletion or other important changes are made to the files. There have been instances where uploaders that are not active on Commons have had their files deleted without them being informed, and some acrimony was the result. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Resolute here: the justification for keeping it locally is that's what the uploader requested. It's generally polite to respect the wishes of the uploader unless there's a compelling reason not to. I'm happy to have my free images moved to Commons but it'd be a bit rude for me to disregard the express wishes of someone who didn't want that. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, hold on thar, Baba Looey. Since when does the uploader of a photo get to "own" that photo here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say we were required to honor their wishes. Just that it would be courteous. 28bytes (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I really hate, and don't understand, everything about the way we handle "files", throughout the entire project. Not that this statement is particularly relevant here, but if youreallycan gets to rant then so do I!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• While this isn't entirely a rant, I can explain quite simply why Giano (in his various accounts) took to marking his images "keep local". Images that were uploaded to Commons mysteriously got deleted. Some got overwritten by people who uploaded a different (and usually inferior) image. Some got corrupted when there was a drive to change formats, thus adversely affecting featured content on this project. None of this was visible within this project, because it all happened at Commons. Some of the images (like floor plans) that he was revising or that were incomplete got uploaded and then deleted as being out of scope. I don't understand this kneejerk desire to strip this project of its contents just because there's something similar within the WMF umbrella. There are quite a few editors who would rather swim in boiling oil than have to log into Commons. Heck, this project downloads a copy of images from Commons when the image is going to appear on the main page - because Commons doesn't protect them adequately enough.

  This is an attempt to change the English Wikipedia policy on retention of images, done through the back door. Let's not establish a precedent that weakens the ability of this project to maintain its quality, directly or indirectly. Risker (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm less worried about mysterious deletions than I am about the active vendetta conducted by a couple of the porn hobbyists there against images uploaded by their critics. I opined in a deletion debate there a while back and first thing you know, lo and behold, the same day or the next a few old images I had uploaded were all of the sudden tagged up by one of the usual suspects there. It was a truly amazing coincidence. Since then, I'm using KEEP LOCAL on everything. Those people are out of control, in my opinion. Under no circumstances should anyone overrule the uploading editor's probably well-justified wishes regarding the keep local tag. Duplicate the piece for Commons if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What were the grounds for deletion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking back, I see it was one file deleted out on a template discrepancy; after being flagged I switched out one template for a more precise one ("PD-work of Soviet government," I recall) and Our Hero deleted it anyway, even though the template was absolutely valid. Other of my uploaded files were merely mentioned in a generally snarky and unspecific comment. It was 100% "payback"... Carrite (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: Main Page files that exist on Commons are usually protected by bot these days. {{Uploaded from Commons}} is only used in rare cases. —howcheng {chat} 17:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I never interacted with Giano much, but in general I'm not much in favor of messing around with someone else's files; especially when they're not around to address any questions. If it were a matter of improving an article - sure, but I can't fathom that en.wp is so depraved of disk space that there's a need to go about deleting things just for the fun of it. — Ched :  ?  11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I greatly disapprove of this Commons bashing. Anyway, the point here is that the uploader gets to choose whether to upload to Wikipedia or to Commons - except, that is, according to the WP:Image use policy, a gallery of indiscriminate images should be moved to Commons. These images are not AFAIK indiscriminate, so there is no mandate to move them to Commons. There's no prohibition on public domain images at WP. An editor can legitimately upload to both projects, thereby hedging their bets regarding which one will be more infected by deletionists in the future. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you study the way the Xandlerliptak case was handled, you will discover that commons has no ethical intregrity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Relevant notes: Users of an image are notified when it is up for deletion on Commons, by User:CommonsNotificationBot. Images are re-uploaded to En on request by User:Commons fair use upload bot as fair use candidates. Wikipedia has every opportunity to recover files that are deleted on Commons. I don't object to users uploading Commons-compatible files to enwiki if they find it more convenient or don't know any better, but trying to suppress a move just because Commons is better at detecting copyright violations is trying to do an end-run around the licensing resolution. Dcoetzee 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a really impressive misrepresentation of why {{keep local}} exists, which Risker summarizes accurately above. Personally, I have no problem with my images (over 400 of them now) being hosted at commons. But lets not pretend that there aren't very legitimate issues facing Commons which led to things like this. Besides, there is nothing preventing someone from copying such files to Commons, but the request that the local copy not be deleted in the process is fair and legitimate. Resolute 02:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If anyone can name one file deleted at Commons which is not a copyvio and was in use or would have been kept at enwp, I will undelete it myself. Such an outcome is unacceptable. If there is a personal vendetta going on, keep local is just avoiding the conflict so the same Commons users can go on to hurt others - it's not a solution. If visibility of changes are an issue, another bot can be set up to notify people about new versions. Keeping two versions of files will just end up doubling the work of anyone who wants to make updates to files or file description pages. Merging the divergent histories of thousands of file description pages is not my idea of fun. Dcoetzee 09:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Some months ago, Centpacrr uploaded a photo of himself, and Fastily deleted it, then refused to talk about it. Centpacrr had to go through all manner of hoops on commons to get it reinstated. It shouldn't have to be that way. That kind of thing is another reason I find commons wanting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lets respect the wishes of the uploader unless there is a good reason not to --Guerillero | My Talk 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Frankly speaking, I do not see any problem here. An image CAN be uploaded to Commons and at the same time kept locally. This will protect it locally from possible improvement of the description which can be done on Commons but not seen here, but otherwise I see no problems (assuming the image itself is not problematic).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment First of all if users uploaded to Commons they would be notified if one of their files was changes. And you can even mark "E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed" on Commons so all uploaders have to do is to add the files they want to monitor to their watch list. You can add hundreds of files in a few seconds if you want so the argument "I do not get a notice if file is deleted or changed" is not valid. Just move all the files to Commons add the files to the watch list and then delete. Then you get a notice when your files are changed. It is easy and simple!

And why should uploads have a veto? If I create an article I can't add a "Keep your hands away from my article!"-template.

The problem with having the same file in two places (or more) is that if there is a copyright issue you risk that all versions of the file is deleted. I have found several files on lb-wiki and ms-wiki where the original file on en-wiki was deleted years ago as a copyvio. And if someone corrects the description it will not be visible everywhere. So you risk that someone reads an out dated and pehaps wrong description.

The only logic and wise thing to do is to move all free files to Commons and to make sure that there is enough editors on Commons to watch and "nurse" the files. --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• The two TfDs on the template - and the most recent was just last year - had strong consensus the template was valid and should stay. Its text "The uploader or another editor requests that the local copy of this file be kept." has already been tested by the community and found to be acceptable. It has no restriction on an image being available at Commons. The OP here gave no reason why the template ought to be removed or his wishes no longer respected, and I can see no reason to stop doing so even if the user has turned their back or simply left. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong concensus? Like a few hundred users saying "Keep it"? Or a handfull of users that do not like Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make false assumptions. I like Commons just fine, but believe we should respect the uploader's wishes unless there is a compelling reason not to. My question at the top of this thread – "Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag?" – remains unanswered. If there is a compelling reason to remove the tags for these particular images, please let me know, because I have not heard it, despite specifically asking. Again, please do not assume that everyone who respects uploaders' preferences has anything against Commons. 28bytes (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is this dicussion still ongoing? There are enaugh issues with commons to respect the wishes of the uploader. In this case our featured content should not be at the mercy of the throublemakers at commons. Agathoclea (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you remove "at Commons" and insert "from Germany", "from France", "from China" etc. you could probably be called a racist. I thought that the idea of wiki was to work together and improve and not spread hate... Please visit Commons and talk to some users. You would probably find out that not all users on Commons are dicks. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sure - and there are some fantastic contributors producing the finest work. But there is a hardcore set of editors that ruin it. In the case of the editor whose pcitures we talk about who had pictures used in featured content overwritten spoiling featured content. Also the reputation of commons is sullied by virtual exhibitionists who like flashing porn at every impossible corner. Agathoclea (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Overwriting files - with the exception of the uploader's consent - is generally against the policy of Commons and should be immediately reported.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the time, if you go looking for nudity or sexuality images, you will find them on Commons. Yes, you may even find them where you didn't expect them, because the images are correctly named and categorised to reflect their content. There is no conspiracy to "flash porn at every impossible corner", there is however a desire to not have things deleted simply because people don't like them. As for the overwriting files thing - yes, it happens occasionally, but if it weren't possible, surely that would mean all featured articles on en.wp should be fully protected, nay, globally locked to prevent ALL editing, including by admins. It's a wiki, sometimes you get vandalism, either intentional or unintentional. You revert it and get on with life. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone overwrite we can revert and we can protect the important files so that ip-users and brand new users can't edit them. We can even protect high-risk / high-use files so only admins can edit them. But we can't protect all files. Files on en-wiki are also vandalized and sometimes it take years to find out. That is how it is on a wiki. The best would be if 20, 200 or 2.000 good users would visit Commons more often and give a hand. And if you spot a problem feel free to make suggestions (blocks, protections edit filters ...). --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that deletion discussions on Commons seem to be have a lot of random closures that seem to be based on ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT rather than copyright or scope. Such abberences do not inspire confidence in Commons processes.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Keep local" is just a compromise to appease editors who complain when their images are moved to commons. If the editor is retired, the only reason for the template is moot, and the images should just be moved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons says "Do not transfer files when the uploader specifically requests that their files are not moved to Commons." What am I missing here? 28bytes (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't forbid that files are moved to Commons unless there is a copyright issue. You could equest that the local file is not deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC

Well, "moved" implies deletion here. "Copied" is fine, anyone has the right to copy any free images to Commons. (Although, of course, if anyone prefers their work not be hosted on Commons, it would be courteous to respect that preference.) 28bytes (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be the license violation. I prefer the my pictures should not be used commercially, however, I do not reasonably expect that anybody would respect this my wish since the license states otherwise. Though I personally would probably not copy a file on Commons if the file page here says that the uploader has a strong opinion on the matter, even if it is legally sound.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be the license violation? 28bytes (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To require that the file does not get uploaded on Commons. If the file has been uploaded anywhere under CC BY-SA and does not have issues, it can be uploaded on Commons irrespectively of what the uploader thinks about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Yes, requiring it is not permitted, although requesting it certainly is. I think your approach of choosing not to copy an image against the uploader's wishes is a very responsible one. 28bytes (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone only allows files on Wikipedia under the condition that they are not moved to Commons, we already have a perfectly valid template for that: {{di-replaceable fair use}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on people, why is this even an issue? Have people nothing better to do? I thought we have backlogs of thousands and thousands of transferable images, whose uploaders have stated no objections against transfer, more than the transferrers will ever be able to handle? Can't people just go and work on a few of those, and leave bothering about those few special ones for later? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Want admin interference for dispute in Kashmiri Pandit

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

---

Kashmiri Hindus (also known as Kashmiri Pandits) are a small minority community in Jammu & Kashmir. The section of the article is Kashmiri Pandits' Exodus from Kashmir (1985–1995). From the year 1985, Kashmiri Pandits were being specifically targeted by Islamic militants due to their religion. U can read more about their ethnic cleansing in Jammu & Kashmir here : [15], [16]. In 2009 Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to recognise 14 September 2007, as Martyrs Day to acknowledge ethnic cleansing and campaigns of terror inflicted on non-Muslim minorities (Kashmiri Pandits) of Jammu and Kashmir by terrorists seeking to establish an Islamic state. (Here is the resolution :Senate Joint Resolution 23, 75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—2009 Regular Session])

User:Fowler&fowler removed this well-sourced content from the article Kashmiri Pandit here :[17] and typed following in the edit summary : Since when did Oregonians become experts on South Asia. 9 out of 10 couldn't spot Kashmir on a map to save their lives. There was no proper reason given by User:Fowler&fowler for this edit.

I identified it as vandalism and restored the content removed by him. But next was the turn of User:Sitush who reverted my edits and asked for discussion. I discussed the matter here[18], in which he couldn't give any strong argument for the removal of content. The content was definitely relevant and was present in the article since very old time. So, the content should be restored. SubQuad (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SubQuad, all but the last paragraph of the above is a content dispute. I presume that you did not see the huge notice regarding the purpose of this particular noticeboard. The correct course in content disputes, if you believe them to have reached a stalemate on the article talk page, is outlined on dispute resolution page.

Of the last paragraph, the last sentence is also a content dispute. I'll let others comment on the rest of it, so that you get some uninvolved input, but will point out that (a) you are is a fairly newly registered contributor and there is no doubt in my mind that you are having difficulties with our Five Pillars, WP:BLP etc; and (b) I would encourage you to go back to the talk pages of the various articles and try to talk these things through again. Sitush (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SubQuad posted this thread at the top of the ANI page; I have moved it to the bottom, although in chronological terms it should probably be up there ^ a little. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been the other editor involved here, and the problem as usual resides with the person arguing with Sitush. The two of us are trying to work things out with him, and this thread really isn't helping anything. In most cases I'd be inclined just to block the account for general asshattery, but I don't think SubQuad is entirely without potential, so I'm willing to wait and see if he's willing to listen to the firm prodding from us to use talkpages. A discretionary sanctions notice has been issued, so if things continue to go downhill I or another admin can take the necessary actions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this thread about Kashmiri Pandit, Fowler&fowler, or Sitush? It is not entirely clear what the OP expects from ANI. --regentspark (comment) 23:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Regents park - Sir, This thread is about our dispute on Kashmiri Pandit- [19]. I am sorry for a confusing title earlier. SubQuad (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler could have left a less rhetorical edit summary, but he's right. The Oregon legislative assembly is not an expert body on the sociopolitical landscape of India. Proper sourcing would be something an academic journal, or at the very least a major newspaper quoting an expert. Anyway, this is not the place for content disputes, you want WP:DRN. SÆdon^talk 04:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Unblock request: User:Admarkroundsquare

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

---

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

It appears this user was hardblocked by User:Orangemike for nothing but their user name, which included their freely disclosed company name (Round Square). The entry in the block log reads:

User:Admarkroundsquare – "14:06, 26 April 2012 Orangemike (talk | contribs) blocked Admarkroundsquare (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{spamusernameblock}})"

This block was in direct violation of WP:ORGNAME:

"Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username."

as well as WP:UAAI:

"Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted, and users who adopt such a username may be blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional. However, users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username."

Instead we have a situation here where an individual freely disclosed their association, did not make a single problematic edit, yet is blocked from creating another account that is compliant with user name policy. This is wrong. --JN466 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

All other concerns aside, it's incorrect to hardblock but leave a softblock template for an editor - we owe it to our users, all of them, to provide accurate information with regard to things they can or should do, and preventing someone from creating an account while telling them "all you have to do is create another account!" is poor adminning, no matter what they've been blocked for. OrangeMike, you really ought to take some care in lining up your blocks and your block notices to avoid issues like this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Page histories: useful things! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Cf. [20]. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Fluffernutter, OrangeMike didn't leave a {{softerblock}} template; someone else came along and replaces the {{uw-spamblock}} he used with a new template, but didn't alter the block type accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected. ErrantX, that made things a bit awkward. Double-check these in the future? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, that didn't even occur to me :) sorry. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Take action on bad edits, don't kneecap editors on general principles — that's the consensus policy. Orgname has been misinterpreted in this case, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• It's not an unblock, but I'm going to modify the block so that they are free to create a new username without jumping thru any more hoops, and leave a message to that effect on their talk page. If anyone wants to overrule me and just unblock altogether, feel free, I won't mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm just curious, has anyone just asked Orangemike to unblock? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There was a long prior conversation at Wikipedia:AN#Orange_Mike where Orangemike defended the block and made clear he did not want to be bothered. --JN466 22:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Floquenbeam's solution, and that's what I'd do if I was handling this myself. Everyone, lay off the rhetoric, we had quite enough of that the last time through. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:04, 1 May 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.

Witty vandalism

It's surely worth passing on that this clever spoof edit, which stood in the article for over a fortnight, made it to a suitably inane gossip column on page 2 of The West Australian newspaper today. Alas, because it had appeared for so long, I was unable to jeer at the paper for reporting an overnight flash of vandalism. Yes, I can supply a pic of the coverage if required. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say, but for vandalism, that actually is pretty funny and well beyond the league of the usual rubbish of puerile penis jokes etc. Blackmane (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I take issue with the insinuation that penis jokes are puerile. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Then you and User:badmachine have something in common! Brohoof, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• brohoof received. -badmachine 07:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh please. Let's be logical here. Penis images are way more puerile than penis jokes. C'mon now. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dave Winer and Irelan12

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

---

Okay, the accounts in question:

• Irelan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – currently blocked for 48 hours
• Nirelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – not blocked, but no longer in use
• Nirelan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – blocked
• NickIre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – blocked, also created the article Nickirelan.com which User:Ryulong deleted with the reason "banned user". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickirelan.com.
• Irelann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – blocked, see [21] [22]

A few days ago, I declined a request by User:Irelan12 to remove semi-protection on the BLP article Dave Winer. In the process, I observed a considerable quantity of contentious editing and discussion on the talk page, most of which center around User:Irelan12. I opened a thread on WP:BLPN, see Wikipedia:BLPN#Dave_Winer, and various editors have agreed that User:Irelan12 is one in a long string of accounts starting originally with User:Nirelan. Given the obvious naming similarities, it's pretty obvious that Nick Irelan is behind them, who got into a dispute with Dave Winer in this off-wiki comment thread here from 2007.

I blocked Irelan12 as an obvious sock of Nirelan, and subsequently this block was undone as the original Nirelan account isn't blocked. Mea culpa, I made a mistake. I should have checked that one properly. See User talk:Tom Morris#User talk:Irelan12.

Irelan12 is now blocked for 48 hours for edit warring with Youreallycan on Dave Winer: see User talk:Irelan12.

I bring this here because there is a long-standing problem with the article, and most of that problem seems to be coming from Irelan12 and his various incarnations stemming back to 2007. Indeed, the Nick Irelan issue has been repeatedly added to the article including by User:NickIre. You'll note that the source Irelan uses in the aforementioned diffs is to the gossip blog Gawker (formerly Valleywag), hardly a reliable source.

For persistent and long-running edit warring and tendentious editing in contravention of WP:BLP, I'm going to suggest we indef block all of Irelan's accounts and strongly consider community banning Nick Irelan. This dispute has been rolling since 2007, I don't see any change here: edit warring, BLP, sourcing issues.

As an aside, I have to declare a very slight conflict of interest: in the above-linked comment thread, there are some unrelated posts by me. I was also in occasional contact with Dave Winer on a variety of technical issues from about 2007 through to about 2009, and briefly met him in a London pub, but we've fallen out of contact. I will also note that I'm going away for a few days, so may not be available to answer questions or participate in this discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support as per Tom's comments - indefinitely block all of Irelan's accounts and community ban Nick Irelan - four years of the users COI SinglePurpose contributions and socks and blocks in relation to a single biography of a living person is enuf - more than enough - Youreallycan 22:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I responded to the Irelan12 requests for unblock also. Like Tom Morris, I too failed to see that the "original" User:Nirelan account was not indef blocked. No less, this editors tendentious editing is extra-ordinary. He is singularly focused on the Dave Winer article and singularly focused on making his desired edits to it. In my last contact with him, I revoked his ability to edit his talk page because of abuse of the {{unblock}} template. There appears to be no talking to him. --RA (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I've been following this dispute since 2007. There is truly nothing new this time around. Nirelan is on a crusade of some kind and is not interested in anyone else's views. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the sockfarm alone --Guerillero | My Talk 23:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Nick Irelan has been a consistent source of grief to his fellow editors through his tendentious editing, edit warring, flogging of dead horses and profligate sock puppetry, all of which spring from his obsessive need to diminish Dave Winer. ARK (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I have no understand of what sockpuppets the user has (I assume they're all proven) used in the past. However, after I explained it to them about the misuse and misunderstanding of the various policies, they seem to understand it. However, they do remind me a lot of myself when I started. I used to let other people use my computer and there was a lot of vandalism from my IP, so when I tried to edit an article, I was considered a vanadal. Is it not possible that this person is having the same issue? Think how you would feel if you are trying to edit an article in which you fully believe you are correct and have evidence to back it up and are being tagged as a vandal? Maybe the best course of action is to explain to the user that they should take a few days to gather all the evidence that proves their version of the edits to be correct, to post it here (or on the talk page) and let an admin look at it and decide. It could just be a misunderstanding on the entire situation. From what I've seen on the talk page, it seems like he/she is just a user who is being taught several policies at once and is confused. Wikipedia has thousands of guidelines (or at least hundreds). It might be better to tell them what to do to present a case instead of denying everything they say as vandalism. After all, treating others as how we want to be treated is a guideline on Wikipedia. I also understand completely that he/she seems to be fixated on the article. But perhaps if we make it clear to provide all the evidence that backs their side up, we can finally end the issue and either block them (if they refuse to go by the guidelines) or have another decent member of Wikipedia. They're not posting offensive things. It can't hurt to make it clear what is to be done and see if they except/=. Gorgak25 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd buy that, except they've now been at this for five years. The more you look into this, the more failed attempts to solve this user's problems are to be found. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I fully concur with Tom's summary. There is no "misunderstanding on the entire situation" here. Nick Irelan's self-portraiture as a victim of a pro-Winer cabal is a transparent sham, as even a cursory perusal of the talk page archives will make abundantly clear. ARK (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support I was inclined to offer a weak oppose, with a suggestion we see how he does after his block expires, until I saw his WP:IPSOCKing, below, and read this edit. He has zero credibility, and is clearly here only to push his agenda on this article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The article in quesion states Dave Winer made Editthispage.com. The reference used to support that claim has a screen shot that shows the site was made by Userland Software. The people who are asking that he be banned want to keep putting untrue information like that in the article. That is why they want to ban him. Gorgak25 (talk) he did provide the evidence, several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.147.66 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC) I personally know Nick, btw.

The above IP editor has only one other edit. To... Dave Winer. And, contra to WP:BLPSPS, it's sourced to a blog. I wonder exactly how the IP knows Nick. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's easy! Tom Morris that IP, posted this which suffice to say, I'm very... annoyed at my attempt to to defend him a short moment ago. Gorgak25 (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This IP is his neighbor.--50.103.147.66 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Lets quit changing the subject and explain how he got banned when he had links to prove what he said and the bio is clearly false.--50.103.147.66 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Just to let you know, we are in a dorm. Nick Irelan is a student.--50.103.147.66 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked. Concur that this person has used up their nine lives. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I love it when the excuse basically boils down to "yeah, I'm not a sockpuppet, I'm a meatpuppet!" —Tom Morris (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Even though it's settled completely, I love trying to help people and having it blow up in my face :) Wikipedia Sockpuppets 1: Gorgak 0 At least now we can all agree he (or himself and friends) are trying to skirt the rules. Gorgak25 (talk) 01:01, 2 May 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.

my user page

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

---

hello. my userpage has been locked by user:salvio giuliano, who claims that an ornamental userbox and cock picture is disruptive. i find this claim disingenuous, since at least one administrator has a "Big Schlong Barnnstar", complete with a picture of a nice chunky cock, on his userpage. the user box is ornamental and refers to an encyclopedia dramatica policy known as [[ED:SATAN]], and was removed under a claim that it is disruptive. the userbox is humorous, and i fail to see how it is disruptive. i believe the userbox was removed because it alludes to satanism, which not a lot of people care for. as for the cock, i do not see how my fifty penis post, a reference to the "fifty hitler post" internet meme, is considered disruptive, when the "Big Schlong Barnnstar" is not. it is my opinion that my userpage was under special scrutiny due to my off-wiki activities, which should have no bearing here. while i am here, i would like to request that all deleted revisions of my userpage be restored, so that people can see how harmless it is/was. i requested their deletion because one of the revisions links to my doppleganger account, which was done by accident following a sockpuppet investigation, but there is no point now in hiding my identity. :\ -badmachine 01:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You were informed before that the userbox is easily offensive to people who follow the religion, since as you say, it was intended as a joke rather then a serious declaration of a religious affiliation. What they do in other places doesn't concern us. The fact you still don't seem to understand this, or at least acknowledge it as a concern doesn't speak well for your behaviour here not being disruptive. Nil Einne (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

that is a nice excuse, but i believe one of the primary tenets of satanism is "do as thou wilt". i dont think there is a single documented instance of any satanist being offended by my userbox. in addition, from wikipedia's own article on the Church of Satan: "Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.". i do not see any credible claim that any satanist would be offended by my userbox. -badmachine 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, the first illustration you mentioned could be retitled, "As thou do wilt." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

wut? -badmachine 02:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• oh god it took me waaaaaaay too long to get it. :D -badmachine 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

i am seeing the term "low level trolling" thrown about. to me, this looks like a euphemism for i don't like it. as for the claim that a fucking My Little Pony userbox and a userbox stating that i endorse the activities of the GNAA is 'prima facie evidence of trolling' (paraphrased), that claim is absurd on its face. -badmachine 03:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think there was an argument there, not just a dislike. Statistically, the combination of a GNAA and a MLP user box is likely to end up in an indefinite block, that seems to be established. I hope you're the exception. Dr "Rainbow Dash" mies (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't really "not like" anything you've posted to your page. I don't find Satanism offensive in the least. I'm no huge fan of looking at dicks, but I wouldn't say they offend me either. This is purely about the apparent use of such things to provoke an emotional response or otherwise disrupt. The presence of the Gay Nigger Association of America logo seems to support that assessment of your choices, being an "organization" that promotes trolling. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected, with note to user. Let's not use any more time on this one. Rich Farmbrough, 03:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

thank you. there is nothing on that page that would offend anyone. i still wish i could put that "big schlong barnstar" on my page, but i have no proof. :( -badmachine 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for User:Badmachine

I don't feel particularly offended by the boxes this user keeps trying to put on his page, but the Gay Nigger Association of America one seems to indicate that he's just here to troll, and even if you want to say it's a draconian approach to say this based merely on a box, he actually seems to have demonstrated a remarkable job of it regardless. I think he should be banned. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. The signal-to-noise ratio may be relatively low compared to bona fide high-efficiency editors (such as yours truly, of course), and personally I detest all that GNAA BS (I'm putting it mildly), but I don't see a reason to ban. Look at their contributions--it's not all about user pages and penes/penii. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not a huge fan of the signal-to-noise argument in general. If a user trolls, they shouldn't be here. It's not a question of volume of good vs. bad contribs. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • But I don't subscribe to the trolling argument in the first place, though that's a matter of opinion. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't agree with the statement that he's "just here to troll". A casual glance at his contributions shows mostly productive edits. Maybe we're all being trolled and one day Badmachine will become a steward and the main page will be raining penises, but for now I think there's not much of a case even for blocking. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm the rat who originally turned him in for his userpage penises. I think his userpage should be unlocked (he can't even add me to his friends list!) and he should NOT be banned. For one, permanent protection isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. For another, GNAA and Satanism userboxes aren't really disruptive and a dick pic isn't even that bad (if you don't believe me have a search over at commons, or even our own article on male genetalia. Badmachine is utterly harmless and I feel that he's being set upon by a mob just because he's got a GNAA userbox. Night Ranger (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Well, saved by the bell I guess. I edit conflicted with Drmies (and Equazcion, and just now, Night Ranger and before him Laser Brain; jesus, i type slowly); I was going to explain why I was about to indef block badmachine. What I was going to post is this: I have previously expressed the opinion that users with a GNAA logo and a My Little Pony userbox on their user pages should be blocked indef, as such a user page is prima facie evidence of trolling. A glance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#indefinite protection of userpage over userbox solidifies this; we've seen this show before. I am going to block badmichine indefinitely for continuous, low-level trolling. When you continually test the boundaries to see how much you can get away with, eventually you find out.. Out of my great respect for Drmies (if you disagree with something, I'm inclined to triple check to make sure I'm not in the wrong), I will hold off blocking badmachine, but I strongly support it. We suck at dealing with continuous low-level trolling, and he is a gigantic timesink. I anxiously await a more complete rationale about why this editor shouldn't be banned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No, no, I'm always wrong: look up the page, at "Block review, please". Block badmachine indefinitely! I'm kidding, a bit, but as you may know I am very much inclined to a positive outlook, usually to a fault, but I hope I'm right this time. Sorry about making you edit-conflict; that's real irritating. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Nope - Personally, I think if WP adopted an "anything goes" mentality with user pages, we'd have a lot more editors (granted, and a lot more rubbish, but, hey, take the good with the bad). Yeah, yeah, I know WP is "not Myspace/Facebook" but, you know, those websites are pretty popular. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If you think that turning WP into a "popular" social networking site would be a good thing, I think you lack a fundamental understanding of what an encyclopaedia is. We're here to build content, and a user whose dominating concern is being able to make a kawaii personal userpage can hardly be called an "editor" at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• i feel compelled to respond to the assertion that editing my user page is my "dominating concern". i have made about 3500 edits, if i recall correctly, and i believe less than 50 of them have been to my user page. -badmachine 05:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I made no comment regarding you. I responded to Quinn's (over)generalised rationale. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• oppose - trolling means going for an emotional response. i only want my userpage unlocked. i went thru the proper channels, and added template:edit request to my talk page, and my request was denied, and i was referred to the admin who locked it. he said lolno, so i came here, which i believe is the proper channel. wrt Floquenbeam, who said i was a "time sink", that is absurd. if you do not want to listen to contributors, then why are you a sysop? i am going thru the proper channels here. that's like a supervisor getting mad at his employees for working. :\ -badmachine 03:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No one suggested you should be banned merely because you want your user page unlocked. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• your suggestion that i be banned based on MLP and GNAA userboxes is baseless, and seems intended to intentionally start drama. i could suggest that you, yourself, be banned, but that would be pointy. -badmachine 03:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, no one suggested the boxes alone were the reason for this proposal. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• oppose - as Equazcion states; "even if you want to say it's a draconian approach". Well yes, it is a draconian approach and we don't block (or worse - ban) editors based on their affiliations. Badmachine is a long-term and productive WP editor on the whole. People here are focusing on the guy's userpage and his liking of penises/penes, while ignoring his good contributions. Seriously - leave him to edit in peace and let's all focus less on the drama - Alison ^❤ 05:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with penises, nor with those who care for them. People should indeed be able to like penises without being banned. But, then, liking them isn't actually his reason for posting them, now is it. As I've stated, the materials themselves are not the reason for this proposal. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • And my point wasn't about the penes but about the unnecessary associated drama, as well as the heavy-handed approach - Alison ^❤ 05:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I think trolling (defined as something intentional) warrants a heavy hand. Trolls like to incite the light-handed kind -- as that's what trolling is. Better to get rid of it once and for all. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Then we'll have to agree to disagree. There's far too much "ban the troll" going on on WP these days, IMO. It's too often used to take out those whom we simply don't understand/like/agree with. This project needs more tolerance, not more bannination - Alison ^❤ 05:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Perhaps Wikipedia could use less "ban the troll" mentality when it comes to lumping in someone whose opinions we dislike with those who actually engage in trolling, but it's not being used that way in this case. There's little reason, if any, to think this user is simply being misunderstood. I think we all understand quite well what he's trying to do with this content. If you think actual trolling should be overlooked in the face of good contributions, then yes, we will most certainly have to agree to disagree. I just want it to be clear what exactly we're agreeing to disagree on. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Normally, if a user is being generally productive and the only thing they're trolling is their own userpage, I would oppose something as serious as a ban. I'm not going to oppose it in this case, as I take a dim view of people who toss around the "N" word for lulz. Wikipedia needs less of that. Actually, the world needs less of that. 28bytes (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• what the world needs less of, is people taking offense over things like words. and penis pictures. i mean honestly, wikimedia commons is practically on par with slutload dot com as far as content. in fact, i doubt that even slutload has a video of a dog eating out the pussy of a woman in a nun's habit, so in that regard, wikimedia commons wins. -badmachine 06:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Commons is full of porn, so it's OK for you to use racial slurs. Got it. 28bytes (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Morten Lindberg certainly seemed to think so. And there's an article for that (which is where the other crowd got their name from). Just saying ... - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• not every single use of that word is a fucking slur. see reclaimed word for just one example. jesus i wish some of you would take the sticks out of your asses. -badmachine 07:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• How thoughtful of the GNAA to "reclaim" the word on behalf of black people. And here I thought they were just using it for shock value. 28bytes (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• are you implying that the GNAA is all white? -badmachine 07:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not implying anything. I'm stating flat-out that they are using racially charged language because they think it's funny. 28bytes (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd also like to point out that we would probably get rid of someone who repeatedly placed a phrase like "gay niggers" on his userpage just for display purposes. The fact that an "organization" exists along with an associated logo/article shouldn't serve as an excuse for inclined users to slide by this standard. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• So, what you're saying is that he should be banned based on his affiliations, yes? - Alison ^❤ 06:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, I never said anything of the sort. A mere affiliation would not merit banning a user. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• So it's displaying those affiliations that's the problem then? - Alison ^❤ 06:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not exactly. If this user's choice of userboxes and images showed, overall, a mere wish to display the organizations with which he was affiliated, I might sympathize, and say it's not problem in itself -- although aside from it being plain to see that this is not the case, the display of the "Gay Niggers Association of America" logo is itself problematic, since we wouldn't allow such a phrase (or reference to it) on userpages just for display purposes in any other scenario. Its existence in the first place is an admitted attempt to troll. If a user has a purely off-wiki interest in the group, he should find some other way to advertise it, or indeed not advertise it at all -- but not because it states his affiliation. We just don't allow that kind of thing on userpages, in a superficial sense. But, in this case, since that alone doesn't seem to be his intent anyway, it's something of a moot point. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously - is this going all the way down the line? You have a problem with the GNAA logo being displayed? Have you any idea who created that? He's pretty respectable - Alison ^❤ 07:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I do, for the reasons 28bytes does (it doesn't matter who created it). Although, I did also happen to mention I thought that was a moot point in this case, not my primary concern. I guess you must've missed that. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• In that case, you should try taking up the issue with that organization, instead of beating up on one of its affiliates, no? I see he's got a MLP userbox, too - do you also have issues with My Little Pony? Clearly it's disparaging of diminutive equines - Alison ^❤ 08:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (is this is starting to sound ludicrous yet?? Seriously!)

• In what case? My specifically not taking issue with statements of affiliation with those groups should cause me to complain to them? You can keep mischaracterizing this as a problem you have an easier time arguing against, but as I keep saying, that's not it. Am I stuttering? Equazcion ^(talk) 08:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Abloobloo bloo bloo this user has a bunch of stuff -on their userpage- (which I am compelled, nay, FORCED to look at every second of every day) that I don't like, even though it falls within policy. BREAK OUT THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS, CLEM! Jtrainor (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose You've been trolled if you rise to the bait and take offense or respond to it in any way. If we all just ignore this and move along, badmachine is just another user with boxen on his user page with letters in it that have very little meaning if you don't give a crap. Short of them spouting racist/nationalist/yada yada crap that incites this crime or that, we should just move along. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• I should expand on this a bit more now that I think on it. This is not to say I condone trolling of any sort. badmachine contributes and productively, which we should take into account. Sure his boxen may offend some and not others, but as his activities and affiliation, or lack thereof, with the GNAA, are not their sole purpose here I don't see why such a big fuss is being raised. Blackmane (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'd agree there if we were dealing with a single case of trolling. I've seen this user troll before, but have never actually addressed it. A troll who has made it clear he's attempting to test the boundaries of user page allowance by eliciting reactions and will continue to do so in the future is another story. As to the second part of your comment, I've made my thoughts on that clear above, but trolls should be handed their hats whether they've contributed productively or not. There are certain things that shouldn't be tolerated regardless of other positive behavior. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If there are limits to be tested, then perhaps a trip to the Village pump to discuss ways of tightening up the restrictions would be a better way to go about it. We've all seen people banned for various infractions over the years (hell I even got bored for a period and read about every user on the shit list) and even if badmachine is low level trolling, this doesn't warrant a full blown community ban. Blackmane (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The dick pic is gone and the page is unprotected. The ban ain't happening and some people need to get a grip. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC

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

Repeated vandalism by undocumented editors

On the Lazerfest page. Seem to have a real axe to grind with the radio station that puts it on. I've made a few minor edits to that page here and there, but continue to see random acts of vandalism on a nearly daily basis since the initial ban was lifted. Thanks for your attention to this Hellbilly515 (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Hellbilly515

• I've reverted to the last good version and semi-protected the page for one month, which should take it past the event. Normally I wouldn't protect so long, but that last two week protect didn't seem to be effective enough. I left the talk page unprotected in the event an IP or other new user wants to request changes to the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure that User:Hellbilly641 and User:Rocksocks69 are socks of User:Ftheoldies, based on the existing SPIs here [23] and that they are only editing this one article, like all the other socks. Enough to just block purely on WP:DUCK but as socks aren't my specialty, holding off. Any admin that wants to school me on this point, feel free to jump in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Rocksocks69 is  Confirmed as Ftheoldies. Hellbilly641 is  Unrelated to our socker, but I've blocked him anyway as he's obviously impersonating Hellbilly515. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, thank you Elen, I had just poured a cup of coffee and was about to walk down the hall to SPI after speaking with Drmies last night. You saved me the trip. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

King Genovese, again

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

This user was discussed recently in a thread now archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive749#King Genovese, the concern being that despite many warnings he was producing a stream of articles about American mobsters many of which were copyvio, non-notable, badly-referenced and/or BLP violations. He was invited to the discussion, and though his response: "What am I meant to comment, I cant do anything about what you guys say or do" was unpromising, Dennis Brown gave him some good advice, and no action was taken on the basis that he seemed to have stopped.

However today he has produced three more articles, Gabriel Mannarino a blatant copyvio, Dominick Alaimo which more or less asserted non-notability with the words "only remembered for attending the Apalachin Conference in 1957", and James Lanza, an unreferenced article which has been redirected.

This seems to be a serious case of IDHT and is a waste of everyone's time. I have blocked him for a week and left on his talk page beneath the block notice yet another statement of the problems with his editing. Anyone may unblock who is convinced King G understands the problems and will not continue in the same way. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not me. Let's see if we're back here a week and maybe a day from now. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• There has been a lot of good faith given and attempts to reach out on a personal level, more than just templates. Whatever comes of it, at least we tried everything reasonable first. It isn't wasted time though. I would rather "waste" a little time when there is a chance to get someone up to speed than just stick up the regulation number of templates on the page and sending them packing and never know if they might have been able to actually learn to help out around here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• The waste of time I meant was not reasoning with KG but dealing with his inappropriate articles - his deleted contributions list shows over 40 in less than a month. JohnCD (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• I probably should have parsed my words a bit more carefully. Point taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a look through their contribs (nice and short since they've only been here less than a month) and in general they have very few talk page posts and the few that he does make show a severe lack of competence (they even referred to plagiarising as copy-editing, the nerve! GOCE will hear about this!) even after they've been given advice, which then leads them into WP:IDHT territory. I'd wager that after their block expires they'd definitely get back into making more poorly sourced (if at all) articles, whether they stay with the mafia or move onto something else we'll have to wait and see. Also, let's throw in a attack while we're at it. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

RevDel required

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted by User:Reaper Eternal. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Would someone be so kind as to revdel here, and I suppose sinebot's next edit. There was a little bit too much personal information added in a request for a mechanic...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

An admin will need to handle that, but for the future, you should generally use one of the methods described at Wikipedia:REVDEL#How to request Revision Deletion to request revision deletion instead of posting here. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Persistant IP vandalism

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

---

• 66.199.196.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hello, I left a final warning on this IP's talk page, but upon further review it appears that every edit from this IP going back over a year is vandalism. Note their lengthy block log and overflowing talk page full of nothing but warnings. Since this would be rejected at AIV, I am reporting here and requesting a block; the last block was for 3 months but alas that was 2008, so if it is within policy then a 6 month block is requested. Thanks, --64.85.215.18 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Anonblock}}ed for a year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:13, 2 May 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.

Incivility from Hearfourmewesique

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

---

Someone needs to inform User:Hearfourmewesique that edit summary comments like this violate WP:CIV. This comes on the heels of a number of similar comments that aren't exactly in the spirit of CIV, as when he reacted to my removal of material plagiarized from another website without compliance with that site's license by citing citing WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, and telling me that I should've paraphrased the material myself, even though I had already told him that I hadn't seen the episode. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much more concerned about the editor's understanding of copyright than I am about some prickly edit summaries. Nevertheless, that particular issue has been resolved (the material lifted from Wikia has been rewritten), so unless there's evidence that Hearfourmewesique makes a habit of this then this is basically just a case of two editors who don't get along (and, based on the ANI last week, are both partially to blame). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've simply had it with certain editors, some of whom are veteran and some of whom are even admins, that think that their job consists solely of sending other editors to "do their homework", forgetting that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I apologize for overstepping the WP:CIVIL boundaries, though.

• Side note: as noted on my talk page, I paraphrased the "lifted" text mainly by looking at it and using basic rewriting skills, something Nightscream could have done as well – the Wikia description is so detailed that it can suffice without having to watch the episode. Just more excuses, causing more frustration. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter whether Nightscream could have fixed it (and paraphrasing a huge chunk of someone else's text is not the easiest skill in the world, nor the most ethical in many cases). Editors should not be introducing text with permission / copyright problems in the first place, under any circumstances. While attracting and keeping contributors is vital, failing to respect copyright to the letter can kill the project and has to take precedence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So what is Wikipedia if not a collection of paraphrased chunks of other people's text? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris' point is that the text in question wasn't paraphrased.

Regarding the other matter, apology accepted; I hope we can continue to collaborate more positively from here on in. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 2 May 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:Greyhood

Resolved

 – For now, user seems to have lost his cool. No admin action needed at the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

I am beginning to become concerned with user:Greyhood, user primarily edits on Russian articles, is a frequent and consistent editor who removes sources, in favor of non-notable sources in order to confuse other users and push an agenda.

Replaced Current Facts with disputable info from a non- notable database; in fact its appearance on wiki violates the terms of use of the source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=prev&oldid=487380845

User has removed references http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=489423788, a reference was inexplicably removed, this happened recently(apr.27)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhirinovsky%27s_ass This article was created by Greyhood and has sparked edit warring and unrest, because it is largely non encyclopedic, and reflects an overall agenda on Greyhood behalf.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive182 He has been the member of a dispute previously brought by user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malick78.

Was going to use subst:uw-nor, but instead ANI warningWrathofjames (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if I am not mistaken, the only interaction between you and Greyhood documented on his talk page is your notification of this ANI topic, which has a subtitle "Stop abusing Wikipedia". This is not exactly what the dispute resolution procedures advise you to do. I suggest that you follow the procedures first.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked over the offered differences briefly. I don't really see anything here that is blatantly controversial or tenacious. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Me neither, for the record. I often have differences in opinions with Greyhood, especially concerning contemporary Russian politics, but I have never seen him edit-warring or replacing reliable sources with junk sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've had only positive experiences with Greyhood at ITN. Boomerang might be spinning round… —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I looked at the diff you posted on Greyhood's talk page. I could not understand what you were objecting to. Perhaps if you explained to him on his/her talk page what it was that you objected to, it would give him/her the chance to explain. He/she does not bite. If you deal with him/her reasonably you will find that he/she is willing to compromise when he/she understands your objections (assuming your objections are reasonable and are backed by reliable sources). Sources need to be reliable sources. It is only the subjects of articles that need to be notable.

As for disputes about other articles, I did not see any edits by User:Wrathofjames to the article on Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video on the list of contributors. After discussion, the article has been stable since 9 April - the editors worked together to build a compromise. User:Wrathofjames's claims about User:Greyhood and that article assume bad faith. That is not OK. Other editors would not have spent their precious time working with Greyhood on that article if it had been as User:Wrathofjames said. I found Greyhood easy to deal with and willing to compromise.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Re: the link on oil production in Russia. There is no convention that in the Russia article we should prefer CIA over other sources (CIA is mostly a nice collection of country data, but too often outdated). International Energy Agency is in fact a better source, more relevant to the energy stuff and providing more up-to-date reports.
• With Zhirinovsky video, the issues in that article have been long fixed via discussion and collaboration with other users. In Putin, one reference was already present in the section below, and the second reference was excessive since the fact of the oil price rise is already supported by other references. GreyHood ^Talk 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a bit late here... just noticed the discussion now, sorry. For the record, Greyhood has a long record of biased editing on the Putin article, and also 2011–2012 Russian protests and other similar, Russia-related articles. His edits are consistently pro-regime, and he frequently finds himself alone up against 4 or 5 other editors, while he refuses to meet them in the middle and find a compromise. It was of course worse before Russavia got banned - Russavia would drop in to back up Greyhood. As for Toddy1's comment above that "the editors worked together to build a compromise" on Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video, I'd say we were bludgeoned into submission by Greyhood, who can afford to spend hours at a time editing - while those against him have to get on with their lives. Oh, and Greyhood produces those dumb Polandball things... designed to goad certain nationalities.
• Either way, my point is - please keep an eye on him. He'll be back on this board in the near future I feel... Malick78 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Election year antics

Just a heads up for administrators here. A couple of AFDs related to the current US presidential election are apparently the target off-wiki campaigning from both sides of the political spectrum. A few extra sets of eyes on these articles might be helpful. Thanks. Peacock (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (generic name of socialist publications)

One of the most supported views, and least dissented views in the recent COI RFC was, er, mine, located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI#View by Hipocrite. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

Resolved

 – 72 hour block by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

90.218.255.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

A couple of weeks ago I reported this IP editor here, who I suspected was deliberately adding false information or at best just guessing, and was advised to keep an eye on it. Since then the dubious additions have continued and all messages have been ignored (I tried asking them to just reply on their talk page to confirm if they'd read them and got no response), the only reaction to messages is that they stop or slow down for a day or so and then gradually pick up and continue exactly as before. This latest edit appears to be false (explained why in my revert). The persistent style errors have continued too, although these are less harmful they are also an indication that this editor is either wilfully ignoring or unable to understand the messages they are receiving.

This is a long-term problem, I think this person has been editing like this for over a year across various IPs (see here and here) but even taking just the current IP, they have over 1,000 edits since February. Even if I AGF that the errors were not deliberate, an editor who cannot understand or will not even acknowledge concerns about their edits is disruptive and I think at least a WP:COMPETENCE block is necessary. January (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am a proponent of blocks for incompetent editors who are highly incommunicative. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• I would agree with Drmies perspective, although I'm a failure at blocking. I've been in many ANIs this week and have yet to block anyone ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Go to AIV. Or ask Sitush for someone who needs to be blocked; I think he has a hit list. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not enough vandalistic edits to be considered a vandal. Plenty of legitimate edits. Doc talk 03:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how we can allow them a few vandalistic edits because they also make edits which look legitimate. As with the edit I highlighted above, it sometimes takes a bit of research to tell which is which and I'm concerned that some of the false edits are going unnoticed because they look innocuous at first sight. This, which I'm pretty sure is false (Ross King describes himself as "from Knightswood" in this interview stayed in the article for a week. January (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that edits like this are not good, as they introduce things into referenced material where the reference does not support it. Doc talk 06:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disruption is still disruption. Once all possible good faith solutions have been exhausted, the block is the only tool we have left, and I like having it on the table at ANI rather than being acted upon unilaterally. I'm not convinced that adding one more template is going to have any more effect than the 15 or so recent and existing ones on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The user has continued editing in the same vein while this discussion has been going on. According to this edit Kate Garraway's hobbies include sleeping. They are also making dubious additions of notable residents to city/district articles (I tried sourcing a few and found nothing). January (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC)

I've just retrieved this thread from the archive as the problem has continued today. January (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's quite enough of that. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours, next one will be two weeks. You can roll back all the edits the IP has made as well as you see fit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange new users.

Resolved

For some reason, two new accounts was created today, both doing only one thing: Editing (vandalizing?) the user page of another user, who has been idle since June 2011.

The users in question are Hatmanone (talk · contribs · email) and Cellymob1 (talk · contribs · email).

I thought first this was somebody trying to be a puppetmaster but being bad at it, although now I think it might be vandalism. Something somewhere else prompted these people to try to make User:Adeikov look bad, or something.

Please advice. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Both indefblocked as vandalism-only accounts. Adeikov uses that name elsewhere on the internet commonly it seems. I'm guessing this is some forum dispute spilling over to here. Moreschi (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Uncommunicative school project

For the last few weeks there has evidently been some kind of school or university project involving each student working on an article about an English village (identified as university coursework here: [24]; other articles include Stirchley, Shropshire, Clee St. Margaret, Waverton, Cumbria, Stanton upon Hine Heath, and many others). I haven't been able to find out what institution is doing this, but I have a guess it might be related to the geography department of Portsmouth University. This is certainly a great idea in general, and I'm very much of the opinion we should encourage and help this effort, but unfortunately many of the students involved have had problems with image uploads, some also with other copyright-related stuff. Many of them have been repeating the same errors: uploading non-free images of buildings or non-free chart graphics; re-uploading free images that already existed on Commons, and so on. Today, for the first time, I had to block one of them because he was re-uploading the same bad image multiple times.

What troubles me is that multiple members of this group have been curiously unresponsive to polite, friendly messages regarding the background of their project. I've been asking several of them to provide me with some contact address to get in touch with their supervisor, simply to get some advice about better image handling across to the group as a whole, but people keep simply ignoring my requests:

• HannahPeek (talk · contribs) [25]
• Christopher Edward John Ellis (talk · contribs) [26]
• Sophwelland (talk · contribs) [27]
• Andrew Poyntz-Roberts (talk · contribs) [28]

I'm really at a loss to understand what's going on. Have they decided among themselves that I'm their common enemy because they keep seeing my name in deletion messages? Could somebody else try to have a word with a few of them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

For any students from this class that are reading this notice. Our goal here is to work with you and your professor to provide you with the resources and training that will help you succeed in editing our encyclopedia. We have an educational program that is designed to work with university classes for this purpose. The Wikimedia UK Chapter runs the program in your country and you can learn more about their efforts at this website: [29]. If you don't feel comfortable letting us know what class you're in, please ask your professor to contact the Wikimedia UK chapter's education program using the information at the link provided. GabrielF (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, now you have an IP/possible sock that geolocates to University of Portsmouth, so at least that suspicion is confirmed. --64.85.220.145 (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

And one of the guys above who, instead of finally responding in some meaningful way, simply removes his name from the list above. Sigh. Are these university students? I sure hope the ones that I teach wouldn't react like that in such a situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, at least now I'm in a dialogue with one of them. Maybe we're getting somewhere after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• When you're done with that, please look at the history of Urbanism. Unless you have a day job, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Urbanism should either be rolled back to a much earlier version, or AfD'd. I don't think it's salvageable in the condition its in without a massive amount of work. As it stands it's a horror which reflects very poorly on the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What about rolling it back to its 2004 creation, a redirect to Urban Planning?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I was very tempted to do that, but "urbanism" is much more of a sociological concept, and not really the same as urban planning. What I really think needs to happen is for someone with knowledge of the subject to go through the article mercilessly, trim it down, clean it up and rescue it from the students who are currently writing it. Unfortunately, that person is not me.

If there's no one around who can take on the task, then stubbing it or AfD'ing it are better alternatives than leaving it in place as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No way I would take that to AfD. Whenever I've taken messy articles to AfD on subjects as broad as that, I'm accused of not following notability guidelines. Stubbing it is a possibility. I'll wait and see if anyone else bites.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Another user, James Marwood (talk · contribs), just contacted me on my talk page and complained about a speedy deletion tag. The user mentioned a university project and the file is used in an article about an English village, so it seems to fit with the other users. I'm writing a reply there now. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's certainly one of the Portsmouth guys too. They're getting a bit nervous, it seems, because they have their deadline tomorrow. (I've now got a communication channel with them, and I'd be available if anybody else needs advice.) I'm only glad the "urbanism" page discussed above must be a different project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I might have to add User:JoshuaEBarker to the list - I've just reverted a huge chunk of his work at Esh, County Durham, due to the fact that he had copy-pasted pretty much all of it directly from non-free sources. Has anyone emailed the professor yet? A number of these students are going to fail their course module due to his inadequate knowledge of Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion with a teacher at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Revised picture. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: notification of this discussion was left at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#University_of_Portsmouth_class. Dcoetzee 00:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Karlovy Vary page name changed unilaterally

The article for Karlovy Vary was changed to Carlsbad, Bohemia by OttomanJackson unilaterally, against prior consensus, without discussion and using a single google search for justification. This should be reverted back, unless we want to rename Gdańsk to Danzig, etc. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of such a move doesn't need an administrator. Consensus on the talk page seemed clear, so I've reverted the move. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was unable to do it for some reason. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not exactly a first for OttomanJackson; almost all their edits for the last 6 months are like this. Xiamen →‎ Amoy, Helsingør →‎ Elsinore, Hagåtña, Guam →‎ Agana, Guam, A Coruña →‎ Corunna, &c. bobrayner (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I quote from OttomanJackson's talk page,

All diacritics will be removed from messages, according to my Anglicization policy.

That fails WP:TPO by a mile. Also he's not been informed of this discussion, I've done that. ~Crazytales (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a company removing controversial info about themselves.

Hi, I just stumbled across User:Actualjustice who according to their edits, is a representative of METROCON. They are removing info about their company that may be deemed as controversial. I am requesting an admin handle this matter due to the sensitivity of the situation. Thanks. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

COI or not, it looks like what he removed was a BLP violation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hghyux, please remember to follow the guideline at the top of this page. "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Also, as Ron Ritzman points out, the edit is a completely ethical and legitimate edit in line with BLP policy as well as our NPOV pillar. Please take a moment to talk to the editor in question. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Bansky of bulgaria.jpg

Don't really know Commons' procedure, but...

Come on, it has (c) Reuters in the corner, and gives name different to the person claiming copyright for the CC license. 86.** IP (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion there. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a company removing controversial info about themselves.

Hi, I just stumbled across User:Actualjustice who according to their edits, is a representative of METROCON. They are removing info about their company that may be deemed as controversial. I am requesting an admin handle this matter due to the sensitivity of the situation. Thanks. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

COI or not, it looks like what he removed was a BLP violation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hghyux, please remember to follow the guideline at the top of this page. "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Also, as Ron Ritzman points out, the edit is a completely ethical and legitimate edit in line with BLP policy as well as our NPOV pillar. Please take a moment to talk to the editor in question. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Bansky of bulgaria.jpg

Don't really know Commons' procedure, but...

Come on, it has (c) Reuters in the corner, and gives name different to the person claiming copyright for the CC license. 86.** IP (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion there. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by shootings about Li Xiannian all over WP

Between February and March 2012, User Koroknait (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of another user, came and laid droppings about Li Xiannian on all related articles, including Deng Xiaoping, Chinese economic reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_economic_reform&diff=prev&oldid=480654971), Cultural Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=480992671), Chen Yun (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chen_Yun&diff=prev&oldid=479302596), President of the PRC (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=479496599), etc. I've been identifying these edits for a while now and it is hard to scrub all of them. It seems like the user is merely trying to up the "link count" to Li Xiannian from a series of articles. Anyway, none of this is helpful or constructive. Is there a way that all of the user's edits can be reverted? Colipon+(Talk) 16:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I got most of it already back when the accounts weren't blocked.--Atlan (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

evidently not... see President of the People's Republic of China. I can't even undo the edits... Colipon+(Talk) 18:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I clearly missed that one. I have reverted their edits. Let me know if you find more.--Atlan (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Need IP blocked for repeated vandalism

96.250.41.58 is a vandalism only account. Appears to be same person as 96.250.18.251 who was blocked about a week ago for vandalizing the same article (George Harrison). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I blocked them 31h for edit warring. My first block, actually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have previously unblocked one person after a discussion with the blocking admin, so my net score is still 0 ;) If this warring happens again, we might consider semi-protection on that page since it seems to be IPs causing all the fuss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if semi-protection is necessary. I think it's just one person who's vandalizing the article. Both IPs trace back to the same ISP (Verizon Online LLC, Ashburn, VA, USA).96.250.41.58=96.250.18.251 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That is why I didn't enact it. If they come back later today with a shiny new IP, it may be warranted. I'm not sure how fast those IPs cycle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Should have been filed at WP:AVI really... MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 12:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is true, but it was obvious enough that I went and took care of it rather than be a slave to formality. But yes, normally that is where we want to take them and I likely should have indicated as much, even as I took care of the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Yeumuvayeuem only contribs are VANDALISM please 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.

---

Yeumuvayeuem only Contributions are Vandalism, Please block Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Migrating this report to WP:AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 3 May 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.

Real Madrid/Barcelona

User:Suitcivil133 is constintly deleting real madrid information, I was reported and banned from wikipedia because I "vandalized" the FC Barcelona article when I removed information, this user deletes anything that shines on Real Madrid or has a negative impact on Barcelona, its not fair to see that if he or she is getting away with it, there was a picture of a 8-0 defeat on the page and Suitcivil133 removed it, today he removed a sentence that said "Real Madrid made history" and gave no reason for it, to me that is considerd vandalism, if I was banned for that why isnt he or she? 71.139.163.192 (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

They removed a claim that had been tagged with {{cn}} since January; the onus is not on them to provide references. You, however, left a talk page section titled "you a bitch" on their talk page, were promptly blocked for a week, upon your block expiring you followed up with this upstanding character assessment on their talk page. How you evaded being blocked for that PA I don't know. You need to log into your account and post either an {{unblock}} or {{adminhelp}} request on your talk page before someone blocks your IP account for trolling/harassing Suitcivil133 again. Also, you failed to notify Suitcivil133 of this frivolous complaint; I will do so for you. --64.85.221.47 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are lying again. I removed it because there was no reference and because it was wrong. Also extremely subjective as the rest of that particular section. Moroever you are saying that I remove RM information? That is also not truth. In fact I am a regular contributor and often update the "Real Madrid record and statistics" thread and Spanish football records. But I am not surprised that this banned sock poppet has a problem with me because he was banned and I found him to be sock puppet vandalizing several pages and writting untrue claims. Moreoever he is the same person who threatened me with death without any reason on my talk page. I pity this person.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked for a month this time. New sock User talk:MadridFG7 blocked indeff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Iamseba

Iamseba (talk · contribs) seems to creating duplicate pages about schools with various capitalizations, such as St lawrence higher secondary school Madathattuvilai and St Lawrence Higher Secondary School Madathattuvilai, and them immediately thereafter tagging them with {{db-g7}} or redirecting them, sometimes both in the same edit. In any case, the articles seem to be of pretty shoddy quality and could probably use a lot of cleanup. Canuck^{89 »–—►(click here!)◄–—«} 09:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Cameroonian IP editor adding hoax again...

• Military of Cameroon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Patrolling Admins, please take a look at the aforementioned article page and apply semi-protection (indef if possible!) as this IP hopping editor from Cameroon keeps returning to insert artificially inflated figures and hoax content. Note that this patent nonsense has gone on for quite some time now and frankly, any Admin's close monitoring of the situation is very much welcomed. Thank you~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I semi'd for another month. Request should really go to WP:RFPP next time.--v/r - TP 13:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, although this is just the tip of the iceberg as the IP has been adding false information on many other military related articles in the past few months.--McSly (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Political shenigans

re:"How is this an issue that requires administrator attention?" Perhaps it is a heads-up of subtle vandalism which often occurs during peak political seasons; as a suggestion to place an article on a watchlist should the need to take administrative action arise. Be that blocking in case of 3RR, or protection of the said article. Of course I can't speak for Drmies, but just to note that I've added the article to my watchlist. Thanks for the tip Drmies. Feel free to drop any further issues at my talk page should it become unacceptable to place further notices on the admin. related boards. And TY to SW for the table fix. — Ched :  ?  15:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ched. I actually just posted a similar message on SW's talk page (thanking him twice--he's not a peon anymore an admin now, so we have to treat him nicely). I did indeed plow through pages of history to see if it was a result of vandalism but found nothing. Note the talk page: there are suspicions of POV editing (quickly endangering the GA status), which will be very common this year, I'm afraid. We should have a user category like Category:Republican Wikipedians who are really neutral--read my lips, so we know who is trustworthy. What surprises me is a. how few politicians (and their tools) have discovered Wikipedia and b. how clumsy the ones operate that have discovered it. My fellow-check-to-Montessori-writing representative Joe Hubbard fit in the first, and one of his fans in the second category. The existence of Justin Bieber on Twitter is an easy way for us to double the number of articles on living, active politicians, by the way--and to double the POV and vandalism stuff. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and lists

I'm starting this discussion here since Wikipedia:Media copyright questions seems to only deal with images.

A series of articles was created over the past several months, listing the Time 100 for each year:

• 2012 Time 100
• 2011 Time 100
• 2010 Time 100
• 2009 Time 100
• 2008 Time 100
• 2007 Time 100
• 2006 Time 100
• 2005 Time 100

My question really revolves around whether or not these articles should exist. Any material copied directly from another copyrighted source is obviously usually a copyright violation; however, we run into a grey area with lists. Wikipedia:Copyright in lists (an essay, not a guideline) says there's some ambiguity: A list that is compiled by factual criteria would be okay to copy verbatum, but a list that is based on subjective criteria is not okay. In this case, I think the lists are subjective enough that we can't copy them, and so I would have to think having these individual articles would then be useless.

My instinct is to redirect all of these to Time 100, but I wanted wider input first. Ready? Break! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above - these articles are mostly copyright violation. I do not feel that copying a list is all that different from copying some prose. The list includes the same set of names in the same order as the page published by Times. It may pe possible to rescure the articles by relying on reliable secondary coverage of the Time 100 lists. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Good question. In the past at AfDs I have seen arguments both ways regarding copyright status of lists. I've seen lists deleted as copyright violations and lists kept on the premises that the list isn't original enough to be a copyright violation. I'd like to see this clarified somehow. ThemFromSpace 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Feist v. Rural make this material uncopyrightable? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Themfromspace - that's the point of Moonriddengirl's essay, Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, to try to clarify the situation but at the end of the day it's always going to be a judgement call. Stefan2 - I suggest you read that essay but in short WMF counsel advice is that Feist v. Rural does not always apply and it comes down the amount of creativity that went into the list. Telephone numbers are not creative so are not copyrighted per Feist v. Rural, however a list like this likely contains significant creative input as to who makes the top 100 and in what order and so is likely to be copyrighted. Dpmuk (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We have had a reasonable discussion on this in the past with input from the Foundation legal counsel. Lists like these Time lists that are generated by creative process do qualify for copyright (eg, Feist v Rural can't apply here), and wholesale inclusion in WP is a copyvio. This doesn't mean we can't have articles on the lists if the lists are notable, or discuss an individual entry's position on the list, or even repeat a few entries if they are discussed in sources. But they are copyrightable.

There is one set of exceptions, that being the AFI lists which we have ORTS approval to include wholesale. This discussion is summarized by the last point of "Unacceptable uses / Test" at WP:NFC.

That said, as to merging the various years of TIme lists into article, it depends whether it's simply the fact that Time does top 100 lists each year (supporting the full merge) or if each year's list is of interest. If after the wholesale list inclusion is removed there's not much else, then merging might be right. But that specific decision is not appropriate for here. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have notice that some of the lists have been pruned to 10 or 25 members. I don't know what logic was used for which members, but I do understand now that these lists are copyvios. I do believe that there is annual media publicity surrounding each list. It is possible that each list could sustain an article, but I have not looked into this. I have since created lists where only 10 of the 100 listings are included on wikiipedia. I have no real argument for keeping the entire lists and am surprised it has taken this long for someone to come down on them. Do what you must. P.S., I don't think ANI is the right place for this decision to be made although there is consensus that seems to be heading toward a policy consistent resolution. I think there are COPYVIO boards for this type of discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's step back and think about it. Facts aren't copyrightable; only creative expressions are, whether fictional creations or methods of expressing facts. It is a fact that Time put Jeremy Lin at the top of its list of 100 most influential people (or whatever this list is), a fact that they put Novak Djokovic at fourteenth, a fact that they put U Thein Sein at sixty-seventh, etc. Does copyright prevent me from saying whom they announced for those three spots and for the other ninety-seven? No! From that point, listing them by the order of their influence (or whatever else it is) is a thoroughly unoriginal format and not copyrightable. I'm not going to comment on whether this is appropriate content for a page according to our content policies, but it's not inappropriate from a copyright standpoint. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After stepping back and thinking about it per your behest, it seems that it is not a fact that person A is more influential than person B. That is the opinion of Time, and somebody expended creative effort to arrive at that ordering. When Stephen King writes a book, he generates a series of 140000 words according to an ordering that he invented, and while it can be shown as a fact that those words are indeed in that order, nobody is disputing that copying that would be a copyvio. But I do prefer to let the pros handle this kind of thing, as it appears has already happened above. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the advice that we've received in the past from WMF counsel e.g. Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Hopefully Moonriddengirl will come in with a better history, and better links, of the advice we've received from counsel as I was only just getting started in copyright work when the copyright in lists issue started. However I'm confident that counsel said lists such as this could be copyrighted. Whether we agree with them or not I don't see how we can go against their advice. Dpmuk (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It's a bit late for me, but I wanted to stop by quickly. :) As I mention in my essay (other people have contributed, too; I'm calling it "my" essay to avoid it seeming like I'm claiming some other authority here, when I certainly am a major contributor there), to quote again from William F. Patry, copyright governs "compilations of things expressed as a value judgment"[31] - whether or not a person is influential is a value judgment. We could as easily argue that it is a fact that prices listed in a wholesale coin price guide are listed at that price, but in CDN Inc. v. Kapes the court determined that the list in question was copyrightable because the creators followed a process that used "their judgment to distill and extrapolate from factual data" and that "This process imbues the prices listed with sufficient creativity and originality to make them copyrightable." I can't imagine that the process Time uses to compile its list of most influential is less creative than that. I can try to give more background and explanation in the morning, but I did just want to drop this for now. I think this kind of content is clearly creative. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the copyright concerns, my thoughts are that the Time list itself should be considered WP:PRIMARY. We should be basing our edits on secondary sources. The Time list itself should not be a reference used to support the content in whole or in part. We should find reliable secondary sources to support statements about who is on the list and where they appear.WTucker (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, i've alphabetized 2012 Time 100. I don't know if that helps with any copyright issues or not. I'm also a quarter of the way through having every name on the list referenced with a secondary source. This can be done for all the other lists too, if someone takes the initiative. Silverseren^C 06:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that won't help; at best, it would create a derivative work. :/ Similar to your point below, we can't keep them just because we want to share the information - we can't supersede the value of the original. Creative lists are copyrighted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright questions aside, what value do we and our readers gain by having these articles? If they are articles about the lists - their creation, reception, influence, etc. - then they seem to be valuable and interesting. If, however, they're just copies of the lists then they don't seem very valuable at all. ElKevbo (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think they should definitely be expanded to include information beyond just the bare lists. There's more than enough sources available to do so. Though the lists themselves are also important for the mere fact that not everyone on them has a Wikipedia article. Therefore, listing them and having a reference attached that explains them is also very useful and important. Silverseren^C 08:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

..."the lists themselves are also important for the mere fact that not everyone on them has a Wikipedia article". That's an intriguing definition of "important". To the point at hand, the lists themselves are only notable for the impact they have on the American chattering classes: there is little chance of there being reliable critical commentary of the lists themselves as most people understand that they are simply compiled to generate revenue for Time in the form of purchases by members of said chattering class. I don't even want to look, but could someone more willing to wade into the swamp which is arguing with people over notability of nonsense like this please verify whether we have an article for every FHM World's Hottest Women top 100 yet or not? Arguably more widely-read than Time's, and with far less in the way of agenda. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've blanked most of them; the only one that I didn't blank is the one that was limited to 25, but even that is by no means safe based on the feedback we received from one of the WMF's attorneys.
  
  People occasionally refer to me as an expert on copyright; I refer to myself as experienced. Some of my experience predates Wikipedia and some does not; copyright in lists is something that I never really worked with before coming here, and my familiarity with the issues grew based on the advice of other editors, the advice of Mike Godwin and other counsel with the Foundation and with my own reading.
  
  Feist v. Rural is a landmark case here, but I wonder if some people are confused about what Feist affirmed. The judgment is here. The courts did affirm that non-creative lists are not copyrightable and also helped more firmly establish that the US does not protect sweat of the brow, but it didn't say that creative lists are uncopyrightable, and it emphasized that "the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be". Explaining why the telephone directory in question is copyrightable, the court elaborated that "Rural may have been the first to discover and report the names, towns, and telephone numbers of its subscribers, but this data does not "`ow[e] its origin'" to Rural. Burrow-Giles, 111 U.S., at 58 . Rather, these bits of information are uncopyrightable facts; they existed before Rural reported them, and would have continued to exist if Rural had never published a telephone directory."
  
  In the case of a creative list, we are not dealing with uncopyrightable fact; this list did not exist before Time reported it and would never have existed had Time not reported it. It is not a list of fact, but of opinion, which clears the threshold of originality. I don't believe that the originality question is even borderline here.
  
  There's a whole lot more reading, including some case law, some additional attorney opinion and some community opinions that dissent and support, at Wikipedia talk:Copyright in lists. There is also further reading in the archives of the copyright policy talk page and the copyright problems talk page. The community has been dealing with this since at least 2003. I don't want to overwhelm ANI, though, so I'm not going to draw in more just yet. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  And I've blanked the one remaining as I don't see how even a top 25 is compatible with advice we received with respect to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Dpmuk (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• So what can we do to make them usable? Would putting them into prose do it and organizing them in groups, like entertainers, political heads, ect? Silverseren^C 18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You can't duplicate the list in full in prose (eg even if mixed up/regrouped who was on there, in some different order). You can highlight that the list contains notable people from all walks of life, perhaps if others have noted specific people at specific positions, to highlight those specific individuals. Otherwise, from it seems to me, the idea of "The Time 100" listings are a notable concept, but not the individual callouts per year. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, i've done 27 so far (maybe 29). Of those, I think I couldn't find a proper descriptive source for 3, in that they were only mentioned in the source. For the rest, the sources discussed them a significant amount. So I would end up highlighting most of the list in prose. If that's okay, then i'll do that. Silverseren^C 18:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      • How about (and I apologise if this seems like an outlandish concept, given your editing history) you drop it and find something which isn't either exactly on or significantly below the established threshold for inclusion to work on? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I completely disagree that it is below the established inclusion threshold. It has received well over 1000 news articles discussing it and all the parts of it. Silverseren^C 20:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source and original research at Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars

Insertion of original research by User:128.63.16.82, for example, this edit. As explained at length on the article talk page in the Need to review these conversions? section, the insertion is contrary to the contents of the cited source and, when the directions provided in the article for using the table are followed, give wrong answers. I will provide a link to an image of this obscure source, in compliance with the crown copyright of the source, shortly. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Having read the Crown copyright article, it is my understanding that the Crown copyright on the source for the article in question expired in 2011, therefore I have reproduced the page in question here. This image downloads slowly. After further researching the Commons copyright policy, I have uploaded the page to Commons. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User: Rancidoro

Keeps promoting himself both on the English and the Italian Wikipedia: [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]] [[36]] Agroscena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Buonasera, Agroscena. I don't think there are any reasons to block Rancidoro from editing the English Wikipedia, considering he hasn't edited since December 2011. Should he start promoting himself again, then a block could be appropriate, but right now it would just be punitive. Thanks for raising this issue here, however. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Buonasera anche a lei. I thought it could be useful to warn about him, since he has been very active on the Italian Wikipedia in the last two or three days. I suppose that he will be active again quite soon here too (I've blocked him for one day on the Italian Wikipedia... the next 24 hours might be critical here). User talk:Agroscena 21:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Someone please have a look at Talk:Industrial_violence#Merger_proposal. It is over one year, and still not closed. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Rlendog (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are 15,074 articles with open merge proposals, some open for more than three years. Very very few need an administrator to close the move discussion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! It shows poor administration in Wikipedia. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, does an administrator have to do merge's or can any user complete a merge? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 15:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the type of merge; if it's a simple content merge, anyone can redirect the article to be merged and add whatever is supposed to be in the main article without assistance. If it requires a history merge, only admins can do that, and it's one of our more difficult tasks (I've been meaning to learn how to do it, because relatively few admins are willing to; one wrong move and you can create a horrible mess that takes a long time to fix). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec with Blade) No, anyone can close almost all merges. Controversial merge discussions, like other content controversies, need an uninvolved Wikipedian of some experience, good standing, and dermal fortitude to close (Help:Merging suggests, but does not require, that this be an administrator). Administrators are needed only for hist-merges, which are very rarely necessary. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Interested users should check out WP:WikiProject Merge. While most mergers can be performed by anyone, there are a few tricky steps where mini-mentoring may be helpful. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Court Moor School

Would an administrator please revert the two last edits to Court Moor School and make them inaccessible to public viewing on grounds that an unsubstantiated allegation is made about an identifiable person. Since the editor concerend is identifiable only via an IP address that is registered to a large telco, no notification has been sent out. Martinvl (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Martinvl (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Question from a new admin who doesn't want to drag this to another page: In a situation like this, should we template the IPs talk page with a warning? I'm guessing not, just as here, but feedback would be helpful as I haven't done many redactions before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just a kid messing with his friends, probably from a shared school IP. Better to just quietly squelch it. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my gut instinct, but I wanted to verify it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Longterm (self?) promotion

An editor has, for many months, been adding references to Thais Sher to at least eight different Wikipedia articles. Examples include [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. The editor was blocked (see User talk:88.108.208.179), but simply returned with another IP. The editor has claimed at various times to be Sher, or to be acting under her direction. I'm tempted to simply semi-protect the pages, but thought I would come here for possible alternative suggestions first. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection seems the most effective approach. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You could try a range block; the IPs are all in a tight little range of 88.108.208.0/21. -- Dianna (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Drboisclair (talk · contribs)

Somebody explain to the user that one cannot !vote twice. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I never intended to vote twice on this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (generic name of socialist publications). Choyoo twice removed my one vote. I think that this editor needs to be reminded of WP:CIVIL and other policies against removing other editor's edits. Thank you.-Drboisclair (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

One !vote? How many do you count? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I voted once, and you deleted it. Twice. -Drboisclair (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I was moving my vote to the bottom of the page since I place it there by accident. I removed it from where I originally put it, and I put it at the bottom of the page. You are unjust and unfair in your accusations.-Drboisclair (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that's what you meant to do, but you didn't. When it's pointed out to you, the thing to do is to say "oops, my bad, thanks for pointing that out." Instead, you post some rant-snippet about censorship on my page, and then restore your second !vote. And now you lie about it. Be that as it may, your second !vote's been removed again. Don't restore it. Case closed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I also wish to commend User:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 for his assistance in making sure that Wikipedia policy is properly followed. I thank the two editors.-Drboisclair (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've pointed out to Drboisclair where his first vote is, as he apparently had trouble finding it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis

I have ended up in a conflict with Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) about the vandalisme tagging of Seyitahmetmrk (talk · contribs). I have tagged two of the edits of Seyitahmetmrk as vandalism, and later reported him as vandalism-only account. Mr. Chipmunkdavis disagreed with that and requested the blocking admin Terriersfan to unblock him. So far, so good. It should have ended there. Unfortunately, after that mr. Chipmunkdavis demanded an explanation. By now it feels like he is trying to discredited and taint me, combined with some low level personal attacks. I repeatedly ([45], [46]) asked mr. Chipmunkdavis to stop harassing (conform Wikipedia:Harassment, particlular Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.) me, so I could go on with nicer things. His answer on my request Please stop harassing me, NOW. made his intentions loud and clear: I'm not, I simply want to know if you can back up the warnings you gave with any sort of policy or guideline. Can you?.

The full story can be read on:

1. User talk:Seyitahmetmrk, including two removals of the warning templates
2. User talk:TerriersFan#User:Seyitahmetmrk
3. User talk:Night of the Big Wind/Archives/2012/May#User:Seyitahmetmrk

Due to his wish to go on with this, I request help. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not harassment, I see no personal attacks (low-level or otherwise), and an ANI report is premature and seems a bit silly. If you don't want to talk to CMD anymore, stop responding to him. Or say "I don't want to talk about this anymore". If you try to end it by saying "stop harassing me", it's unreasonable to expect him not to protest that he isn't harassing you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is providing a new source that shows the city as 150% bigger years ago vandalism? Inaccurate? Maybe. Vandalism? Absolutely not. And you got a guy blocked for it. Of course he is going to be peeved. Apologize and maybe you both can move on. Quit trying to get folks blocked again by running here to ANI.--v/r - TP 17:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The edits seem to have resulted from an error in confusing Samsun, the city, with Samsun Province: the figures for the province were used in error for the city. Although an error, it was not vandalism. Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Explanation and inquires by Chipmunkdavis

Well, since this is already here, I'd appreciate input into what should('ve) be(en) done in this situation. The course of events is like so:

• The new User:Seyitahmetmrk makes these edits from 20:48-21:04, the first is to change a map of Cyprus to show the area of Northern Cyprus which is not under government control as a separate shade of green, the second two change the population data of the city of Samsun in Turkey (info given for context, not content discussion here). These are the only edits the user has made.
• Night of the Big Wind reverted all three (in reverse order to the original edits, if that matters) using the Twinkle vandalism tool at around 22:07.
• Night of the Big Wind subsequently gives two warnings to Seyitahmetmrk, uw-vandalism1 and uw-vandalism2 (although when discussing with the user I referred to the first one as a test edit warning as I didn't realise before now that the hidden text showed what the warning is).
• At 22:18 I reverted Night of the Big Wind's reversion on Cyprus, saying in the edit summary that "That wasn't vandalism". At the same time, I asked on his talkpage why he considered the edits vandalism.
• Night of the Big Wind reverted my reversion on Cyprus at 22:34, saying "I consider gross POV and breaking consensus to add a POV a form of vandalism", and replied to much the same note on their talkpage, while noting that they knew the figures came from "an older census".
• At 23:37, Night of the Big Wind reported Seyitahmetmrk to WP:AIV. I didn't know this until later (which you can see on TerriersFan's talkpage), and at about the same time posted on Night of the Big Wind's talkpage noting that the edits were not vandalism, per WP:VANDALISM.
• TerriersFan blocked Seyitahmetmrk at 1:16 in response to the AIV report.
• I asked about the block on TerriersFan's talkpage, visible at User talk:TerriersFan#User:Seyitahmetmrk, showing that the edit wasn't vandalism. To this explanation, TerriersFan responded that "As you are aware changes must be reliably sourced; if the user for whom you are making representations agrees to reliably source his future changes then I should be happy to unblock him." After I commented that this was not a basis for a block, TerriersFan unblocked Seyitametmrk at 10:21.
• I thanked TerriersFan on the talkpage, and noted that since the vandalism warnings on Seyitahmetmrk's talkpage were clearly unwarranted, I would remove them, to which TerriersFan replied this was "a decent solution and we can move on."
• Night of the Big Wind however reinstated the warnings, posting on TerriersFan's talkpage that "We will see. But this looks more on a protecting a friend. And in the mean time mr CMD is personally attacking and discrediting me, here and on the talkpage of Seyitahmetmrk." The subsequent conversation was moved to my talkpage, but more relevant was that Night of the Big Wind didn't provide a policy or guideline based reason for the warnings, readding them again, and, well, raising this AN/I.

There are a couple of things about this incident which seem off to me. The first is obviously that a new user's first edits were reverted under the pretext that they were vandalism when they weren't, and that this user then became blocked for these edits. Another concern was that the blocking admin seemed to think that because the edits were unsourced the block should remain, which is a highly dubious assertion, although they did subsequently unblock. In regards to the actual dispute, I'd like to know if the warnings on Seyitahmetmrk's talkpage should stay or be removed, considering they were very incorrectly applied. If so, can someone remove them? Since this is here, I'd also like to know if there's a better way to handle these situations in the future (was I wrong to remove the warnings after discussing with the warning editor? Where should I have continued this had this AN/I not occured? Anything else?). Thanks, (sorry if the above diff list is a bit TL:DR), CMD (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparison_of_free_web_hosting_services

Resolved

 – editor not a good fit for WP, appears to have left Nobody Ent

On Comparison_of_free_web_hosting_services (history), I may be in an edit war with Thingstofollow (talk · contribs), who seems to be trying to add content to the page but is breaking the table in the process, I would appreciate if someone else could assist in resolving this. (The editor in question just left a message on my talk [47] and I have left messages on their talk as well.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important that we don't bite this new user. Other than the format breakage (anyone can make those), I see pretty constructive edits. That said, though, this seems to belong in the user's sandbox instead of the main article. I've left a note on the user's talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In view of this, I'm going to turn this over to another user, since I can't seem to be able to approach the user without biting him.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the comments on his talk page, it looks like he's quit. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 08:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy

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

---

I would like to request the IP ban of 70.24.25.103 - who is associated with the film Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy. Warnings have been issued on the user's talk page, and IP traces to the location of the user "RobHeydon", who is directly involved with the film. Negative reviews of the film have been edited and replaced with positives. IMDB rating was falsified from 5.0 to 9.0. Rotten Tomatoes negative reviews were removed. And any critical review that the user doesn't agree with is changed. This is conflict of interest. With that said, after sufficient warnings, I would like to have the IP banned and "RobHeydon" should not be able to make adjustments to his own film's Wikipedia page, to avoid neutral point of view.Marty2Hotty (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I notified IP 70.24.25.103 for you [48]. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

- Thank you. Does this prevent the IP from editing? Thanks again. - Marty2Hotty (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it just lets him know about this discussion so he can come comment if he wants. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

- Thanks. Not sure he knows. He's still adding information that is not sourced. Marty2Hotty (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed this ANI in passing. FYI, IMDB ratings should not appear in articles anyway; IMDB is over-run by trolls voting, not to mention it's not a reliable source or a critics' rating. I've removed the sentence. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

- Thanks. But IMDb does have "weighted average" ratings that tries to filter out the trolls. The trolls tried to bump up the rating to 9.0 ("median") but IMDb has filters and tries to show the "variable average" rating. Thanks for clarifying on IMDb's removal. He will try and alter the negative critiques. I think there's too much conflict of interest, but we'll see. Marty2Hotty (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

IMDB cannot filter out the trolls. The weighted average is just that -- a weighted average. An IMDB rating should never ever appear in a Wiki article. As to the editor in question, he appears very very problematical, and has vandalized the article (and even its Talk page) repeatedly even after his previous block for doing so. I'd say another block is in order, and possibly an auto-protect for the article. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

- IMDb rating information duly noted. https://resume.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?votes Is an interesting page I read a few days ago about how IMDb filters out the ratings. The user noted a link to the "median" rating which was a 9.0, which IMDb filtered out and used their filters to have the best rating they can. But I can understand the exclusion of IMDb on Wikipedia articles. As for the editor, I agree. I think he shouldn't be able to edit that article due to conflict of interest. Thanks for everyone's assistance. Marty2Hotty (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is usually regarded as a reasonable source for basic info such as cast-and-crew, year of release, etc. Not so for opinions and trivia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP seems to be heeding the warnings and has stopped editing. Perhaps this could be closed? JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:40, 4 May 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.

P-Money

There is some material in this article which some people should be in the article and some feel should not. Could somebody (from outside New Zealand) please have a look and perhaps make a decision or refer this to the correct group. Please make sure the decision is posted to the talk page for the article so it can be referenced to in future. Thanks. Sorry for being a little cryptic but you'll see what I mean when you read it. This was previously discussed here but sourcing has improved since then - SimonLyall (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the media the order was lifted Jan 2011. But it is still trivial stuff that isn't worth including. EDIT: sorry that was someone else. But even so the source used doesn't mention this guy... --Errant ^(chat!) 11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He is definitely on the source page. Just read it following from the previous photo of Martin Devlin - SimonLyall (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

An image caption isn't adequate sourcing to demonstrate relevance. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• You should have notified SimonLyall, which I went ahead and did for you. The opinion expressed at BLPN [49] seems sound and wasn't disputed, but a larger discussion may need to take place. You might want to raise the issue at the talk page of the article. (I see that one had taken place a while back, but was deleted) If you can't agree, then I would say go back to WP:BLPN again. With BLP, we should always maintain the more conservative version while a larger discussion is going on, so it would be better to leave the section removed until after a talk page or BLPN discussion is complete. ANI isn't the right place to hash it out, BLPN is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Dubdotdash notified, pardon the brain freeze. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Trivial notability aside, the laws of NZL dont hold water in what can/should stay on WP. FL/us law doesLihaas (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Still, it is a WP:BLP, and they are better suited and more experienced at dealing with with these issues. This isn't an incident, the I in ANI, it is a disagreement on adding contentious material in a bio of a living person. ANI is not a good place, nor the proper place, to make these decisions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Blanket removals of refs as "Not RS per RSN" (Moved from WP:RS/N)

I raised this yesterday as I see it as a broad issue for WP:RS cleanup and certainly not an issue with any particular editor. However it was closed there as an "Editor conduct issue" and a move to WP:ANI suggested.

User:Fladrif and blanket removal as "Not RS per RSN"

Fladrif (talk · contribs) is blanket removing sources from a large range of articles. thepeerage.com is one, spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk another.

Without any personal comment on Fladrif, I have a basic distrust of any crusade edits like this. Human editors are needed to be editors, exercising some sort of executive judgement. This blanket removal is the sort of change that could be carried out by a very small Perl script. If it's really required, then it's required - but that's only in the very worst cases, such as outright spam. In particular, this run of edits (based on the unrelated dimension of a host site) inevitably crosses many disciplines of content knowledge. Personally I just edit the stuff that I know about and I stay the hell away from anything else. Problems arise otherwise.

There is no attempt here to find other sourcing for a statement. As the end result of these is to turn a statement with a less than perfect source to one with no source at all, I'm finding it hard to see an overall benefit.

I also find this absolutely strict imposal of "Not RS per RSN, therefore immediate removal of the ref" to be simplistic.

One risk is that content that is entirely uncontroversial finds itself dereferenced (when in fact there are many, many sources for the same information) and then that information is in turn removed. Given the interminable WP problem of editors looking for adminishtrivia that can be done, rather than things that ought to be done, the likelihood is that we eventually lose content and articles for no good reason.

Is this an appropriate blanket edit to be performing? What are the set of sites that should be purged absolutely like this? Is that list visible and appropriate? Is this the best, or even an acceptable, editing action to be taking in this volume? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been extensive and definitive discussions about these sources. They are self-published sources written by amateurs who are not established experts, and have never been published by reputable, third party publications within the scope of the relevant subject matter. The clear and unequivocal consensus is that they are not reliable sources and should not be used as references; at most they can be listed as External Links. After that process is completed, one can hardly be heard to object to the removal of references to such sources; those that are interested in the subject matter will indeed need to find sources that do qualify as reliable sources lest, at some point in time, the material be deleted for lack of verifiable support. There are literally tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia, most of them written several years ago when it was not nearly as vigilant about sourcing, that rely heavily, if not exclusively, on online, self-published amateur websites specifically determined at WP:RSN not to be proper sources that are more convenient than actually going to a library for sources that actually qualify as reliable sources. If there are such sources, then find them and insert them as appropriate. Asserting that WP:RS and WP:V should be ignored in the meanwhile to permit sourcing to such sites notwithstanding determination at WP:RSN that they cannot be used as sources simply because "a poor source is better than no source" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise these policies are meaningless. Fladrif (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

100% agree that thepeerage.com is not a WP:RS and agree with actions to remove the cites to thepeerage.com from articles, especially from WP:BLP articles. There have indeed been several discussions about amateur self-published sites like thepeerage.com, please look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_114#thepeerage.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_103#Self-published_royalty_websites. These web sites do not meet WP:RS, plain and simple. These sites may be helpful in doing research, because they sometimes site a genuine WP:RS reliable source for their information, but then the Wikipedia article should cite the WP:RS and not thepeerage.com or other amateur sites like it. Zad68 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No-one is asserting that WP:RS or WP:V should be ignored (nice use of the straw man argument there, and I see that you've already snagged one).

However your actions here, particularly that of removing sources rather than improving them, are contra to WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. It would be better to replace these sources with better ones. It would be better to work so that others might do this, perhaps by tagging the references as unreliable and in need of improvement. Simply removing them blindly is more harmful to the overall encyclopedia than I believe is necessary. In particular (and this happens with every crusade like this) it overwhelms the editor subject or project groups that might work to improve these articles by the sheer rate at which they're removed. It's the wiki equivalent of seagull management - an editor that flies across a series of articles, breaks one aspect of them (if nothing else, it opens them to summary deletion for being unreferenced) and there is no intention of that editor ever fixing the real problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No content was removed, so there is no violation, in either letter or spirit to the subsections of WP:Editing policy cited, and a certain delicious irony to citing an unsourced article in support of this untenable position. Fladrif (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember: information not attributed to a reliable source shouldn't be here in the first place. When Fladrif removes a citation to one of these pages, he's not diminishing the quality of the page, as an unreliable source isn't any better than no source at all. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"information not attributed to a reliable source shouldn't be here in the first place."

Then if that's the strict interpretation, then the information should be removed too. Even if this blanks the article, even if causes prompt deletion of the article. We only rarely do this much, even for BLPs.

I'm not claiming that unsourced information should survive or that un-RS should be used to support it. However how do we get from where we are, to where we ought to be? I don't believe this route of expeditiously removing sources is an appropriate or the most effective way of achieving this. A smart editor would first try to find a way to manage this process so that the best result was achieved. A wiki editor instead favours finding something simple that can be done, doing lots of it, then hiding behind WP:ALLCAPS to justify what they've already done. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If our overriding aim, second only to immortality, is to have no information on Wikipedia that is not attributed to a reliable source, then, as we remove references to unreliable sources, we must at the same time remove any information that by our action becomes totally unsourced. Otherwise -- is Nyttend denying this? mistakenly, I think -- we are lowering the quality of Wikipedia and making our aim unachievable. We will, at the end of the process, have a slightly smaller encyclopedia and we will know even less than before about the source and reliability of the information we haven't yet deleted.

If, of course, we have some other aims as well, we might consider how those other aims are best served before cutting down this forest. I think I'm just saying in another way what Andy has said. Andrew Dalby 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We have two goals here:

The important one is to have RS sourcing on articles.

The secondary one is to remove non-RS sourcing from articles.

It is a mistake to mis-prioritise these, such that removing that non-RS takes over and we're left with nothing instead. My big problem with this bulk removal is that it does the second, but absolutely nothing to either attempt the first, or to encourage others to work on it. Tag these non-RS refs as "unreliable, please improve" by all means - but simply removing them and then halting the process does absolutely nothing to improve our overall situation, re the first and more important goal. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than considering one of your goals primary and one secondary, I consider them to exist concurrently, and I think an argument could be made that unreliable sourcing is worse than no sourcing at all and should be considered a higher priority...editors are less likely to look for RS for something that appears to already be properly sourced, and not all editors may realize when a source is not reliable. In any case, how is progress being halted? Nothing is stopping any editor who is so inclined from providing proper sourcing. Granted the information might be removed for lacking sourcing in the future, but I think most editors would be more inclined to tag it than delete it. Speaking of which, have you asked Fladrif whether they would be willing to tag the information when they remove unreliable sources? Doniago (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not "most editors" that are the problem, but a handful of the "most active editors". Normal editors, those interested in contributing content, just can't keep up. It's always quicker to delete than to add, so eventually WP reaches a dynamic equilibrium - take a look at Land speed record for possibly the worst example. Changing the ratios might push this equilibrium a bit higher, but to be honest my enthusiasm for playing Maxwell's daemon to the regular bunch of teenage admin wannabees is limited. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a facility here, that "all information must be sourced". WP:V's lead states this: It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.. Thus, if the information is non-contentious (read: obvious) but sourced to non-RS sources, the removal of the non-RS citation should not affect the retention of the information.

That said, I'm not seeing an ANI issue here. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We're missing something bigger. The implied policy used to justify the removal behavior does not exist. WP:ver, even strictly read and rigorously implemented is a sourcing requirement for material. There is no prohibition against the presence of references that do not meet wp:rs criteria, just a statement that they do not count towards the material meeting the verifiability requirement. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The notion that it is perfectly acceptable to populate an article with sources definitively determined at WP:RSN to violate the requirements of WP:RS is a non-starter. Such sources should be removed, and that is the routine outcome of most RSN discussions. In BLP's non-RS sources and SPS are mandated to be removed immediately and summarily per WP:BLPREMOVE. The unfortunate circumstance that some sources that should never have been permitted in the first place have been cited hundreds, or thousands of times (over 10,000 times in the case of findagrave.com - the worst example I have found so far), does not change the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V or excuse the use of such sources in violation of those policies.Fladrif (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No-one is "populating an article" with dubious sources. The situation is that we already have such sources, and we ought to decide what the best way is to improve this situation. Nor are these BLPs. Over-hasty removal does not appear to be the best way to proceed. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything "over-hasty" or improper about removing unreliable sources. I do it all the time if the source is, say, IMDb or a wiki. If you have a problem with removing them, do you have ideas for an alternate approach? Doniago (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As with many other "rules" in Wikipedia, the majority of sources in Wikipedia do not comply with a strict interpretation of Wp:RS. That is how Wikipedia works. When someone goes on a unlaterial harsh "enforcement" binge based on a rigorous interpretation of a rule, they are going contrary to that and being destructive. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the sources were previously established to be unreliable, and Fladrif consequently removed the source but left the information intact. I don't see how removing an unreliable source, whether on an indivdual basis or in bulk, qualifies as a 'harsh "enforcement" binge' or "destructive". I'd regard the matter differently if the information itself was being removed, and ideally it would be nice if Fladrif tagged the information, but I don't really understand your apparent view that Fladrif's behavior is disruptive. Doniago (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Genealogical editors have had quite some time to correct their referencing in relation to this matter. The suggestion that outstanding flaws in verification should be let stand after considerable time is an invitation to the creation of walled gardens. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

North8000 this, "There is no prohibition against the presence of references that do not meet wp:rs criteria" is a truly astounding comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If you undertake a structural/logical analysis of what I said (including policies/guidelines) IMHO you will see that it is not only not an astounding comment, but a correct one. A note on the distinction is failure to understand that "not rigorously meeting wp:rs criteria" covers a full range form slightly-suboptimal sources to unreliable sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

nobody's brought it up yet, might I suggest removing the unreliable source and tagging the information for needing a citation if an editor is unwilling or unable to provide a citation themselves? Doniago (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Who's "the editor" here? This blanket removal doesn't really have an editor, it's just mindless 'bot work, albeit being carried out by a human. That was my first comment - real "editing" involves a human editor prepared to make decisions and choices, including the addition of new sources. None of that is going on here. Nor is this process even moving articles towards the worklists of other editors so that they can fix them instead (although I recognise that I don't have worklists on WP anyway, nor can I hire & fire editors). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If Fladrif is the one removing the unreliable sources, then my approach would have been to gently ask that Fladrif place CN tags in place of the removed refs (while recognizing that Fladrif is not required to do so). Regardless of best or nicest practice, no editor is under any obligation to do research for sources, and IMO while it's reasonable to ask that an editor look for sources...frankly, there aren't many editors here who I would trust to phrase the request in a non-confrontational manner. In short, if you want information included in an article, you should be willing to assume the responsibility for finding sourcing and not get wound up over why another editor has not already done so. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

More informative edit summaries would help. Editor obviously has not considered WP:FIES in their mass removal of allegedly deprecated sources. Leaky Caldron 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I find these sort of edits confrontational, destructive and not particularly helpful. To most editors, I suspect the edit summary "Not RS per RSN" is completely meaningless; I for one detest the use of jargon and feel that editors should take steps to ensure that, even in an edit summary, expressions such as “RS” and “RSN” are wikilinked to the appropriate policy and/or discussion about the reliability of the disputed source.

Fladrif appears to be on a mission to rid Wikipedia of all references to sites such as "thepeerage.com". Once he's achieved his aim, what is to stop an editor when creating a new article to make use of this site as a source? Unless a source has been specifically blacklisted, editors are free to make use of them – is Fladrif going to immediately jump on them to remove the reference? Most of the information on "thepeerage.com" relates to family relationships; I cannot see that Wikipedia is improved by having this information, which is generally uncontentious, left unreferenced rather than referenced to a possibly unreliable source. Rather than replace such references with the {{cn}} tag, could not the {{self-published source}} tag be used instead? This would draw the reader's attention to the possibility that the source may not be reliable and "invite” the reader to use his own judgement. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition, by continuing on this track while the manner and style of their edits is being discussed, the editor is in clear breach of an arbcom ruling summarised in WP:FAIT. "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." Leaky Caldron 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The notification of which has been removed without response by the user on their talk page. Leaky Caldron 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Which undoubtedly means that they've read it and will consider it carefully. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Undoubtedly they do not believe that it applies to them since they have continued with "not RS per RSN" since removing the TP message. Would be polite to acknowledge it though. Leaky Caldron 21:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The remover is implying that there is some basis in policy or guidelines that dictates that sources not meeting wp:rs criteria should be removed. But IMHO such DOES NOT EXIST! It certainly is not in wp:ver or wp:nor. Can anybody point to where such a policy exists? North8000 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note, I have issued a 'cease and desist' order [50], because he does need to stop while the discussion is ongoing. There is no policy requiring the removal of these suboptimal sources if the information itself is not being challenged, equally I can see arguments to replace them with citation needed templates to encourage someone to find a better source. Either way, if Fladrif persists, a block may follow, as it is simply discourteous to plough on regardless rather than wait for consensus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not talking about "suboptimal sources". We are talking about sources that fail the bright-line test for meeting the bare minimum to qualify as a reliable source. These are sources that have been extensively discussed at RSN and definitive consensus reached that they do not qualify as sources to be used as references in Wikipedia articles. This is nothing like the best evidence rule; these self-published, amateur websites simply do not qualify as sources. Anyone who gets their panties in a twist over the removal of sources definitively determined to be unreliable has no understanding of what the underlying policies mean. "A crappy source is better than no source" may have been standard operating procedure for Wikipedia 5 or 6 years ago, but it won't fly now. I see not a single argument rooted in policy that would support retaining these sources as references in any article; what I see is a lot of "I don't like it". Tough. Deal with it. These sources may be convenient, and busy little beavers may have cited them thousands of times rather than going to a brick-and-mortar library to look for real sources, but they cannot be used here and must be removed. Period. Fladrif (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"thepeerage" hasn't been considered "sub-optimal" Elen. It has been pilloried. There is no capacity for thepeerage to reliably present any geneaological information. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why is Fladrif not blocked? This seems to me to be an example of drive-by vandalism, the removal of footnotes on topics about which the editor clearly has no clue. Here's one example of the stupidity: [51] Tell me how leaving information and removing the footnote on an erroneous pretext of unreliability improves the encyclopedia? Carrite (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's add Combat Mentality and refusal to edit cooperatively to the charges here: "what I see is a lot of "I don't like it". Tough. Deal with it. These sources may be convenient, and busy little beavers may have cited them thousands of times rather than going to a brick-and-mortar library to look for real sources, but they cannot be used here and must be removed. Period." Perusing the edit history of this self-proclaimed savior of Wikipedia, I see evidence of massive and chronic vandalism under the guise of "requiring" so-called "reliable sources." Pure drive-by footnote removal, not the least effort to ascertain whether the information is correct, not the least effort to remove erroneous information (only footnotes), not the least effort to engage other editors on talk pages. Massive vandalism. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Because that source is completely and utterly unreliable for labour history, and whomever added it conducted vandalism against V. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a patently incorrect statement. My experience viewing — and very, very infrequently using — spartacus.schoolnet material is that it is generally accurate no matter what a small clique of non-experts at the so-called "Reliable Sources" noticeboard may have decided on a Thursday afternoon. Links for that debate, please, let's see precisely who made that determination... Moreover, what we have here is not the removal of challenged less-than-fully-reliable information in a debate over facts in play. There is no dispute of the facts, they were actually RETAINED in the aftermath of the drive-by vandalism — what we have here is the wanton elimination of the footnotes providing for readers the source of that retained information. There is no guideline or policy which calls for the removal of footnotes in this manner. There is no serious effort being made to take articles from a lesser to a higher state, from a lesser to a higher level of sourcing — merely the systemic and massive removal of useful attribution information from a very great number of articles on some sort of twisted bureaucratic IDONTLIKEIT rationale. This should be an immediately blockable occurrence if it happens in the future and I insist that this investigation rule on this question before this thread is closed. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia Policy is absolutely clear:

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation" WP:CHALLENGE.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[2] Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[3]

--------

[2] It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}.

[3] Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." WP:UNSOURCED

Clearly, policy permits and encourages the removal of any material lacking inline citation to a RS, and actually requires it in the case of BLP's. It would have been perfectly proper to delete not only the references to sources definitively found not to be reliable, but the underlying text as well under clear policy. I considered that, but stopped short precisely to give editors who are interested in the subject matter the time and opportunity to add reliable sources where they exist. In many cases, that is precisely what has happened. Editors have gone back, found better sources, and added them - accomplishing precisely what Wikipedia policy intends.

It is seriously wrong-headed to consider any of this improper, out of bounds or, to crank up the hyperbole to 11, vandalism. If an editor came to RSN and asked "Is X a reliable source for Y text", and the answer comes back "No", the editor cannot then go to the article and add Y text anyway, using X as a source. It is a fundamental violation of policy to do so. That violation is not mitigated by adding Y text, using X as a source, and tagging the reference with a {{cn}} or {{better source}} or similar tag. A bad source is not better than no source, and tagging it as a bad source makes it no better. The fact that some editors added bad sources repeatedly (in some instances, quite literally spamming Wikipedia presumably to drive up traffic to their web sites, and in other cases out of ignorance of policy or in others laziness because it was just easier than finding actual reliable sources) should not be regarded as a fait accompli that cannot or should not be undone. If it shouldn't have been there in the first place, removing it is not the problem.

Now, once we set aside the "a bad source is better than no source" nonsense for what it is - nonsense directly at odds with policy - and ignoring the "I just don't like it" fits of apoplexy, we are left with two principal substantive objections.

• One seems to be that some editors don't like my edit summaries. Too cryptic apparently. Ellen's ham-fisted threat focused not on the edits, but on the edit summaries. Go figure. So how about this instead: This source has been specifically discussed at WP:RSN and is not a WP:RS See talk Then, on the talk page, I will post the following: (Insert name of source)) has been specifically discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (Insert link to specific RSN discussions) and determined that it is not a Reliable Source. Links to this source are being removed at this time, but not the underlying text. Better references need to be found and supplied to support the underlying text. Unreferenced text may be removed if it remains unsourced.
• The second seems to be that some editors would like a tag on the article page to alert innocent bystanders to the fact that text is no longer referenced. The policy cited above suggests that as an option, but does not require it. Would it make you happy if I added a {{better source}} tag in place of the removed reference on top of the edit summary and talk page notice? That is clearly overkill, but overkill has never deterred anybody around here as near as I can discern.Fladrif (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are not "removing unsourced material" or removing inaccurate sourced material — you're not removing anything at all except for the footnotes indicating where the information that remains originally came from. If you are seriously editing a piece and have contradictory information from a higher source than the lower source previously showing THEN the policy comes into play in which you are free to remove the bad, lesser (information+footnote) and replace it with better (information+footnote). I repeat once again that the practical description of hundreds and hundreds of repetitions of the removal of sourcing information is nothing more than drive-by vandalism. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is {{Better source}} not being used? As it stands the content in front of the deprecated source now sits there in articles with no attribution at all. There is nothing to alert editors in the future that the source has been removed - the current edit summary will soon be out of sight. I do not necessarily oppose the removal. I think that the method and the editor's approach is pretty hostile considering we attempt to assume good faith in our dealings here. Leaky Caldron 09:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it isn't a source it is cited to Blind raving Joe from the Street corner. This is like putting {{better source}} after citations to the alt. hierarchy of usenet. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Spartacus.schoolnet is good-to-excellent in factual accuracy. The only raving is this comment. Carrite (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Spartacus Schoolnet is a self-published source by an amateur historian who is not recognized as an expert in the field, and who has never been published by an independent, reputable third party publisher. It fails the bright-line test of WP:RS and WP:SPS no matter how accurate you or any other Wikipedia editor may consider it to be. It has been discussed repeatedly at WP:RSN and each discussion has come to the identical conclusion. It cannot be used as a reference for a Wikipedia article, though it may be listed in "External Links". Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif, what you are missing is that WP:V is about the level of challenge to the content, not about the quality of the source. WP:RS is not a policy - it is a set of guidelines about sources for when information is challenged. I could source "Julius Caesar was a Roman dude" to the Ladybird book of Children's History without any problem. Where the information is uncontentious, there is no mileage in removing a poor source - although encouraging editors to find a better source is always good. Where the information is challenged, and the source is poor, the whole lot needs removing or sourcing better. Can I source "the Earth goes round the sun" to spartacus.schoolnet - yes, because nobody but flat-earthers are going to challenge it. Can I source "Margaret Thatcher contemplated interning striking miners" to the same source - no, and if that's the only source, the content needs to come out as well. Just deleting the source is a wholly pointless exercise without examining the content it was sourcing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ellen, what you are missing is that, insofar as I know, none of the removed citations fall in the category of supporting a statement in the "every schoolboy knows" category. Moreover, what "every schoolboy knows" is invariably mistaken. The notion that for an "uncontroversial" claim it is perfectly OK to cite any source whatsoever without regard to reliability, provenance, policy or guideline is utterly preposterous. Fladrif (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You've missed my point entirely. If the information is controversial then it is not sufficient to remove the source, you have to remove the claim. If you are happy to leave the information, there is no value in removing the source. Going around removing the source without even looking at what it is sourcing is a complete waste of time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's my time to waste, but more to the point what is your basis for concluding that I am not bothering to look at what is being sourced? You're simply wrong about that. Are you saying that if I also remove the associated text, that would be preferable? And, have you bothered to look at my proposals above in an effort to resolve this? Would they not solve the alleged issues here?Fladrif (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My basis for concluding that you are not bothering to look at what is being sourced is that in reviewing your past year of edits, there are none discussing the content sourced from either spartacus or thepeerage. No edits to talk pages saying "The article says X but that isn't true because Y". No edits alerting relevant WikiProjects saying "This content is all wrong because you sourced it from here." It seems to me that there are two possible conclusions to draw: 1) you've been going around removing sources on the basis of reliable sourcing rules without reference to the content they support or 2) you've found a number of errors in content sourced to these websites, but are incapable of communicating any of this information to fellow editors. (Your occasional edits that refer to actual content, e.g., on transcendental meditation, don't pertain to the sources in question; you seem to have spent most of your time in mechanical application of sourcing rules.) I suggest you consider adopting the solution devised for the Rayment-sourced material, mentioned in my comment below. Choess (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the following list of edits:

15:23, 1 May 2012 : Andy opened a RS/N discussion about the issue, diff

15:25, 1 May 2012‎ : Andy notified Fladrif about the RS/N on Fladrif's Talk page, diff

15:46, 1 May 2012 : Fladrif responded at the RS/N discussion diff

Fladrif continued with his article edits, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fladrif&offset=&limit=500&target=Fladrif

10:57, 2 May 2012‎ : Andy opened AN/I case, diff

14:58, 2 May 2012 : Almost 4 hours later, Fladrif responded at the AN/I case, diff

Fladrif continued with his article edits

17:58, 2 May 2012 : Leaky Caldron notified Fladrif on his Talk page about concerns regarding WP:FAIT, diff

17:59, 2 May 2012 : Fladrif reverted the Talk page edit without comment diff

Fladrif continued with his article edits

22:25, 2 May 2012 : Elen gave Fladrif a stern warning to stop on his Talk page, diff

Fladrif stopped

My observations-- First, what the issue is not:

1. Most editors agree (I'm pretty sure) that the sources Fladrif has been removing indeed do not rise to the level of WP:RS. Most editors are not arguing that Fladrif is removing sourcing that passes WP:RS.
2. Fladrif is not committing vandalism, and I wish people would stop throwing around that word so casually. An accusasion of "vandalism" is a statement about an editor's intent. Fladrif is not intentionally trying to worsen Wikipedia. He is editing in good faith.

What the issue is:

1. Fladrif is engaging in disruptive editing. In particular, he was not engaging in consensus building, and was rejecting or ignoring community input during the period where he continued to remove cites from articles despite opposition from other editors, especially after the RS/N and AN/I cases opened. It took a sharply-worded notice from Elen to get him to stop.
2. Fladrif largely avoids communicating with his fellow editors at all. Most often when there is communication directed to him through edits to his Talk page, he simply reverts the edit without comment.
3. When Fladrif does communicate, in recent interactions with other editors, he exhibits a very combative tone. In particular:

• Anyone who gets their panties in a twist over the removal of sources definitively determined to be unreliable has no understanding of what the underlying policies mean. "A crappy source is better than no source" may have been standard operating procedure for Wikipedia 5 or 6 years ago, but it won't fly now. I see not a single argument rooted in policy that would support retaining these sources as references in any article; what I see is a lot of "I don't like it". Tough. Deal with it. These sources may be convenient, and busy little beavers may have cited them thousands of times rather than going to a brick-and-mortar library to look for real sources, but they cannot be used here and must be removed. Period. diff
• This edit to Elen's talk page in response to the events listed above.
• I took a look at Fladrif's earlier communications with other editors, and it appears to me that his tone has gotten more combative in recent communication than it used to be.
• Fladrif demonstrated extremely unwise judgement with this edit to the User page of an editor with Admin, Checkuser and Oversight

I am not an admin, but I think the following actions should happen:

1. Fladrif should get a warning about disruptive editing.
2. Fladrif should be encouraged to break his current habit of avoiding communication and consensus-building with other editors, and to start using a more collegial tone
3. Fladrif shoud consider taking a Wiki-break. It's clear he's frustrated at having to repeat himself so often about Wikipedia's policies regarding sourcing quality.

Zad68 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still reluctant to even call this "disruptive editing", merely that we ought to be able to find a better way to manage a bulk task. Bulk tasks on WP are hard to do neatly and without causing collateral damage. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I thought for a good long while and spent time reviewing the edit history and the Wikipedia definition of "disruptive editing" before coming to my determination, and I didn't make it lightly. There are two concerns here, 1) What the consensus is on the strategy going forward regarding mass removals of cites that don't pass WP:RS, and 2) Fladrif's interaction with other editors who were trying to get him to stop and discuss this. This is AN/I and it deals with editor behavior, and 2) is all I am really addressing here because it's AN/I. I'm not talking about 1) here. I'm actually undecided on that issue, I'm still mulling it over and reading responses. Regarding 2), Elen has been editing this thread since I posted my thing and hasn't found the need to engage on it, so maybe 2) isn't important to deal with right now because Fladrif has stopped his edits. Zad68 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Zad68 sums it up rather nicely. Thepeerage.com is a tertiary source complied by an amateur. It is extensively referenced to the secondary sources used. Some of those are reliable (e.g., The Complete Peerage and Burke's Peerage), others are not at all reliable (personal correspondence). The reason thepeerage.com is used so extensively is that the reliable sources are expensive reference materials which are not necessarily widely distributed, even in libraries.

A similar problem cropped up recently, with the use of Leigh Rayment's site, which is arguably somewhat more reliable but to which many of the same issues apply. (Leigh is also self-published, but his website has been used as a reference by the official project to digitize Hansard.) When that issue was raised at the relevant WikiProject, the solution reached was to tag the template for sourcing to Rayment's site with {{Template:Self-published inline}} and {{Template:Better source}}. These are gradually being replaced by references to the Complete Baronetage and the History of Parliament Online, although the latter doesn't yet cover all of Rayment's site.

Tagging references to thepeerage.com in a similar fashion seems to me to be a reasonable way to address these sourcing concerns. Removing the references entirely makes it harder to find the reliable secondary sources that should be used, so it seems to me that Fladrif's current actions are, in fact, making it more difficult to achieve his ostensible goal of getting reliable sources into these articles. Furthermore, as I asked a number of years ago when the print references aforementioned were questioned as reliable sources, where are the errors? WP:CHALLENGE applies to the material, not to the source itself, and I haven't seen any challenge to the material or any likely challenge that isn't purely vexatious. The entire exercise appears to me to be disruptive editing to prove a WP:POINT about applying rules, rather than a constructive attempt to remove false or misleading information. Choess (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of the process I proposed above to follow. [52][53]. I believe that it satisfies every plausible objection to what I was doing before. Fladrif (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that it looks bl*#dy awful with all those {{better reference}} tags everywhere, which show up as ^{(A better citation would be preferred here. You can help Wikipedia by providing one.)} Why not leave the original references intact with the {{better reference}} tag added within the <ref></ref> so that users can see what the disputed source is? The Fladrif version would make Wikipedia a laughing stock. -- 92.26.173.5 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A point well taken. I've substituted the "better source" tag for the "better reference" tag, and it is much less obtrusive.I had no idea the "better reference" tag would insert half a line of superscripted text. Fladrif (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to drop the thepeerage.com link into the "External links" section? I don't mind if you strip out and tag the inline citations, but the links usually go to a specific page and anchor on thepeerage.com, which has the biographical information on that person and lists the sources used by the website's author to compile it. It's the loss of that information that most bothers me. If the link's in place, someone can come along, click the link, see what source thepeerage.com used, and verify it and add it to the article if it was a reliable source. If the links get stripped completely, you have to root around searching thepeerage.com for the individual to find what reliable source might cover them. If you're concerned that formatting the link as a reference constitutes sort of a backhanded endorsement of thepeerage.com as a "reliable source", I can sympathize with that, but the link has useful information that I don't want to lose. (Think of it as sort of a Pointer to a reliable source, even if it isn't an RS itself.) Choess (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Fladrif - that's an improvement, but I still see no reason why we can't tag and leave the non-RS in place if non-contentious, until we replace that particular citation with something better. These sources are not so bad that they demonstrate any clear bias, it's merely that we have low confidence in them. These are not the same thing, nor a problem of comparable seriousness. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Because they are not sources. We refimprove an object where it has sources that are unacceptable for the topic, but reliable for the purposes of wikipedia. For example, if our article on WWII was written out of non-scholarly trade histories exclusively published in the United States in the last 20 years, that'd be a "ref improve" issue. If our article on WWII was written entirely out of unedited blogs, it would be a matter of deleting those sources (and in this instance, to my mind, their supported claims given that interpretive nature of claims in history). Choess is right about making the external links point at the right page within the externally hosted content. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

They are sources, but WP's ego has considered them "unworthy" for being the work of a single person. I know nothing of genealogy, but please don't extend this dismissal of the amateur to entomology or ornithology, where the single amateur has a very long established and worthy record of serious, erudite work.

Personally I edit here more about engineering history. One of the better sources out there is Doug Self's website (hosted through some deeply unfashionable ISPs) and I'd be most unhappy to see the sledgehammer of RSN term that as "unworthy", especially not when the worst problem for sourcing in engineering articles are big shiny coffee table books from big-name publishers and content-free ghostwriters. Looking at the Spartacus-sourced content, I've been unimpressed with the writing or the depth of coverage, wouldn't disagree that it's a poor source, but I've yet to see a real error that it has supplied. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If they come up before RS/N they'll be judged on a system designed to judge suggested sources against publishing modes that are reliable. Some SPS by authors who have established a serious reputation for fact checking without having been published professionally, in the scholarly mode, or holding appropriate scholarly research qualifications have been accepted in the past. This is generally where their works have been referenced or appreciated in the professional and scholarly literature as a valuable and trustworthy source. What you consider "trustworthy" to convince you is not the same as what an encyclopaedia needs to consider trustworthy for its readers. This is because the encyclopaedia doesn't conduct research, or make research judgements—we rely on what the existing research is considered to be, not what a researcher can use to conduct research. We do this both because encyclopaedia do not conduct research, and to prevent unique, untested and unscholarly additions by people attempting to use the encyclopaedia's voice to push idiosyncratic hobbyhorses.Fifelfoo (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Better source}} implies that there is an existing source that needs to be replaced. If, as has been done, the deprecated sources have been removed the appropriate tag is {{fact}}. It would be preferable in the majority of cases that the existing unsatisfactory source is reinstated and tagged with {{Better source}}. This reduces the risk of someone coming along later and inadvertently re-adding the deprecated source (not everyone reads the article history and TPs). I see no reason for swathes of uncontroversial material to be removed wholesale and I am certain that such action on a large scale will lead to all manner of issues here and elsewhere. I do not believe that is what Fladrif intended. Leaky Caldron 09:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Choess has it right: these links should be presented as External links, not as references. Kanguole 10:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As others had pointed out, simply removing the reference causes unintended problems. "better source needed" is a better solution. Unfortunately, we don't have a button labelled "Nuke this source from all articles in a way that doesn't cause problems". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

BRD changes

An editor who has been in a 3-week long, intense dispute (with myself and another editor), where BRD was at play and its interpretation hotly disputed, is making some substantial changes to that page for the past couple of days. I just noticed all of this this morning and would like to get eyes on it. I don't know what the current thinking is regarding editors involved in related disputes making changes to... well, it's not a policy page, but BRD is sort of there. The issue is more thoroughly described at Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/Archive 2#Recent changes. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Be aware of this [54] and this [55] both at the village pump. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Also note that this dispute erupted long before the BRD promotion discussion began at Village Pump, and some of us ended up there with that dispute in mind. Most of us didn't go and edit BRD, though... Equazcion ^(talk) 14:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Hi, sorry about this. BRD is not actually hotly disputed. It is not "in Play" as it is not a part of a dispute. Mediation is pending on a dispute filed by another editor about another subject regarding content. I am not accused of edit warring in the dispute or "reverting several times". I am not even sure if BRD was actually used in the dispute...but I do know that this and the other editor have indeed requested that admin inforce BRD and been told it is not policy. I have particpated in the Village Pump discussions and found no resistance to my suggestion that that the prose at BRD be looked at. I see this as assuming bad faith and attempting to find fault where there is none.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question the faith of anyone here isn't helpful, focusing on the issues is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Very true, but I'm not questioning the faith of anyone here I believe my faith is being questioned. Still not helpful of course, but it's only my assumption of the other editors perception of me.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Questioning whether or not someone else is assuming good faith might be seen as not assuming good faith itself, a circular problem that solves nothing here. From what I've looked at so far (which is only a small part of the whole) it seems very clear that you both are acting in good faith at the Pump, but disagree as to the solution. I just don't want to get us bogged into a pissing match about good faith, when it isn't really the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, My comments at VP concerned promoting it, came well before Amadscientist got involved there, and I haven't made a comment there since he has. My point being that the two of us haven't argued over possible changes to BRD, at VP or anywhere else (prior to my reporting this now, of course). I'm just concerned about the possible "COI", so to speak, regarding the choice to make these changes while in a dispute where interpretation of BRD was disputed. If there is consensus for the changes then so be it, but I feel this deserves some extra attention due to the circumstances. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, I would not want to touch Talk:Occupy Wall Street with a ten foot pole, you both have over 100 recent comments there, but the issue here is WP:BRD anyway. There is reasonable discussion on the talk page of BRD itself, and it appears there is no consensus to make the changes yet, and not enough time has passed to build a consensus one way or the other. In the spirit of BRD itself, I could see why someone would want to revert those bold changes, and continue to discuss it on the talk page. I don't think that Amadscientist needs to be disqualified from making changes or discussing it simply because he disagrees with how part of it is being applied to him elsewhere, although it is clear that he doesn't have a consensus for the changes. This isn't a COI issue, it is more of a "hey, I didn't know that essay said that, and I don't think it is fair" issue. Seldom do changes come from people who have no interest in the essay/guidelines. If the situation were much less complicated, I would be inclined to just revert it myself and send the two people back to the discussion page where it could be handled, but the BRD issue isn't a simple one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • He should definitely not be disqualified from discussing changes to BRD just because of this, but bold changes are something I probably wouldn't have taken it upon myself to make knowing my current proclivities could be skewed due to the dispute I'm engaged in. Just my view. As for making the revert, that's again something I wouldn't do myself, knowing my current involvement. I don't want to take the OWS article's dispute over to a "not-policy page". I kind of see what's transpired already as having started to do that, and I won't continue it. We'll have to wait and see if someone else performs it. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::@Dennis Brown - Yes, I played out that scenario in my head in an endless loop almost instantly after I posted that. I guess the issue really is, are the bold edits I made after discussions at VP and other areas against policy or guidelines or against the spirit of Wikipedia and collaborative editing? I guess my view nutshelled down is...I engouraged discussion on looking at BRD and its prose, text, wording and tone as well as overall clean-up where there already existed a communtiy discussion on BRD. It garnered no response. Silence is consensus for me to make a BOLD edit to encourage discusion or further editing. None of my edits were malicious or vandalism and were made in the true spirit of the Bold, Revert, Cycle itself. To make a bold edit to encourage discussion and editing to improve the article (essay).--Amadscientist (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes silence is because others are simply busy or don't want to get involved. As to "should he have", I don't know. I wouldn't have, but I don't see him breaking any particular policy (free free to point one out if I'm wrong). Again, in this case, I think reverting back to a previous state, then discussing is the proper answer. Amadscientist, considering there isn't a clear consensus for the changes, would you consider it reasonable if I reverted the changes back to allow a consensus to form? This isn't a statement as to their value, only based on my observation that a consensus doesn't exist today. And Equazcion, can you continue the discussion on that talk page with him and consider his viewpoints in the best of faith? You both agree that it needs "fine tuning" and I truly believe you both can improve it if you take the time and find compromises that address both of your concerns. If both of you agree, that is what I propose. More importantly, this is an exact example of how BRD is supposed to work, which I would find a fitting end. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I obviously agree with a revert/discuss, for the record. Though I never really proposed any changes to BRD in the first place (other than agreeing that it should be promoted to policy). I'll make every attempt to consider proposed changes with an open mind though. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, I see. Well OK. I guess...... we're reverting based soley on the fact that there is no consensus for...wait what? Silence means no one has objected with any reason the edits should be reverted. Are we in a logic loop here again? One editor expresses that I should be confined to a sort of low level temporary topic ban by reverting perfectly legitimate edits because...why, we're not exactly sure. Because I am in pending mediation with him? I am limited to edits I make that are of interest to him that he hasn't edited either? OK, becuase you would do it as an editor means you would want to start an edit war? As plausable an excuse as any editor really needs to make a revert I guess is what's being said? would it set some consensus for the action of reverting a good faith contribution with no valid reason other than "That's what I would do? I know that's sounds very far fetched but, I am unsure why the edits need to be reverted.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I would rather edit than go into Dispute Resolution, Mediation or Arbitration. I should probably just remove myself from the pending Mediation. That seems to be an option. If editors are faced with this choice...what would they do then?--Amadscientist (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested your involvement in the mediation request is the reason for the suggestion to revert. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I clearly said you shouldn't be limited in your actions to either discuss or edit the the page, so I have already agreed with your position on those points, and he has in part. This is not the reason for the revert. Sometimes silence is because others are busy and haven't had the opportunity to object yet. Not much time has passed. Sometimes rewinding and starting over is helpful, a fresh start, so there aren't questions moving forward. It was only a proposal, not a command, in the interest of getting you both on the same page (literally) regarding the concerns expressed, and remove the doubts moving forward. I'm not saying they need to be, but that would be consistent with BRD, either version. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis I am not disagreeing with you, I am just not clear why this is the time to rewind. How would starting over be helpful. It will state clearly that the diffs between my edits and the way the article was were disregarded and disrespected. OK.....now why are we taking this step. What part of the BRD cycle does this reflect? Its a revert. That's a given, but where in the cycle are we at if my bold edit that encouraged discussion is now reverted wholesale. I would see it as an edit war (well in the normal sense I would). There is no way around it. Being bold, in itself is no excuse to revert.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone who is a fan of being bold, rest assured that being bold is not my reasons for suggesting the revert. But on the talk page itself shows others are concerned about the edit [56] and obviously Equazcion is. The suggestion is because two people have concerns. Equazcion doesn't want to revert, and is trying to avoid edit warring. My offer was solely because I'm an outside party who has never edited the page and sees a lack of consensus for the changes, and BRD itself says that a revert is one acceptable way to deal with this. I have no horse in this race, so my motivations aren't related to any mediation or the content of this essay. This is just what my interpretations of BRD says is acceptable, and is offered only as a possible solution, as it would remove all concerns, can be better discussed, and then everyone agrees on the changes. It sounds like they agree with some but not all of your points, so you are already halfway toward putting part/some/all of the changes back. If you have a better solution, by all means, present it. This was just my idea of how to move forward, without blaming anyone of anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, give it some time to naturaly progress and let the discussion and editors do their work. It's just how we do things and I feel there is no reason for administrators to intervene at the moment and perhaps at all as i am sure there is an editor that will be as bold as I. I am not the boldest editor on Wikipedia. I am sure of that much. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Very disruptive user

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

---

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) was blocked 12 times in the last 3 months for edit warring and other disruptions but still refuses to stop and vandalises pages. He keeps removing the image of a Pashtun girl from template:Pashtuns.--182.177.28.76 (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Quacking sock of one of DS's opponents, one assumes. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• A single reversion isn't vandalism anyway, particularly since this is his first edit on this template. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• And now the IP is admin shopping. A look at their contribs is warranted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:41, 4 May 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.

Continuing GFDL violations by User:Christos200

Resolved

 – Blocked by MRG

The single MO of Christos200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been to copy large amounts of text from one article and paste it on another without attribution according to GFDL and without discussion. He has been warned multiple times and the last time when he was warned on 9 April by user:Dougweller he promised to stop. To no avail however because he started anew on 28 April and continues today. Example of recent typical large-scale GFDL-violating edit on 28 April, when he dumped 44kB of data on History of the Hellenic Republic without any attribution. Admin assistance is requested to put an end to this continuing disruption. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Any idea where the content came from that he pasted into History of the Hellenic Republic? ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 23:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I Googled a random text string from the text dump and it showed as a copy from the Greek War of Independence. And guess what, from the Google search I found that he also dumped the same text, but in an 83 kB version in the First Hellenic Republic which he also edit-warred to include. To give you an idea of the relative size of the text dump with respect to the original article size, the original article size was 5,948 bytes and after the dump it increased to 88,979 bytes. In this edit he actually dumped the text from multiple articles as described in the edit summary of this editor. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

These large pastes look disruptive, even if one ignores the WP:Copying within Wikipedia issues. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. And the additional problem is that the editor is unresponsive and does not engage in any discussion despite all the warnings. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked him. Indefinite, of course, does not mean permanent; I have no objections whatsoever to lifting the block as soon as he indicates any understanding of what's going on. If he continues after that, we may have a competence issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Great action. Thank you very much MRG. But what's new? When was the last time I disagreed with any of your actions? Never. :) The indefinite block is exactly what is needed in this case. It can theoretically last for a short period of time. It is now up to the editor to acknowledge that they will abide by the relevant policies and consensus before they dump any more text on any article. That's not much to ask. Your friendly explanation on the talkpage of the editor outlined in simple and clear terms what he has to do to get unblocked pronto. It is now up to him to follow the simple steps needed to get unblocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Article: Jack Abramoff, Talkpage; users: 199.209.144.218, 76.73.168.89, Eelnire

Hello everybody. Having edited in the Englisch Wikipedia for some time without ever having to deal with unpleasantness – contrary to the German Wikipedia where things are quite different – I don't know how to go about this without making it look as silly as it actually is. But not liking to have my edits reverted and being accused of “engaging in an editing war based on personal opinion”, “vandelizing” (sic!) and the like into the bargain, I'm beginning to get annoyed at the two above mentioned IPs who imo are most likely the same person, and the newly registered Eelnire who very likely is identical with the two IPs (see here) active in Jack Abramoff and, as far as their contributions show, nowhere else, at least not lately (Contributions 199.209.144.218, Contributions 76.73.168.89, Contributions Eelnire).
The ‘three’ users's only contribution to the Abramoff article, as far as I could make out, is the addition of “movie producer and writer” in the lead on 30 January 2012‎ to what formerly read “Jack Abramoff ... is an American former lobbyist and businessman” (Diff). When I first updated and edited the article shortly afterwards, (first and second edit) I left the “movie producer”, but replaced “writer” by adding “After his release from prison, he wrote the book Capitol Punishment ... which was published in 2011.” My explanation that Abramoff is not called a “writer” by any sources after it was reinserted by 199.209.144.218 did not prevent the IPs to revert (Summary: “Stop reverting this sourced item. He is a writer and you should not change something based on your personal opinion. I will contact an admin next time you change it”, Summary: “He has authored 2 books and wrote the script for the movie Red Scorpion. The source from IMDB also shows him as a writer and movie producer”, Summary: “Ajnem is rewriting this because he thinks IMDB is not a valid resource. Ajnem is also ignoring the fact that Abarmoff has authored a book” (ironically, all of what the article has to say about the book was added by me)), and eventually 199.209.144.218 changed “writer” to “screenwriter and author” (Summary: “Changed because of other user not liking reference to writer. Adding something more specific”.
Enter newly registered user Eelnire. And now, things are getting weird, as he, although imo most likely identical with 76.73.168.89 (and 199.209.144.218), changes “screenwriter and author” back to “writer”, leaving a post on the talk page first as 76.73.168.89 and then signing the post as Eelnire, giving me “last warning” once more “This is the last time Ajnem. We have discussed this enough. I have provided you with plenty of sources. At this point you are not making any sense and are injecting your personal bias. I WILL contact an admin if you change it again. Your waiting for time to pass and your coming back and vandalizing this article. An admin will be contacted if you change it again”, after which “writer” was reverted to “screenwriter and author” by an uninvolved user, leaving a note on Eelnire's talk page.
Not satisfied with ‘rebranding’ Abramoff as a former “screenwriter author/writer”, and seeing to it, that he is not called a “Republican lobbyist” (Diff) ‘they’ now systematically totalrevert my edits, including those that have nothing to do with the “writer”-issue, leaving unpleasent summaries (Summary: “Stop undoing this Ajnem. Next time I am getting an admin involved. You are vandelizing (sic!) at this point”, Summary: “This has been discussed in the Talk section. Ajnem is ignoring sources and engaging in an editing war based on personal opinion”) and posts on talk pages, including mine, in addition to it (“This is the last time ...”, “Ajnem is engaging in an editing war. I have reasoned with him by changing "writer" to "screenwriter & author", provided additional sources and he continues to delete edits based on his personal opinon. He is changing this information every 2 or 3 days so he can fly under the radar and not get flagged for vandelism (sic!), not to mention giving me last warnings and announcing to contact an administrator without of course doing so.
The first sentence of the article now reads: “Jack Abramoff (... born February 28, 1959) is an American former lobbyist, businessman, movie producer, screenwriter and author (with 4 references for the “screenwriter and author”, including two Wikipedia articles ("Jack Abramoff - IMDb", "Jack Abramoff - writer for the film, Red Scorpion - Wikipedia", "Jack Abramoff - author of the book, Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist - Wikipedia" , "Jack Abramoff - writer for the film, Red Scorpion - Rotten Tomatoes")) which imo is nonsense, or at least misleading. (Incidentally, the Infobox still has Abramoff's occupation as “businessman and lobbyist”.) Abramoff is called a few things in very reliable sources, but never a “writer” or ”author”. What sources call him most often is a “disgraced (corrupt) (Republican) lobbyist (and ex-con)”. Whether he also is a writer is of course a non-dispute I would not have bothered anybody with – who could take anybody seriously who thinks that publishing an account of his lobbying career turned Abramoff into a writer? – but the reverting of the two IPs and Eelnire has become disruptive if not vandalism, making it impossible to further edit the article sensibly.
→ To make this unpleasant futility short and apologising for its length: Maybe the ‘three of them’ will disappear, as ‘they’ don't seem to be interested in anything but the one issue, if it is made clear that mentioning in the lead that Abramoff has published a book after he was released from prison not only has the advantage of being sourced by reliable sources, but also gives quite enough and actually more weight to him as a “writer” than ‘branding’ him as a former screenwriter author/writer? Ajnem (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all when Ajnem repeatedly deleted edits without discussing the deletes that is vandelism. On top of that he did it in a way to fly under the radar by waiting 3 days or more to delete them again, doing this repeatedly for over a month. Jack Abramoff is mentioned as writers on multiple websites that are well sourced and crediable sites by experts in the field. The two IP's are me and I edited the two from work and home. The reason there are entries with Eelnire is because it was noted that to edit entries on here it is better to have an account. I dont have access to this created account at work and that is why I dont use it at work but only at home. Ajnem repeatedly was Rude to me and talked down to me like I was an idiot just because I wasnt using an account. This goes against Wikipedia code of conduct and is one reason why many people dont like to use Wikipedia because they have to deal with Rude people like Ajnem. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I repeatedly told Ajnem to stop blindly deleting edits or I was going to get an admin involved. Ajnem at first didnt like the term "writer" so he just continued to delete it without discussing it. Then after 3 or 4 deletes he decided to talk about it. That is when I compromised with him and changed it to "screenwriter and author". Then he decided this wasnt good enough so he deleted it while making reasons that had no logic behind them even though I provided multiple valid sources. On imDB and RottenTomatoes he is refered to as a writer because he wrote the script for the movie Red Scorpion. If he had a problem with these sources he should have asked for different sources, instead he continued to delete edits. Ajnem is being unreasonable at this point and acting like he can do whatever he wants on here just because he has been editing longer than me. This is a poor and arrogant attitude and is the reason why I dont like editing on this site. If you go to the Talk on Jack Aramoff I provided him excerpts from the Wikipedia article on what is considered a writer and they state that a person who writes scripts for a movie are considered writers. Ajnem is being Rude and unreasonable. Look at what he is saying above!! Is this the way Wikipedia treats new users?? 199.209.144.218 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ajnem quote, "To make this unpleasant futility short and apologising for its length: Maybe the ‘three of them’ will disappear". Ajnem? Who do you think you are, talking to me like that? You are rude and your attitude is condemned by Wikipedia's code of conduct. Eelnire (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ajnem quote, "But a very aggressive IP insists, that Abramoff is a writer and wants it mentioned in the lead. Would somebody be good enough and explain to this IP if need be, because I'm going to remove it from the lead, that the producer and coauthor of a film". Eelnire (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As current policy stands, unregistered users have exactly the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:IPs are human too Eelnire (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So to assume I am aggressive and beneath you because I use an IP to edit is Rude. Eelnire (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Conduct issues

This is a content dispute among 2 users. It has been going on since at least January. Its nature (if someone's book is published is he a writer? Author? Neither? [57]) is likely to attract comparison to WP:LEW. That said there are conduct issues.

Another uninvolved editor and myself have been helping explain what it is/isn't reasonable to say from the sources and what are reasonable sources. Eelnire has been participating. I'm not sure he fully gets it quite yet [58] but there is definitely evidence he is trying [59].

In contrast Ajnem's first edit 2 days after posting here was a screed (with headline where he refers to Eelnire as "lame") where he—falsely—claimed I'd said the Washington Post & NYT amount to "yellow journalism" employing neutral encyclopedic language before implying I've personal bias toward the blp subject and had dismissed those sources as unreliable. Rather suprising given I'd recommended the continued use of at least one of them on the same Talk page!

In fact I'd referred to the lurid "yellow-press" style phrasing like "disgraced" / "ex-con" he's inserted into articles (my rm); he repeats it above.
I've explained while media sources say all sorts of things in headlines/copy, content on living persons - even those who've been subject of controversy, needs to be non-sensationalist, neutral and disinterested.

One further observation: it took ONE comment from me to get the reported user to make progress in understanding imdb/selfrefs are unsuitable so instead use RSs e.g. press. On none of the user/article Talk pages has Ajnem tried to say here's a polguideline explaining why these sources are poor, what's reliable and how to find it.

Neither editor, one new, has acted brilliantly; Eelnire's tended toward "animated" editsummaries. There's been slow edit warring without attempts to discuss and comments like this from Ajnem [60].

Of course I'm not bothered about the suggestion I've bias to someone I'd never heard of before having seen this AN/I thread about an article I've never edited. Ajnem's sensationalist BLP-related edits and misrepresentation of other's comments though are troubling. I think the user should be warned, in the hope this can be nipped in the bud. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ajnem responded with:

  1 reversion [61] restoring the content with BLP (tone) concerns, then 1 uncollegial reply in which he "misses" the 'anything the press say about someone we can[not] say' point (IDHT) saying Either log in if you want to give advice, let alone determine what's “appropriate” for the English Wikipedia and what's not, not to mention doing any cleaning ups in articles, or please go play elsewhere

I went to the Talk as an uninvolved editor after seeing this thread. At this point I'm starting to have doubts over how willing this user is to edit and interact with other editors within our policies and norms. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ajnem, why do continue to be rude to me and others on here? I am new to Wikipedia but that doesnt make you any better than me. And for the record I am a she not a he. Another insult by Ajnem QUOTE: The blind leading the lame Nice try, 92.6.211.228. However, from my point of view, an IP tutoring a newly registered user is rather like the blind leading the lame.

Is this the way Wikipedia allows editors to treat other new editors? Is this type of conduct allowed on here? Ajnem has not only been continually insulting me for the last couple of months but now is insulting 92.6.211.228. Would any administrator please speak up and say something here? I am losing faith in this website. Eelnire (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. As often happens, the heat of the argument is out of proportion to the significance of the point at dispute. This is not really a matter for AN/I unless someone is asking for a block or page protection or similar (in which case the answer at present is no dice.) Neither party in this is coming out particularly well at present; rather than threatening one another with administrative action, why not try and reach a compromise? Or one of you just leave the other to it and improve other parts of the article? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We agree on a content disputes presence and its significance. In itself not a matter for AN/I ofc. I'd suggested Ajnem be warned/"advised" in relation to the evidenced conduct problems. Namely questionable BLP additions then misrepresenting comments about them with IDHT, turning on uninvolved editors. Technically that doesn't require an admin. But as it says at the top here "is for reporting and discussing ... that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". I'm not a special flower. Contributors registered or no, new or ...old, being subjected to anything-but-collegial remarks like above just isn't on. Someone (Durova?) once said that on AN/I where more than one issue is involved, the second can get overlooked or three even more so. Let's try not to make that mistake. There is a problem here which needs to be addressed.
P.S. Thank you so much [62], KD-B. Hopefully that will improve things. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

repeated introduction of unsourced claims and BLP violation

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

---

Gippy Grewal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mirza2012rocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

the user keeps introducing the unsourced content which says "He also is thinking on proposing to Mandy Takhar". On the article Gippy Grewal,[63] I have posted a number of times on his talk page but he seems to ignore the warnings, Please check the case and kindly do the needful, regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• User is blocked. Please report this at WP:AIV next time. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 4 May 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.

Athletics vandalism

We have an ongoing problems with Athletics articles getting vandalized by IPs. They are going into historical records and changing values--the times and performances of documented events. We keep having to revert them. One of those vandals is active at this moment. IP. 89.241.210.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am currently reverting their damage. Requesting a block on the IP. Trackinfo (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added the template that allows us to check your request more easily. Please note that you have not warned the IP nor advised him of this thread both of which you need to do. MarnetteD | Talk 20:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm on Huggle now and I'm seeing this too, lots of small unsourced changes to things like height and weight. Not ridiculous, like changing 6'4" to 6'2" and the such, all from IP editors and without edit summary or source. Zad68 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Should have taken this to AIV in the first instance really, and you should have given warnings before reporting also. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 08:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Would people please stop giving misguided advice about AIV: just reading the boilerplate at the top of WP:AIV should be sufficient clue that it would be totally misguided to suggest that Trackinfo should have gone there instead of here. Trackinfo is reporting a possible systematic attack on the integrity of athletics articles (or, who knows, it may be a systematic and unsourced cleanup of small errors). Looking at the reported case (Special:Contributions/89.241.210.64) shows seven edits which involve changing lots of details, with no source and no edit summary. AIV is very much the wrong place for that. The advice about warnings is also unhelpful: if throwaway IPs are being used to systematically attack athletics articles, warning one or two of the addresses would be laughably ineffective. Johnuniq (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why this rant occurred. I totally agree that no amount of warnings would have stopped this person but no admin that I know of would have blocked this IP without at least one warning on their talk page - unless they had come across them first. I have reported plenty of IPs with exactly this editing pattern to AIV and seen them blocked after sufficient warnings. Where else would you like us to report this? This low level vandalism goes on all the time and is one of the banes of our trying to protect WikiP. But by the time this was reported here the IP had stopped and many admins would not have blocked due to the report being stale by seven hours. I think we were trying to help Trackinfo be more thorough but if you have other suggestions for them please let them know. MarnetteD | Talk 13:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." (top of page). In addition to requesting blocks as appropriate, posting here notifies editors who may wish to be more aware and alert of changes to Athletics articles. Nobody Ent 00:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know whether the IP edits were to correct mistakes or to purposely attack the integrity of Wikipedia's articles on athletics (the latter seems much more likely). Trackinfo has noticed the issue. What should Trackinfo do? Above, two editors have implied that posting here was not correct, or at the very least was done incorrectly. By pointing out that no admin would have blocked the IP (obviously true), you are merely confirming that suggesting WP:AIV was unhelpful. Trackinfo asserts that there are ongoing problems—how about some advice regarding that? ANI is pretty hopeless if no one can help with at least a pointer to somewhere useful. My guess is that a couple of admins are needed to handle attacks brutally (if it is agreed that an attack is underway)—block IPs that might be reused, and semiprotect affected articles (without the normal formalities). Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ratfield100 and Jessica Nicole Henderson

The entire contribution of Ratfield100 seems to be removing a bunch of templates, including a PROD template, from the article on Jessica Nicole Henderson, without any comments. They got a warning from a bot, then I reverted him again adding a persobal warning on their talk page, but now they removed the templates again. Would somebody please handle the case. If PROD is removed (which might be their intention), the article should go to AfD since it is a badly sourced BLP. The user will be now notified. I am not going to revert them for the 3rd time, so please restore the templates. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty to send the article to AfD. I would agree the article is badly sourced, with most of the sources coming from personal or PR related sites. I also note the author's username and wonder if it's an autobiographical article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems like the best decision at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

PROD stands for Proposed deletion. You propose a non-contraversial deletion. Anybody can object for any reason to the deletion. If the prod is removed, someone objected to the deletion, at that point you have to go to AfD if you still believe there is a valid case for deletion. Restoring a prod after it has been removed for any reason is a no-no. Hasteur (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

...although, one really should not remove a PROD unless one attempts to fix the issue (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you believe the number of prods that I've made only to have a random editor (or the article creator) come by and deprod it without any sort of improvement. Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I did not propose it, I just noticed in the morning that one of the PRODed articles has a wrong color (I use the script). And along with the PROD template, they removed two other templates (non of them was mine either).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Now they, rather predictably, removed the AfD template without any comment.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the AfD template and left a note on their talk page asking them to leave the template there for the duration of the deletion discussion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your warning was ignored and they blanked it again. I've left final warning but frankly I think this is an SPA or vandalism only account and ought to be blocked. By the way, people with a COI or people who are trying to get articles on various people and topics onto Wikipedia for various reasons often create sockpuppet accounts to give the impression someone other than the author is removing prods and speedy templates. Most of them are easy to spot and really ought to just be blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What is a sock puppet? Lol. I'm new to this and just figuring out how to use it :) I haven't seen any messages from you before as I said, I didn't understand how to use the website as I only just signed up a couple of days ago. I didn't realize people actually had jobs woking for Wikipedia. How strange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratfield100 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm new to the website and didn't know how to respond! I also didn't see any notices/comments from any of you until I was just shown by my friend how to get on the home page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratfield100 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did you repeatedly ignore the notices that said to not delete the templates? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JessicaHendy JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also possible that "JessicaHendy" has a COI problem concerning "Jessica Nicole Henderson". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Namuslu's ownership issues at Istanbul

To cut to the chase, Namuslu (talk · contribs) has exhibited long-standing ownership issues with the Istanbul article. I have been working on the article on and off for the past couple years, but since March, I have encountered this editor, who seems to revert me simply because I'm not from Istanbul or Turkey (and therefore are unqualified to edit this article).

Going back to the beginning, back on March 27, he inexplicably reverted a substantial portion of the Demographics section that I had been working on for a couple days. After some reverting back and forth, I started a section on the talk page, going point by point through every change I had made. While other uninvolved editors commented (and agreed with my changes) and I informed Namuslu of the discussion, he did not participate. Instead, on his talk page, he remarked:

At least I'm an Istanbulite. Son of an Istanbulite. Grandson of an Istanbulite. Great-grandson of an Istanbulite. I know my city and its history very, very well. From its wide avenues to its narrow side streets, from its historic buildings to its modern ones. --13:52, March 27

and

Dear Tariq, I'm afraid I shall always know and experience more about Istanbul than you can ever imagine. --14:49, March 27

With no response to the actual content, as I informed him prior to the second of the above two comments, I reversed his revert and, luckily, he hasn't taken issue with that again.

A week later, he returned to the same tactics (17:40, April 2 and 17:43, April 2), with curt or irrelevant edit summaries. I once again told him on his talk page that unexplained reverts were unacceptable, and if he had a problem with a few changes I made, he need not reverse all of my changes to make those small reversions. For a few weeks, coinciding with weeks I wasn't very active, he seemed to not revert. But, then this past week, he has returned with increased gusto, due to my changes to the Contemporary life section:

• 09:45, April 28: "rv: I'm sure there are many Bangladesh related articles waiting for your attention,Mohsin. Sorry, I meant Tariq." -- No explanation provided; baseless attack
• 20:18, April 28: A reason was provided, after I requested one

Following this, Namuslu was blocked for twelve hours, an extremely light block especially considering most of those hours were nighttime in Istanbul. Nevertheless, he couldn't resist evading his block (07:39, April 29) and then continuing -- under the same IP -- after his restarted block expired (11:15, April 30 -- "Tariq's personal feud is destroying the article"). For that, he was blocked again.

In the meantime, he stated:

When the story of Istanbul is told by a non-Istanbulite who knows nothing about the city's lifestyle and latest trends, errors such as these naturally happen. I'll let him satisfy his ego in the meantime. 07:02, April 29

After serving out his third block, today, he decided he was going to continue the same pattern, violating the three-revert rule in under thirty minutes:

• 23:59, May 4 -- No edit summary provided
• 00:08, May 5 -- "RV: I improved the Media section, added additional information and better pictures." Provided after I requested an explanation; of course, this sidesteps the main aim of the edit -- reverting my changes in the Contemporary life section.
• 00:18, May 5 -- "Stop removing referenced content." And, obviously, this is just absurd; the section he removed was fully sourced.
• 00:26, May 5 -- "You remove valuable information about Istanbul's museums and restaurants, and replace them with "Indian cinema movies about Istanbul."" Also, absurd. That information is in a section he didn't revert.

This editor, obviously, has serious ownership issues, thinking he, above others, is permitted to edit the article because he's from the city. I'm not sure what needs to be done. A block? A stern final warning? Nothing? But, that's why I'm posting here. What should be done here? -- tariqabjotu 01:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If you check out the Istanbul article's "View history" section (the recent 4-5 pages) you'll see that Mr. Tariq Abjotu behaves as the "article's owner" and doesn't allow anyone else (other than himself) to add or change anything. I improved the Media section today, with additional information and better pictures in other sections, and he immediately reverted my edits without even bothering to look at what I did. Namuslu (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I did look at your edits and what you did, and I find it unacceptable. I've blocked you for two weeks, and I think that a less warm and kind administrator might have found a good reason for a much longer block. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Men of Straw(historical theme) and Men of Straw

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

---

Too tired to deal with this... Can someone look into these and delete/fix appropriately? Thanks. The Moose is loose! 12:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've PRODed the first, the second may be worth salvaging as is the title of the book where the info comes from. I would have to look closer though. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Historical theme" usually means "essay," but in this case there's even more: "Maybe the administrators of wikipedia dont like the idea, but the details of the bloody events of 1947 are extensively documented in the book, Men of Straw by Satyananda Giri which is currently under a ban by wikipedia on the grounds that the author is unknown" followed by a link to the book itself: I'm going to speedily delete this as utter spam mixed with whiny soapboxing. Where's that "they deleted my article" lolcat? Drmies (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • • Here's one of them. [64] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Men of Straw is at AfD since it is considerably less promotional than the other one. The book is completely not-notable, of course. Another version was Men of Straw(book). Drmies (talk) 13:52, 4 May 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.

Weird botlike behaviour

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

---

User talk:Lucky9999 & User talk:Jessicahhh & User talk:Oppo12. I do not know what is happening here but it is seems like a Google Translate bot that tries to spam links to www.gameim.com/product/RuneScape_II_gold.html Arcandam (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Arcandam (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks 'slightly' wierd, but they haven't made that many edits, so I cannot judge. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 07:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-spam bots do exist. Best to escalate the matter to stewards so that the bots are blocked wikimedia-wide. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A certain snowy steward locally blacklisted the link and blocked the accounts. There was no xwiki activity so no reason to necessarily lock the accounts/globally blacklist, imo. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Accusations on AfD for Anne Selene Fiko

I'm writing because there's been some serious accusations on an AfD for Anne Selene Fiko. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Selene Fiko) User:METC4F has opposed the deletion (not that there's anything wrong with that in itself) and has made several accusations of the editors. METC4F has stated that the deletion is being done due to personal grudges against Ms Fiko and that several of the editors have come to the deletion in order to assist in this grudge. While METC4F has not outright stated that User:Orland is the "O" that s/he mentions (not sure of gender since it's a gender neutral name), it looks like this is whom he's talking about. For the record, I'm not from Norway, don't have a personal stake in this, and while I don't necessarily believe the charges being brought up in the AfD, this is something that I believe should be brought to the administrators' attention. If the accusations are true then they absolutely must be looked into and dealt with, but if they are not then this should also absolutely be dealt with. Hostility and making accusations of this nature is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I'm trying to assume good faith on both parts, but this is getting a little too extreme here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• METC4F is a new SPA, and is bordering on outing someone with the talk of dragging "family issues" into this. I would prefer an admin with more experience than myself look at this, but I'm inclined to think this is pretty close to the threshold on taking action, solely on the outing side, as a preventative measure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have engaged them ... lightly yet forcefully, I believe. I'll keep an eye on how it goes (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I love your essay [65] that you linked into the AFD. That needs to be more accessible. I left a note on the talk page of the essay saying as much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Iaaasi needs an Ip range block

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

---

Hello administrators,

I reported users that I think are sockpuppets of Iaaasi's. Then, one of his suspected sockpuppets began trolling at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi [66][67] [68], and one another of his suspected sockpuppets began harrasing me at my talk page [69][70] While one of his sockpuppets states that they are not the same person, and I am free to ask for checkuser. However, Iaaasi also operates with meatpuppets see his user page:User:Iaaasi.--Nmate (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mate, instead of making and withdrawing reports and asking for sockpuppet investigation, you should use your time for a better documentation. There is no village in Ukraine named Batragy. The real name is Batrad'. Also there is not Salanki, but Shalanki [71]. Not to say that there is not Velyka Dobron but Velikaya Dobron’ [72]

Savneli is not me, he is most probably a Slovak user (judging after his speech) IndoEuropean1988 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• WP:SPI is thataway, and you already know that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  Both of those accounts blocked. Ironholds (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Dale Chock

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

Over at Russian phonology, user Dale Chock has been exhibiting a pattern of contentious and even disruptive edits for the last month. On April 6, he removed a paragraph describing a minority viewpoint. From his edit summary ("Delete a report of a maverick, mistake riddled proposal that was ignored by other specialists half a century ago"), it seemed that he mistakenly interpreted the paragraph to be about one source (Bidwell 1962) rather than multiple sources, as reflected in the citations. So I restored the paragraph with a POV-section tag and started a talk page discussion outlining my perspective. At first, Dale declined to contribute to this discussion and instead deleted the content again on April 19 and on April 22, which I restored[73][74] with edit summaries pointing him to the talk page. When he finally contributed to the discussion two weeks after the dispute began, his behavior was inflammatory and rude, saying, "'AE' is pretending he's discussing theory. He has no understanding of the theory of any article he edits on languages or linguistics."

Subsequent to this talk page post, Dale immediately focused his attention on a new round of contentious deletions, specifically of two tables[75][76], which I restored[77][78]. Again, his behavior in the talk page was problematic, not just because of unnecessary rudeness (such as saying "for AEsos to raise this objection only reaffirms his ignorance of even beginning Russian") but because his comments were aimed primarily at discrediting me rather than addressing my points. Focusing on content, not contributors, is a general problem of Dale's.

Even more disruptive, though, is Dale's practice of removing citation requests[79][80][81][82][83] (which I have continually had to restore[84][85][86][87]). Dale has also removed actual citations. In what seems like an attempt to discredit the above tables that he didn't like, he removed the citations that backed them up, citing an apparent error in the page range[88]. However, edits just prior to this show him fixing the same page range error for another claim from the same source[89][90] and even a talk page contribution[91] explicitly shows that he has access to the source and knew the correct page range. Since it's clear that he knew where the tables were, his given reason for removing citations was a blatant case of dishonesty.

I'm not sure what sort of action would be appropriate. I've had issues with him at diasystem and diaphoneme, where his behavior was similar in that he would attempt to delete content and participate with hostility in the discussion page. I had even hoped that a community response from Wikiquette assistance might steer him in the right direction. His response in that conflict was to abandon the articles and put forth a manifesto on his user page where he seems to imply that he views civility to be at odds with concern for article quality. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note restored from archive. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have had similar experiences which can be reviewed at the talkpages of talk:Nahuatl and talk:Otomi language.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Two editors are waging an edit war at Russian phonology, an article in the field of linguistics. They are the complainant and me, the target of the complaint. The optimal forum for discussing these disputes is the article Talk page, where I have written plenty. However, this complainant almost never responds to these interventions. He does not engage in discussion on points of substance. Bear in mind he has had the Russian phonology article largely to himself for four years (as explained below), and at present there are only three editors participating in it (the third editor just started and seems to have rejected the option of creating a user account). The "contentious edits" and "disruptive edits" the complainant alleges actually consists of my not letting him have the final say.

(If anyone reading this finds themselves displeased at the sort of points and at the level of detail I go into here, and wants to object that they should have been addressed in other forums, my rejoinder is: they already have been addressed in different forums, don't blame me for moving the discussion here, blame the complainant.)

I believe that administrators who undertake to judge this dispute will have the obligations to not be mere dabblers in linguistics and to read Talk pages thoroughly.

In addition, please also compare the "Russian phonology" article as of, say end of March 2012 (that is before I joined its editing) to other Wikipedia articles on specific languages (as well as comparing it to linguistics literature in the outside world). That is one of my considerations in editing "Russian phonology".

The complainant has committed copious misconduct across three articles since the start of this year (the other two articles are Diasystem and Diaphoneme). He deleted comments from an article talk page (my comments, Talk page for "Diaphoneme"), declaring them inappropriate for an article Talk page, and he moved them to his user talk page, declaring that the appropriate forum. When he left me a notice of this novelly arrogant stunt, the notice was undated. (His action was undone the next day by LikeLakers2.) He censored material (including directly quoted individual words) inserted at Diasystem by replacing it with a perverse paraphrase which contained sins both of commission and omission (deleting what the passage did say and asserting something it did not say). At Diasystem, he spent a week feigning ignorance of one of his own insertions, then changed tack and professed not to understand ("why is it a gotcha") that its longterm presence meant he had contradicted himself when making a recent complaint. In multiple article Talk pages, he has a trope that he uses on two types of occasion. When he alludes to a passage in a vague manner such that I can't tell even which passage he's referring to, or whenever he is caught in a minor factual misstatement, his standard comeback is, "oh, you should know what I mean, you should be able to figure it out". User:Aeusoes1 never acknowledges or takes responsibility for his misstatements and mistakes.

This complainant is the sole longterm editor of Russian phonology, having edited it since 2005. He has been its most influential editor since at least 2008. The list of sources has hardly changed since early 2009 (hey, he added one yesterday; compare bibliography of 2 Jan 2009 to 27 March 2012), and virtually all them are his insertions. He seems to be in the habit of reverting new contributions (e.g. two days ago). He is understandably peeved that after four years of being the king of the Russian phonology article, his article content is being challenged. Early on, he dared to revert native speakers on matters of Russian language usage ([92]; [93]), even though (according to his Talk page as of about March 2012) his only knowledge of and interest in that language is to write for Wikipedia about its pronunciation and spelling. This all indicates his influence has been stifling. Administrators who want to fairly judge his complaint against another editor must study the article talk pages, where they will learn, among other things, that instead of squarely facing academic criticisms, the complainant reacts with evasion and truculence and never admits to being mistaken. Here, for example, 16:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC), where he feigns responding to one point, but he's really addressing a different one. Notice he does not acknowledge he is in error. In fact, he was majorly in error for years running (due to misunderstanding his source) and this error is the justification for several of his latest salvos in the edit war. Above in the complaint, he dwells on my handling of a mistake of his, where I replaced a "fact" tag. In this above allegation, Aeusoes is concealing the fact that the material in question is material that I myself believe is inappropriate for inclusion. I have deleted it multiple times. It is not my moral obligation to properly footnote material that he favors and I disfavor! Also bear in mind how familiar this source has been to him: until a month ago, he cited this book nine times.

People who feel moved to participate in this complaint, if they judiciously research it, will see that my own editing record is not limited to inserting content (in particular: Pal.luezu language; Leonese language; Mongolian language (two years at that one); Ausbausprache,_Abstandsprache_and_Dachsprache; Chadian Arabic; Uto-Aztecan languages; Otomi language). I also place article quality tags (e.g., Lautaro); professionalize and Wikify bibliographies and footnotes, especially by completing defective bibliography entries and applying Template:Sfn (here; here; Song of Hiawatha); and remove misinformation ("Thanks" message regarding Proto-Algonquian; ca. 20 edits to Paul Revere between 6-13 June 2011 (as of today, within the latest 250 edits); Mixe-Zoque languages). For more examples, see the full Contributions list at my user page. As someone with a bachelor's degree in engineering who is pursuing graduate studies in natural language processing, let me share that I find Wikipedia's articles on computer science, biology and other natural sciences, and technology to be superb, and the coverage of these fields is broad as well as deep. Unfortunately, the field of linguistics is not well taken care of at Wikipedia. Some of the most prominent editors in fact do only copy editing, and there is in fact scant participation by people with university training. This will not change overnight.

In my opinion, the complainant represents a tradition at Wikipedia under which editing Wikipedia is seen as an end in itself, and under which experience editing Wikipedia is more highly valued than getting the facts right and having expertise in the subject. Through March 2012, Russian phonology was replete with gross ignorance of the subject matter, careless copy editing, and very poor judgement (like citing 62 examples to illustrate a single sound correspondence). At least two other linguistics articles essentially entirely written by him (the two referenced above) were riotously replete with misinformation. As documented on the Talk pages of these three articles, this person complaining against me is woefully ignorant of the rudiments of linguistics. In academic articles at Wikipedia, I have not seen another editor come close to his level of ignorance of the field he's writing in. At least once in Russian phonology (discussed just four days ago: my comment of 10:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC) here), and on multiple occasions across these three articles, he has falsely sourced his insertions, oblivious to the fact that the source either contradicts his claim or does not bear on his claim. His copy editing is indolent and riddled with errors. For example, in simultaneous insertion of a source in footnote and bibliography, he spelled the author name "Glovinskaja" different ways—and never in four years did he catch the error.

In conclusion, I and Aeusoes1 disagree on what is appropriate content and on what needs to be cited. He now makes the accusation "disruptive editing". His editing opinions are based on: false shifting of burden of proof; ignorance of normal practice in scholarly research papers generally; utter ignorance of what he dares to write about, namely linguistics (not the only instance: [94], his remark at 05:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)); and refusal/inability to discuss points of substance on Talk pages. If you want substantiation of these assertions, read the Talk pages or ask me directly. Dale Chock (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note restored from archive. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 11:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Since the above post, Dale has decided to get back into editing the Diasystem and Diaphoneme articles.

In the former article, Dale simply reverted all the changes I'd made since he left the discussion two months ago[95] even though I had suggested in this post that he just add his disputed additions to the article until consensus is reached.

In the latter article, Dale has blanked three sections (over a dozen paragraphs) of article text, despite my requests that he get consensus first[96][97] and a talk page discussion where my opposition to removal of one section in particular is clearly laid out. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note restored from archive. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What is happening at Toothpaste game

A {{Db-g3}} template was placed on the article Toothpaste game and within 10 minutes there were 10 contested deletions saying basically the same thing. I don't know if it is blatant IP hopping or if there was just a lot of interest. I did see mentions of 4chan on the youtube video. It might be good to SALT the page or something. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The page was deleted by JohnCD. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• • There will be more eyes on it now for sure. Looks like it was deleted twice, and the talk page three times, all by JohnCD. He will likely salt it if hits 3x today. Good old 4chan.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of an article talk page

Talk:Mike Tyson. Admin may wish to look at the recent history. Argumentum ad hominem and it also seems that IP edits are changing the IP signatures of comments made by other IP editors. This could be to falsify who added which comment, etc. Is it possible to semi-protect an article's talk page? That may be a solution. I fixed it once at least, but if it were in my power I would hand out a few short blocks or bans, although I don't presume to suggest what actions should be taken.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've left a clear warning on User:178.98.19.39's talk page explaining they will be blocked if they continue to use personal attacks. If they come back swinging, bring it back here, as a block will be justified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks. I left a note on the boxing project talk page about settling the capitaliztion issue. That is one of the things they were warring about. I think that IP editor may be using two IPs as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've also left a strongly worded note on the article talk page, to make it clear that personal attacks like that won't be tolerated from anyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Iloveandrea

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

Mervyn King (economist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

George Osborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BLPN discussion

This editor is injecting is editing non-neutrally and attacking other editors virtually non-stop, despite being advised to stop. He has been blocked twice before, once last month for "personal attacks or harassment". He needs to be blocked again, this time for longer.

Some examples of his latest tirade:

"You could run Ed Witten close for smarts, no question. I couldn't do this without you. Jesus, do you actually read what I write? or are you just too limited to comprehend it?"

"Really quite a concentration of rank stupidity and ignorance I've found here. Comical: I see someone's set up a re-direct to assist with this sort of benightedness. I repeat my observation that this is the calibre of mind I am forced to deal with. Do you have any idea how degrading this is for me? to be forced into discussion with such pea-sized intellects?"

"But tell me: do you switch accounts often? or do you just flit onto a new one when your bias has become so obvious that getting through wholesale, protective truncations for your beloved Tories and their supporters in central banks becomes too much of a chore? Makes me very suspicious of you—do you run socks?"

"Off2rio/Youreallycan/whoever: Can I make a request? Is it possible to have someone come here who has functioning brain cells? That would really help me interact in a less negative way."

All of the above comments from this edit at BLPN.

The Osborne article wikilink is included only for tangential context.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Also warned for 3RR [98] Collect (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours to stop this progressively worse pattern of attacking. Any admin may feel free to adjust as they see fit, I think I was quite generous considering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mamoahina

This user has been constantly attacking me and falsely accusing me of "stealing". I have tried my best to talk to him and address the issues, some that are valid, that he brings up, but he is just plain rude. He accuses me of stealing information from facebook (Hawaiian History 101) and publishing them on wikipedia when the only purpose I started a facebook account under my user name (which I have deleted but will temporalily reactivate so you can see how "horrendous" and "deceptive" and what an "atrocious" act of "thievery" that I have committed) was to share informationl, post videos and articles. I did ask some question on a genealogical page (Native Hawaiian Genealogy Society (NHGSoc)) to help me in some article writing but the responds I've received were inconclusive and never useful at all, and I would have never guess that this could even be considered stealing. He says I steal from others and then post them on wikipeda so it can make me feel better and about my ego. He is constantly posting on talk pages with his ridiculous rants about me, although some of them were valid to begin with, which I tried to address and ask him where did he get his sources at and the likes, but he just goes on attacking me and spewing out his accusations. He also seems to have something against the fact that I would like to preserve my anonymity, that I don't have any personal connections with anything or anybody that I write about and also that I am not Hawaiian, which is just plain racist. I am so tired with dealing with this shit. I have been ignoring him for months but he just doesn't stop.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide some diffs that exhibit the alleged problematic behaviour.  --Lambiam 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sports/Games in India

I do a good amount of new page patrolling, but I've run across an issue that I'm not sure how to deal with. Today, a user The Discoverer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a dozen or more new pages, each one dealing with <INSERT NAME OF ACTIVITY> in India. So, there are now pages for Chess in India, ‎Weightlifting in India, ‎Winter sports in India, ‎Kayaking in India, ‎Equestrian sport in India, etc., etc. I believe the other editor is creating these pages in good faith -- but, frankly, I have no idea whether these pages are warranted or not. I suppose I could try to judge each page individually on the merits, but I think we need to make a judgment call on the whole lot of them. If we decided to, say, merge them all into a single page (which might not be a bad idea) perhaps if there are certain sports/activities which are truly of enormous significance in India, we could leave those sports/activities with their own separate pages. Thoughts? (I'm posting a message on Discoverer's page to solicit his input, as well.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• a lot of these are unreferenced, Kayaking gives reference to a Facebook group. this definitely needs some discussion-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yea, sorry, I should have mentioned that the pages I looked at contain several problems. However, I'm essentially asking whether, if the pages were provided with half-decent references (and, I suspect that people could find articles on archery in India, etc) how should we deal w/ these pages. JoelWhy (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems there are copyvio issues as well (see the user talk page). --regentspark (comment) 21:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, each of these pages can grow into a proper article. I also intend to improve the articles later including proper categorisation, improving the infobox details and adding references. However I leave the decision upto you'll. Also the copyvio alerts are cases of {backwardcopy} The Discoverer (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, we have the answer. How should we deal with these pages? By improving them. --Shirt58 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

THis is not backwards copyvio. Ice hockey in India was created a few hours back, while the source has been copyrighted as of 2008. The Discoverer has removed the copyvio tag saying it's backwards copyvio, that ain't right. I'll take a deeper look shortly, but we might have to clean up a big mess. DGG likewise removed copyvio from another article that The Discoverer promptly returned to it. I think we have a lot of articles to look at now. —SpacemanSpiff 03:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

While a lot of these articles will probably need to be deleted as G12, this is not as bad as it looks. The Discoverer has been copying and pasting text from existing Wikipedia articles without attribution, violating WP:Copying within Wikipedia. The source articles can be deduced with a little work, and The Discoverer has been forthcoming when asked directly. In the two new articles I checked (India at the FIFA World Cup and Ice hockey in India), the external copyvio had been inserted some time ago by a different user. The ice hockey content was originally inserted into India national ice hockey team (February 2009) and copied to Sport in India#Ice hockey (August 2011). Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

After spending a fair chunk of time, I've come to the same conclusion, it looks like Sport in India has bits and pieces of copyvio, The Discoverer has been copy-pasting content from there into these new articles but instead of attributing those articles, he has used these original copyvio sources (such as in the case of Ice Hockey) as references. Well, the problem of copyvio just got bigger now I think as we have three articles with the same content (Ice Hockey) although it's not related to The Discoverer's edits. —SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As per Spiff, looks like Sport in India and corollaries might be the problem here. The "<sport.name> in India" articles are hardly Wikipedia:India Education Program.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have found two likely {{Backwardscopy}}s, so presumptive removal may produce suboptimal outcomes if it is not double-checked. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for the trouble I've caused you all by not attributing my sources from wikipedia. I will mention my sources in the future. I did not intend any copyvio. Many of the articles were created from the corresponding sections in Sport in India in order to have a starting point to work on later, and the rest of the pages I wrote myself (not copied from anywhere). The Discoverer (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help from an admin (or non-admin willing to help) who speaks Spanish

I was recently informed of an apparent cross-wiki vandal. Supposedly the edits that 190.118.210.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making to several articles are introducing blatantly false information, and is following the same MO of a indef-blocked user on the Spanish Wiki, Eagle_c5. I have no reason to doubt User:Rafaelkelvin's story, as the user he specified has indeed been blocked at the Spanish Wiki; from what I can tell via Google Translate, it is due to consistently adding false information to the same articles that this IP has been editing here, so everything about the story checks out so far. Unfortunately I can't comb through references and Spanish Wiki logs very easily not knowing Spanish, so I need help from someone who does. Thanks. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to ask for extra help at the Spanish wikipedia embassy or this list of editors at our local English embassy who can speak Spanish. Penyulap ☏ 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Reference Desk/Language (WP:RDL for short) is another good place to seek language help. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what to do?

Resolved

 – Reverted and blocked.

This is weird. From an editor whose vandalism I reverted. 1 --Morning277 (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Just keep an eye on them. They have just been blocked, but in my opinion for too short a period of time. This is an obviously very deliberate vandal who should be shown no mercy. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Weird. But given the way that comment has now been reverted, the IP editor may now need to attribute all sorts of evil motivations and stalking behaviour to ClueBot. I wouldn't worry about it too much. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

LMFAO! Yes, ClueBot is a super-stalker! -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sports/Games in India

I do a good amount of new page patrolling, but I've run across an issue that I'm not sure how to deal with. Today, a user The Discoverer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a dozen or more new pages, each one dealing with <INSERT NAME OF ACTIVITY> in India. So, there are now pages for Chess in India, ‎Weightlifting in India, ‎Winter sports in India, ‎Kayaking in India, ‎Equestrian sport in India, etc., etc. I believe the other editor is creating these pages in good faith -- but, frankly, I have no idea whether these pages are warranted or not. I suppose I could try to judge each page individually on the merits, but I think we need to make a judgment call on the whole lot of them. If we decided to, say, merge them all into a single page (which might not be a bad idea) perhaps if there are certain sports/activities which are truly of enormous significance in India, we could leave those sports/activities with their own separate pages. Thoughts? (I'm posting a message on Discoverer's page to solicit his input, as well.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• a lot of these are unreferenced, Kayaking gives reference to a Facebook group. this definitely needs some discussion-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yea, sorry, I should have mentioned that the pages I looked at contain several problems. However, I'm essentially asking whether, if the pages were provided with half-decent references (and, I suspect that people could find articles on archery in India, etc) how should we deal w/ these pages. JoelWhy (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems there are copyvio issues as well (see the user talk page). --regentspark (comment) 21:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, each of these pages can grow into a proper article. I also intend to improve the articles later including proper categorisation, improving the infobox details and adding references. However I leave the decision upto you'll. Also the copyvio alerts are cases of {backwardcopy} The Discoverer (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, we have the answer. How should we deal with these pages? By improving them. --Shirt58 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

THis is not backwards copyvio. Ice hockey in India was created a few hours back, while the source has been copyrighted as of 2008. The Discoverer has removed the copyvio tag saying it's backwards copyvio, that ain't right. I'll take a deeper look shortly, but we might have to clean up a big mess. DGG likewise removed copyvio from another article that The Discoverer promptly returned to it. I think we have a lot of articles to look at now. —SpacemanSpiff 03:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

While a lot of these articles will probably need to be deleted as G12, this is not as bad as it looks. The Discoverer has been copying and pasting text from existing Wikipedia articles without attribution, violating WP:Copying within Wikipedia. The source articles can be deduced with a little work, and The Discoverer has been forthcoming when asked directly. In the two new articles I checked (India at the FIFA World Cup and Ice hockey in India), the external copyvio had been inserted some time ago by a different user. The ice hockey content was originally inserted into India national ice hockey team (February 2009) and copied to Sport in India#Ice hockey (August 2011). Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

After spending a fair chunk of time, I've come to the same conclusion, it looks like Sport in India has bits and pieces of copyvio, The Discoverer has been copy-pasting content from there into these new articles but instead of attributing those articles, he has used these original copyvio sources (such as in the case of Ice Hockey) as references. Well, the problem of copyvio just got bigger now I think as we have three articles with the same content (Ice Hockey) although it's not related to The Discoverer's edits. —SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As per Spiff, looks like Sport in India and corollaries might be the problem here. The "<sport.name> in India" articles are hardly Wikipedia:India Education Program.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have found two likely {{Backwardscopy}}s, so presumptive removal may produce suboptimal outcomes if it is not double-checked. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for the trouble I've caused you all by not attributing my sources from wikipedia. I will mention my sources in the future. I did not intend any copyvio. Many of the articles were created from the corresponding sections in Sport in India in order to have a starting point to work on later, and the rest of the pages I wrote myself (not copied from anywhere). The Discoverer (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help from an admin (or non-admin willing to help) who speaks Spanish

I was recently informed of an apparent cross-wiki vandal. Supposedly the edits that 190.118.210.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making to several articles are introducing blatantly false information, and is following the same MO of a indef-blocked user on the Spanish Wiki, Eagle_c5. I have no reason to doubt User:Rafaelkelvin's story, as the user he specified has indeed been blocked at the Spanish Wiki; from what I can tell via Google Translate, it is due to consistently adding false information to the same articles that this IP has been editing here, so everything about the story checks out so far. Unfortunately I can't comb through references and Spanish Wiki logs very easily not knowing Spanish, so I need help from someone who does. Thanks. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to ask for extra help at the Spanish wikipedia embassy or this list of editors at our local English embassy who can speak Spanish. Penyulap ☏ 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Reference Desk/Language (WP:RDL for short) is another good place to seek language help. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what to do?

Resolved

 – Reverted and blocked.

This is weird. From an editor whose vandalism I reverted. 1 --Morning277 (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Just keep an eye on them. They have just been blocked, but in my opinion for too short a period of time. This is an obviously very deliberate vandal who should be shown no mercy. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Weird. But given the way that comment has now been reverted, the IP editor may now need to attribute all sorts of evil motivations and stalking behaviour to ClueBot. I wouldn't worry about it too much. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

LMFAO! Yes, ClueBot is a super-stalker! -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Andy Dingley

Please may some attention be given to persistent harassment received from this user

Initial trouble in Wikimedia Commons where Andy Dingley kept reverting my edits instantly using Twinkle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eddaido#WP:3RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eddaido#Attacks_on_other_editors_in_edit_summaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2012_March#re_Samblob

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&diff=next&oldid=484140874

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eddaido#Repeated_attacks_on_other_editors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive117#General_hostility_from_User:Eddaido.2C_with_edit-warring_and_attacks

This is done in the hope it will lead to a full review of the circumstances. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still looking at the information you have provided, but for the sake of clarity, what is the result you are seeking here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this —just an end to their behaviours. Eddaido (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ahem. How is it, Eddaido, that you are not yet blocked for acting like a total jerk? Hounding other editors, being uncivil in edit summaries, removing others' talk page comments? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Heh, I'm trying to understand how any of the diffs Eddaido posted above support his contention or help him at all. Indeed, no doubt Drmies found support for his criticism of Eddaido from Eddaido's diffs. That's worse than WP:BOOMERANG - more like a dog (pun intended) chasing his own tail while looking in the mirror.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• You missed a few

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norah,_Lady_Docker&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mini_%28marque%29&diff=prev&oldid=483972348

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive179#User:Eddaido_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_declined.29

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies has a very valid point and echos my initial concerns. Andy has taken you to a couple of different venues where no action was taken. 3RR I understand why, Wikiquette, I don't. His threshold may be a bit too low, but his concerns are well founded. Eddaido, words mean things, and you seem to have a lack of concern about how your words affect others. Either you lack an understanding of, or willingness to comply with our standards of civility. This is why I asked for clarity, to see how delusional you were in this situation. Fortunately, your answer fills me with hope since you weren't asking for his head on a platter. The problem here is your behavior, not Andy's. It is simply unacceptable to talk down to people and rudely reply to them in this manner. More importantly, you seem like an intelligent person, so surely you know that it isn't effective to persuade others to see your point of view. If you need help to communicate better, ask for help. If you don't immediately change the way you communicate your differences, however, I don't see good things happening to you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention and your time. I am going to be more direct, this may take me some hours. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Over the past six months I have discovered Andy Dingley is very jealous of his accuracy (who isn't?) and doesn't care to recognize his mistakes, very sensitive on that. I fell foul of SamBlob more recently and discovered he was not amenable to rational discussion on talk pages so I stopped responding and watched him devoting himself to setting to work to tackle my edits and I let him run. When he tackled Bentley 8-litre I felt it was time to make the point that he is short on knowledge and equally short of sources. So I rejoiced in correcting his, no doubt good faith, bad edits to Bentley 8-litre and when I had made my points I put in my edit summary the description 'the dogging editor' using upper-case and starred it in case there should be the very smallest chance of it being overlooked - though it was apparently - by him and I saw this as a clear admission of guilt. Am I wrong? Thereafter I again let him run, all through the articles I had recently edited. I made occasional reverts in case he thought I was not looking. I too am mystified that Andy Dingley could do no more than his warnings (ignored) and finally a complaint on Etiquette. But you see there is a particular synchronicity between editors. SamBlob even sailed into the 16th and 18th centuries just for me.

So my complaint is long-running Wikihounding and contentious edits and notes of citations required made by SamBlob supported by Andy Dingley. Should I quote the diffs for the long blocks of SamBlob's edits concerned - their enthusiasm corresponds neatly with Andy Dingley's pronouncements etc.

Eddaido (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to quote the long list of diffs on my account, but thanks for offering. You now say "..I felt it was time to make the point.." which reminded me of this excellent behavioral guideline called Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You might not be doing it on purpose, but you come across as very rude in many of your edit summaries, which is at the root of the concern here. English is a funny language, and things don't always come across the same in print as they would by hearing it. This is why I am assuming good faith from you, and above I said "If you need help to communicate better, ask for help.", because I don't think you realize how rude some of your comments sound. I was being sincere and saying you might need some assistance so you don't accidentally go around pissing people off. It was meant as a friendly, helpful suggestion. If the rude summaries were to disappear, I'm pretty sure Andy would as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I watch with much interest. Eddaido (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a thick skin, I don't care too much about rude edit summaries - although I do object to being termed "dishonest". I'm much more concerned about the problem that "a little knowledge is dangerous". I've seen some good editing from Eddaido, such as Weymann Fabric Bodies, but I've also seen uncited falsehoods, such as the edit-warring at Commons over a claim that the Jowett Bradford van was made by a different "Bradford" company from Jowett and also the nonsense rewrite of pre-selector gearbox. It's fortunate that this editor has some clue about what they're writing, because they're one of the least co-operative, rude & hostile editors on WP, if they're ever challenged over content. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Pesky to offer an opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Some examples of Eddaido's "corrections" on the Bentley 8-litre article:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&diff=483497442&oldid=481045671 , in which he, among other things, *boasts* of violating WP:PEACOCK,

I used a careful selection of some of this editor's favourite phrases of "criticism". The vehicle was intended to support a display of great wealth. Do my statements genuinely contravene any Wikpedia rules? I am very happy for a separate issue to be made of this particular edit.

Compare what is considered unacceptable by WP:PEACOCK, WP:EDITORIAL, WP:CLICHE, and WP:CITE with these quotes from this edit:

• "to end the very successful car's competition with its Phantom" (This example was added to a cited sentence in which neither cited source confirms this, although one of them does hint at it, the hint being more correctly reported in a later sentence deleted in this edit.)
• "(the price of a generous architect-designed house with its site)" This was added with no citation. How do we know what the price of such a house was? And what makes a house "generous"? Does the house freely give away its worldy possessions?
• "It is believed the remarkable number of 78 chassis survive." I will admit that I had let the biased phrase "only 78 chassis survive" remain in the text, which was an omission. However, one corrects bias by simply removing it. Adding bias to the other side is not acceptable. Readers should read the facts and make up their own mind.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&diff=483649361&oldid=483632848 , in which I am told: "read the source". I had. Given the reply, I went back and read it again. The 400 mm dimension is not given there.

OK, I surrender, I hand't appreciated how poor his source was and provided the brake size source in this edit

If you didn't know what the source actually said, why did you not only change the citation tags but admonish me for stating what the source actually said? I commend you for finding other sources later, and I hope someone with better access to The Times and The Observer than I do can verify them, and format the citations better, but I must ask you this: What sources were actually *there* before I added my "poor" ones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&diff=next&oldid=483649468

...but since you bring this up, let me ask: What possible relation is there between the rarity of the cars and their owners replacing saloon car bodies with replicas of open tourers? Also, where's the citation for that bit of information?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&diff=483649436&oldid=483649361 I find it highly amusing that he says "Samblob is unhappy with the corrections to his poor edits?" in the summary of an edit where he completely ignores WP:PEACOCK, removes a "Citation needed" tag from a part of a paragraph with information that is not given in the source cited for the paragraph (the source being a book I have at home, the same one that doesn't mention the 400 mm brake drum dimension), moves a sentence about the chassis from the paragraph about the chassis to the paragraph about the engine, and states in the infobox that the car has no width and no height.

There had been an earlier altercation because this editor refused to believe the maker provided this vehicle only as a chassis. Until the time when front and rear bumpers were supplied with the chassis the length and width of a body on it would vary. A chassis without bumpers has no (useful) width or length record.

What was produced and sent to the coachbuilder was basically a complete, running car that did not have a body. In some cases, a seat would be added so that a chauffeur could drive it to the coachbuilder. That was rather much standard practice for all luxury manufacturers, even Cadillac which would really rather its customers use bodies from GM coachbuilders Fisher and Fleetwood, to the extent that Fisher and Fleetwood bodies were listed in their catalogues. What I refuse to believe is that it is correct for this article to emphasize that they built and sold "chassis", when every other article on Bentley cars (and every article on Hispano-Suiza cars, pre-war Rolls-Royce cars, and the Cadillac V-16) refers to the product as a "car".

There is rather a big difference between having no width or height information on record and stating that the width and the height are zero. The latter implies that the car is a line.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&diff=484140874&oldid=483967770 Here the good gentleman removes a citation I found for his uncited addition, claiming that his link to the Bentley article was good enough. Interestingly enough, not only had he sent the link to the wrong section of the article, the reason why the information in the Bentley article was cited is that I added the same citation there shortly after adding it to the Bentley 8 Litre article.

I stand firmly on my record as here provided.

So you stand firmly on your record that not only did you not cite your source, you removed my citation when I added one.

As seen in those edits, he rather liked inflated language. He also rather dislikes having a lead section, and attempts to write one are often undone:

I stand firmly on my record as here provided.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norah,_Lady_Docker&diff=487267860&oldid=487264850 My attempt to create a lead paragragh is called "malicious" and I am told to "read some English history". I would have thought all one has to read to summarize an article is the article itself.

Erm . . . no. Lady Docker in her 'prime' in the first half of the 1950s was an international celebrity of the order of Paris Hilton though I doubt her fame penetrated USA. I guess this is the International Edition of "LIFE Magazine" This editor just does not know what he is dealing with in his "summary".

If you take issue with what is in the article, change that. It actually needs to be changed anyway. A large part of it is based on a "cut and paste" copyright violation from an article in The Birmingham Post, as I found out while searching for sources and finding *the source*. That explains the flippant statements, as the newspaper article was written in an editorial style.

• And then there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord_John_Grey_of_Pirgo&diff=487432006&oldid=487361877 where he undoes an edit where I had, as I explained, "Added a lead paragraph as per WP:LEAD, removed an irrelevant sentence, changed the spelling of Lady Catherine Grey to correspond with the title of her article, and put the "Sources" in a reference section." His reply in his edit summary was: "** DOGGING EDITOR** JUST GO AWAY AND AND SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE TO DO".

Just another example of uninformed and, in consequence, poor judgment. The article has been chosen for his attention because I created it —some long time ago. And he did (briefly) go away and do something productive.

I was actually doing something productive by providing a lead and doing away with the biased language. I quoted WP:EDITORIAL in one of my edit summaries: "Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not." Why do you insist on introducing and maintaining bias?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Eddaido (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What I really, really, want is SamBlob confident and contented going happily on his chosen path editing Wikipedia. To this end I will not respond to his further comments and ask him to see this as a complete acknowledgment of his superiority in this case. However I would ask that he stay well away from my edits and articles I have heavily contributed to. I'll just give notice now I have an important correction to make to Bentley 8-litre but I will wait a day or two for fear of an early firestorm. Eddaido (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's that important, and it's verifiable, why wait? The tone can be can formalized and the biased words filtered out afterward.

What I really want to see is someone "knowledgeable" in WikiProject England looking out to maintain formal tone and to remove such strange things as gigantic thumbnail captions posing as recreations of advertisements from old newspapers. Then "ignorant" people like me could keep away from these articles with a clear conscience. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• dogging present participle of dog (Verb)

Verb:

Follow (someone or their movements) closely and persistently: "photographers dog her every step".

(of a problem) Cause continual trouble for: "the committee has been dogged by controversy".

• jerk

noun:

A contemptibly obnoxious person

One of these words is used by the Queen of England in public address. Penyulap ☏ 00:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (Andy Dingley + Eddaido)

I asked Pesky to come, but Penyulap stopped by and did much the same as I would expect from her, and I thank them. Andy, you might notice I referred to your threshold as a bit low. I think part of the problem, as has been pointed out by others, is the different uses of English ie: "proper" vs. "USA" flavors. Eddaido seems to be an intelligent guy and acting in good faith, even if you two disagree on some facts. But I don't think he is intentionally being as rude as I first did, and think part of the issue is simply expressing himself in English differently than your or I would. I deal with Europeans in business regularly and see lots of this, where things get lost in the translation, even from British English to American English. I think it might be helpful if Andy pulled back here and set his threshold higher, and maybe just leave a personalized note instead of a template when you think he is rude. Or ask me if you don't feel comfortable, I understand and I don't mind helping. I don't think Andy did anything wrong here, but he (and some of the rest of us) may have taken the comments as more offensive than Eddaido intended. For example, "dogging" doesn't mean the same thing to me, from the southern USA, that it means to the Queen of England. Eddaido, I think that working on expressing yourself in a more neutral way would be helpful, so your comments don't come across as aggressive. Pesky is a great help in these matters if you just ask her. I think this is just frustration built up between the two, caused in part by a communications gap, confusing both sides of the dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys; I'll take a proper look through all the history as soon as I can, but doing the background research here will take me a while if I'm to do it properly (and, for the record, I can't stand it when people chip in here without having done their homework first!) So, all I will say for the present is that both Andy and Eddaido are welcome to come and hang out at my talk page, chill out, chat, have a laugh at some of the funny stuff, and get to know me and my stalkers a bit. I have a varied and interesting bunch of TPSers, many of whom are truly brilliant at coming up with an obvious idea which has failed to occur to the rest of us! A fair few are autism-spectrum (I'm a high-functioning autistic myself, and I've also taught a lot of A-spectrum people). This means I have a talk page where we often think outside the usual boxes. Simple rules for my talk: no battles! All weapons have to be left outside the door; think of it as a kind of time-out space, a sanctuary where the wounded can go lick their wounds and feel safe(ish) for a while. We do our best to help everyone, wherever possible. And, as a fair few of us are also at the mature end of the spectrum (over 40, over 50, some over 60, etc.) we're generally kinda mellow, with a lot of real-life experience. And we care about people, as people, not just as editors. We're aware that editors have feelings, and can be hurt. So ... everyone welcome who wants to find solutions and can fit in and relax. Hugz to all involved, here. Things are probably not quite as bad as you think; there will be a constructive way forward. Pesky (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Gotta add here, "dogging" can mean far more things than many people realise! For example, I'm fairly sure that Teh Queen didn't mean it in this sense ... [Pesky falls offf chair laughing, again ...] Language is a very strange thing. In print, it's even more strange. We so often misunderstand each other. Pesky (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Dennis: Blanking GF editor's comments on a user talk page with there was a nasty mark on this page and more nasty mess on my talkpage is not acceptable by any interpretation of WP:CIVIL I can interpret. If you think that I'm just some naive American who doesn't understand those funny European turns of phrase, then check where I'm actually from.

Personally, as said already, I don't care about the rudeness as I do about technically ignorant edits failing WP:COMPETENCE and an editor with a total refusal to engage in any discussion of them afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy, although I agree with you that those two edit summaries were far from ideal, just looking at the background of the second one, what was removed included an accusation of vandalism for changing an unreffed tag to a refimprove tag ... fair enough, the article was unreffed, but changing the tag to a refimprove doesn't really count as vandalism, in my books. So I can kinda understand why an editor would feel that the warning might constitute a "nasty mess", in that instance. Not excusing, here, but I can understand. Pesky (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding (and this applies to all sorts of people in all sorts of situations): If you want to be able to meet someone half way, each of you has to understand where the other is coming from. Pesky (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, while I'm thinking, here's a project for both of you to do. In your own sandboxes, go through all the bits of your arguments with each other, note the diff, and then write what you thought the other person was thinking about it at the time. Let me know when you've done that. Adding: you both might find it a helpful exercise to read this. Pesky (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Noted and thanks, Eddaido (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You guys might find Andy / Eddaido interactions and SamBlob /Eddaido interactions and Andy / SamBlob interactions a useful tool. ;P All kudos to SW for creating this research-facilitator. Pesky (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandel keeps reverting article under new accounts

The article Cinavia has been cleaned up to properly reflect wikipedia. I believe (though cannot prove) the same person continues to revert the edits and register new accounts. I would like an admin to look into this as it is becoming problemmatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an ordinary edit war to me. I don't even see enough for this to go to WP:ANEW yet. And a note to Tyros1972: the edits are not vandalism, so you are subject to the three-revert rule on that article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear to be an edit war, but with quickly-created socks participating. They need to be blocked for sock puppetry and edit warring. Tyros1972 is obviously being gamed and should be helped. How about protecting the article so only experienced editors can edit it? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted to an earlier stage, left a message on the talk page and will watch as well. Tyros needs to be careful with the reverts, since these are not vandalism. I agree with your edits, but as Fred points out, you are subject to the the 3 revert per 24 hour limit. If it keeps up, SPI is the next step. I would rather wait on protecting the page for right now since socks are possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 08:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

5 reverts without a single source and ignoring the references given and refuses to discuss the issue

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

---

The post is being transfered to the 3RRNB.... taking out the content to prevent having more comments here. --SriSuren (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you... tried 3RRNB? It looks like a situation for that board, down to the presentation of diffs. Doc talk 03:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. It looks very "scary" and very technical there - the purpose of my complaint is not about getting Sudar123 blocked, but that an administrator or someone with authority explains to him that he cannot do what he is doing. It is not only about the reverting, it is the nagging and demanding for references even when references are given, inventing disputes while he himself has not given even a single reference to support his views. If this complaint cannot be handled here, then I have no objection if it is transferred to another board, including the 3RRNB. If such transfers are not possible, then I can do it myself. Just say what I should do. --SriSuren (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That board is less "scary" than this one, trust me. You can easily transfer it to that board, should you choose to. It just seems like an issue for that board. Doc talk 04:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Ok then I'll do that. I just have to figure out how to fill in those standard forms. Thanks for the advice. --SriSuren (talk) 04:20, 6 May 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.

Deleting Ban

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

---

Given the voting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_on_Fox:_Diaz_vs._Miller_(2nd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_146 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_142 it shows that the fans do not want these pages deleted and that further attempts to delete pages by Newmanoconnor, Mtking and TreyGeek are harmful to Wikipedias coverage of MMA.

So I propose that Newmanoconnor, Mtking and TreyGeek all be banned from

• starting any more deletion attempts
• taking part in any deletion attempts started by other
• using sock puppets do do either of the above.

ScottMMA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) 03:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:ScottMMA failed to notify User:Mtking, User:Newmanoconnor, or myself of this discussion. I have notified the other two users of this thread. As I have stated before at ANI (today in fact), I stand by the vast majority of my edits. If the administrators or the Wikipedia community at-large feels that I have abused my editing privileges then I fully expect to receive the appropriate response up to and including warning messages on my talk page, temporary blocks of my editing privileges and/or topic bans. If anyone has any specific questions for me I will check in off-and-on to respond to them. Otherwise, I await the Wikipedia community's response. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, to avoid any unnecessary dilution of the discussion by talking about meatpuppetry, ScottMMA did notify me of this discussion on my talk page, thus I'm here. Prior to that, I have contributed to a couple of AfD discussions on matters relating to MMA.

As we can see from the discussion above, there's a lot going on here. Both sides seem to be fairly entrenched in their positions, and from the few pages that I've read of I'm sure dozens total, there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides. I'd propose cool-down blocks, but I think that would do more harm than good. I do think this needs a break for parties to settle so consensus may be reached at some point.

After posting in one AfD, and trying to interpret a comment in a way that assumes good faith, I received a response that seemed fairly hostile. As that was just my first foray which I tried to make gently into the discussion, I don't think that I can productively contribute and help work towards consensus in the current environment.

Alternative proposal: I'd propose that this be allowed to sit for a week or even two, since I believe concerns about MMA notability have been ongoing for a couple months. At that point, I'd think it would be more productive to try to build new MMA Notability guidelines before going through the deletion process, which I think makes things a bit more contentious than they need to be. We're all trying to make the project as good as it can be, after all.

I'd suggest closing all current AfD discussions regarding MMA issues temporarily until a new consensus is reached on new guidelines. For articles already deleted, like UFC 27, leave them deleted. If consensus is reached that every minor MMA event is included on the project, we can move forward with that. If consensus is reached that the UFC is a passing fad that no one is going to remember tomorrow, so thus WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies and all MMA articles should be deleted, I'm fine with that. Rather than going back and forth about how much both sides arguments suck, why don't we take a break and brainstorm about criteria that we can accurately evaluate MMA articles on.

As I said above, I'm very discouraged that any of this can in fact be accomplished based on my limited experience, and as such, I'm not planning on returning here as I don't want to make things any more of a mess than they are already. There are plenty of smart players involved already to get this resolved. Anyway, thanks for your time, and let me know if I can be of further assistance.--Policy Reformer(c) 04:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Another attempt by an MMA fan to continue the disruption; in answer to PolicyReformer, it has never been my position that UFC is a passing fad, just the individual events, much like almost every professional sporting events have no lasting notability and therfore have no place in an Encyclopaedia. Mtking ^(edits) 04:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to accuse you of stating it was a passing fad. Those were my words, apparently poorly chosen. I intended to state the two extremes, suggesting that there was a compromise that could be reached. If I've unintentionally inflamed the situation, I'm very sorry. I'm very sorry to offend you Mtking as that was not my intent. My intent was to help resolve the situation and compromise with you. I'm sorry that I failed. This is why I do feel I need to extricate myself from this discussion as I only seem to make it worse. --Policy Reformer(c) 04:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no offence taken, I just wanted to correct any misconception, as I said on my talk page any help with MMA is welcome. Mtking ^(edits) 04:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support as these particular accounts do not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of either MMA or the whole point of Wikipedia to actually contribute to discussions concerning keeping or deleting MMA related articles. I am not sure to what extent it is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or just lack of knowledge, but they are indiscriminately lumping together events put on by local promotions with the same copy and paste boilerplate rationale as events aired internationally and viewed by millions that feature title bouts by the biggest promotion in the world and that are indeed covered in mainstream newspapers, while falsely declaring that the events are only covered on MMA related sites. It should be WP:COMMONSENSE that at least events involving title bouts from the world's biggest promotion and that has received international coverage is worthy of inclusion, but even those, such as UFC 146 is being claimed as "non-notable" despite considerable mainstream coverage due to the heavyweight championship fight being changed after a positive banned substance test. That controversy alone has sparked international interest and coverage in printed newspapers. It is absurd to suggest that an event with a heavyweight championship fight does not have lasting historical significance either! --24.112.202.78 (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If anybody wants to close the AfD's I support it, as long as we can move forward with discussions at WP:MMANOT, without the obstruction that occurred last time. Regardless, I'm not putting anymore MMA events up for AfD, until someone settles the notability issues. I'd like to participate, but as long as users who behave as Agent00f do are allowed to disrupt, I'll take a wait and see approach.I do think it's really ashame that no admin will address any of this. I'm certain I've made a mistake in the last few days, sanction me, ban me, whatever the community sees fit. however, to let the behavior that has gone on by the individual's who opened these last two ANI's go unchecked, well, you're inviting situations like this on Wikipedia in the future.Newmanoconnor (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would also support any closing of the AfD's PROVIDING it was part of an overall attempt to reach a concussion such as the one proposed by PolicyReformer at my talk page. (perhaps s/he would like to propose it here.) Mtking ^(edits) 05:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Below is the proposal from MtKing's talk page.

Thank you, Mtking. I should hopefully have a bit of time during the upcoming week to contribute to these discussions. Based on your familiarity with the area as someone from outside the MMA community, I'd also welcome a framework from you on how we might evaluate MMA events/fighters for inclusion both in conformity with global policy and within that, uniquely tailored to the sport. Any ideas you have would be welcome, as we're going to have to defend any new policy to the general editor base, so having ideas from the general editor base could be helpful. Also, we're probably going to need ideas on what constitutes a stub vs. non-encyclopedic content (similar to some music albums for example).

So, to confirm on where we stand:

1. No new AfD's.
2. Current AfD's are temporarily closed to be re-evaluated under new MMANOT guidelines after MMANOT established.
3. I made a proposal over on TreyGeek's talk pagethat we could perhaps hold off on the AfD's for a short period of time in order to clean up articles that might otherwise be subject to AfD (sourcing, encyclopedic content rather than just stats, etc.) in order to work with the existing framework for the articles rather than having to start from scratch so they warrant inclusion.
4. No new discussions at ANI over existing issues. Handle it at the MMANOT discussion.
5. No new articles that don't warrant inclusion under WP:GNG (discard old MMANOT entirely for now). Not sure how to police this, but I'd suggest just userfying any newly created articles until we get MMANOT up to snuff.
6. I'd suggest targeting 1-2 weeks for new MMANOT guidelines, subject to being shortened or lengthened as needed (lenghtened only if discussion is reasonably moving forward).

If there's anything I'm leaving out, let me know. Otherwise I suggest we move this over to ANI and see if everyone will jump on board.

Thanks again for your time and your efforts, and I look forward to working with you to fix this.--Policy Reformer(c) 04:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Would add one thing, a post to AN asking for two or three admins to help out, otherwise we risk stalemate. As for point 5, how about "No new articles on any MMA event; any new article will be either be userfied or moved to a page under the project. Mtking ^(edits) 05:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I subsequently agreed to Mtking's modification of #5.--Policy Reformer(c) 05:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, Support PR's proposal This AN/I thread reeks of bad faith. This is a content dispute that was moving forward. It's still slowly trudging along, but some people are, intentionally or unitentionally, hampering it. Scott posted here, didn't notify Trey, MtKing, or Newmanconner about the thread, and then canvassed for support. He's been warned about the canvassing, and that should be enough. OTOH, I believe PR's proposal is the best way to move forward. We need to keep the discussion in one centralized location. A lot of these current problems are going to be handled once the new notability guidelines are agreed upon and put into action. It's going to take some time, but there is no need to rush thing. Time is something we have in abundance. Ishdarian 06:02, 6 May 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.

Simulated child porn, etc etc

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

---

Now that hopefully I have all of your attention from the section title, here's the diff, this is the user, and the image is on Commons. I have no idea what the relevant Wikipedia policy is regarding this, so I'll leave it to you guys. brb doing a Gutmann pass on my hard drive because of internet browser image cache, since I live in a dystopian country where loli is illegal, punishable by 10 years prison. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons uploader is probably same chap but not that user account - commons uploader is Sbardnafulator). Commons won't delete the file unless it's a copyvio - which of course it is. the game doesn't include images like these. I've blocked the wikipedia useraccount as vandalism only (anyone got a better category). Anyone got any brain bleach? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the image is under a free license, or that it is the uploader's own work as the file description claims. I can't verify my doubts though. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If the image is a copyvio, it will appear elsewhere on the internet. I'm too paranoid to do a Tineye or Google reverse image search for obvious reasons. Is anyone from Russia or some other Eastern European country willing to try it out? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm on a college campus, so I'm certainly not going to look at the image or search for copyvios online (nor would I in any event—I have no desire to see CP!); but assuming it is as bad as you say, it should be oversighted or server-level erased because that is illegal in the state of Florida. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The image is a 2D lolicon image of Cirno with a undeniably child body and... uhhh... underdeveloped vaginal opening being displayed towards the viewer. Cirno is a character from the game, however the game is non-pornographic and the image is definitely a fan artwork. I think if 2D simulated child porn is illegal in Florida, then the image in question certainly would be illegal. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

All other issues aside, unless the videogame is PD or compatibly licensed, it's a derivative work. There's a reason why Commons doesn't have pictures of Bart Simpson You can't draw your own fan art of visual, copyrighted characters. Flagged accordingly for admin attention on Commons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MRG. I have oversighted on wikipedia - reasonably certain it's illegal in Florida. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

NB - have corrected myself further up. For some reason I typed 'isn't' a copyvio instead of 'is'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, file blacklisted (pending deletion on commons). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:27, 3 May 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.

For the record the legality is dubious: was struck down n 2002 after creation in 1996. But was upheld in 2008 (i imagine thats a different law a new law was enacted). SCOTUS rulings are nationalLihaas (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter? Wikipedia has absolutely no business dealing in sexual images of children, real or simulated, licit or illicit, for both moral and legal reasons. Such material caters to the basest of human instincts. Since most editors are not attorneys, we cannot make fine-grained judgments on legality, and should steer well clear of any potential legal problems. And since the US federal laws in this area invariably define "children" as anyone under 18, at least the legal argument for avoiding possible issues extends up to this age. Photographers such as David Hamilton who specialize in purportedly artistic images of naked teenage girls have hundreds of thousands of dollars in reserve for their legal defense. Wikipedia does not. Editing to make a point about the distinction between child nudity and child pornography, differences between morally deviant sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children and the far more common attraction to teenagers, just exactly where the line is between legal simulated child erotica and illegal simulated child porngraphy, etc, is extremely disruptive. Indeed, I am tempted to place User:Shoemaker's Holiday/Lolblock on the talk page of "Dubstripsget" to emphasize the total unacceptability of his contributions. Regarding hard disk scrubbing for the unwilling viewers of the offending image, a single pass of random data or one SATA secure erase should be sufficient. The Gutmann method was based on old hard disk technology which provided greater data remanence than current drives. Properly implemented whole-disk encryption will also avoid legal problems; as this incident demonstrates, sometimes even though one isn't trying to find possibly illegal material, it finds you. Such is the often unsavory nature of the internet. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, disk-encryption may raise the technical barrier for forensic analysis of a disk, but in a number of jurisdictions the authorities can compel you to provide a key. (Full-disk encryption is commonly seen on work laptops - in which case your employer probably has a key too). Even outside those jurisdictions, "Yes, I was shown that pic inadvertently. As soon as I realised, I deleted it. Here, officer; take my key and check for yourself" may be a much better tactic than "I know nothing about kiddy-porn and I forgot my key. Just forgot it this morning, in fact". Agreed that Gutmann is outdated. bobrayner (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And as there is absolutely no reason to have that image in the article (it's not taken from gameplay and it's a copyvio before you even get to what it depicted) there's no reason to leave it lying around to raise potential issues. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay block extension

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

---

GoodDay (talk · contribs) is under Steve Zhang's mentorship and under some sort of mutual editing restriction with Djsasso. Apparently he felt Djsasso violated it and announced his intention on Steve's page to re-engage in the dispute with Djsasso by edit warring. See User_talk:Steven_Zhang#Breach_of_promise. I blocked him for 60 hours for his disruptive editing, as he described on Steve's page. See User_talk:GoodDay#Blocked. He has now declared that he will engage in the same disruptive editing when the block expires. My initial reaction is to extend the block to an indefinite block pending his agreement to not engage in the same disruptive editing. But, since I did issue the 60 hour block, I thought it best to bring the matter here before enacting it. MBisanz ^talk 20:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit severe - well very severe actually - He feels hard done to and he is only venting - and not even noisily - Youreallycan 20:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the venting; that's understandable when blocked. I do have a problem with the declared intent to do the same thing that got him blocked when his block expires. Blocks are to prevent the continued improper editing. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yea well - wanting to indef him for that comment is totally excessive imo - Youreallycan 20:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I realize some could see it that way, which is why I came here before doing it. MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Threatening to engage in more disruption is in itself disruptive --Guerillero | My Talk 20:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't edit-warred with Djsasso. I didn't reverse the page move he recently made nor did I revert edits he made at the articles I was recently blocked for. In the past, I've always kept diacritics hidden on North American hockey articles, while Djsasso kept diacritics shown on Non-North American hockey articles. He doesn't revert me & I don't revert him. Our major spats have (in the past) occured on talkpages, not on the articles themselves. We've only ever edit-warred on one article. I believe the Adminstrator blocked me before looking. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Before we run off to the races (as we have 60 days to review this) can we hear from the mentor as to what went wrong? Hasteur (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me how Djsasso's edits here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and then here, and then even FURTHER and ESPECIALLY here, here, and here were not a violation of the interaction ban entered into User_talk:Djsasso/Archive_9#Notice_of_discussion_at_the_Administrators.27_Noticeboard ("...off each other's talk page. Participate in discussions elsewhere out of coincidence, but don't interact with each other if possible. Sounds reasonable? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 21:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC); Yup fine by me. -DJSasso (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)"

I get that DJSasso is an admin, and thus obviously has done no wrong, but come on, that's above and beyond baiting and wikihounding. Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We did not enter into an interaction ban. We both just agreed to not interact, in no way would I have agreed to an actual ban. We also made it clear that we both could take part in discussions the other editor was involved in. As for the last two if I am being accused of something I do have the right to respond. Not to mention he voted in those move discussions after reading that I had posted a message to the move requester. In other words he was following my edits. -DJSasso (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that you entered into a ban. You certainly aren't voting directly below him time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time "out of coincidence." You are obviously wikistalking and taunting him. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No actually I wasn't. I made a comment to the requester about the ridiculousness of creating the RMs and then I went to vote in them. In the period between messaging the nom and me voting he voted. Clearly that is him wikistalking my edits otherwise he wouldn't have even noticed those discussions or for that matter the move I made. -DJSasso (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a testable hypothesis. You say that your votes were due to IIO's nominations. Could you explain exactly why and how you found out about Talk:Jóhanna_Sigurðardóttir#Requested_move, because it does show you following GoodDay around but is an RM created by Dr. D.E. Mophon, who is not In ictu oculi. This does not fit with your statement. How awkward. Hipocrite (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Very simply, by following the request for moves listings. I !vote in many if not most moves that involve diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd oppose increasing the block just now. Until and unless GoodDay acts on his words, this is just venting. If, when his block expires he starts again, then block again. That said, I believe that, out of fairness, the community should also examine Djsasso's edits — though I must admit I have not investigated them yet... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have now looked a little bit more into the situation and think that you, Djsasso, are not entirely clean here. You gave the impression of having followed GoodDay to a couple of discussions, which is not in keeping with the Participate in discussions elsewhere out of coincidence part of your agreement and your posts on his talk page were rather inappropriate, in particular your revert of GoodDay's removal of one of your posts. I'm not really sure you technically agreed to an interaction ban, but you certainly appear to have violated an agreement with GoodDay. Not blockable behaviour I'd say, but certainly objectionable. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that GoodDay has taken something he has routinely done in the past - hide diacritics on North American based hockey articles as part of maintaining a consensus compromise within the hockey project to try and avoid diacritical battles - and turned it into a case of "he did that, so I am going to respond by doing this". GoodDay's edits were not disruptive on their own and if he ahd just quietly made them, nobody would have even questioned them. However, GoodDay has instead made this into a battle, where he feels the need to fire a return salvo for some reason. Both uses have consistently been interested in the usage of diacritics on Wikipedia, though with differing opinions. That isn't a problem on its own, and there wouldnt be a problem here if GoodDay were to simply continue doing what he is doing, but without making it so personal. Resolute 20:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If what GD was doing was not itself wrong, but the actual problem was that his edit summaries were too strident, then I question the initial imposition of the block, certainly oppose stretching it at all (let alone indefinitely), and suggest lifting the block with a caution to adjust his tone. -Rrius (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a case of attitude defining action. See User talk:Steven Zhang#Breach of promise. He took an action of this that has historically been benign, and turned it on its head with a battleground mentality. Reading that, I can see why Steven asked for the block, especially given this has come within days of another block GoodDay just came off of. I would like to add, however, that I don't support an extension of GoodDay's block, unless he continues to push this as a battleground to fight on. There is room for both he and DJSasso to participate in the same diacritics discussions, and there is no issue (from my POV) on what each is doing independently related to diacritics. I have no issue with GoodDay continuing to mask visible diacritics on NA-based hockey articles, exactly as he has done in the past, and there are plenty of gnomish tasks for which GD can do that would benefit both the hockey project and Wikipedia overall. There's no reason for anyone to push this dispute farther than it has already gone. Resolute 20:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolute is correct here. GoodDay is not blocked for hiding diacritics on articles. He's blocked because the only reason he has started doing this is that someone else is doing the opposite. Two wrongs don't make a right. There's obviously no agreement among editors on whether to use diacritics or not, so I suggest an RFC on the issue. For the time being, I think the status quo on articles relating to diacritics should stay in place. If they have diacritics at the moment, leave them in. If they don't, leave them out. Let an RFC sort out the matter. But if GoodDay intends to remove diacritics either way, once his block expires, then I am very concerned. Steven Zhang ^Talk 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I should probably point out I'm generally (though of course not entirely) pro-diacritics, but I would like to see ALL diacritics-related RMs, either way, to cease until we come to an agreement on how to update the guidelines. And editors who keep nominating them informed, and blocked if they keep refusing to be patient, because it IS getting disruptive now. - filelakeshoe 22:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm considered "anti-diacritics" (though that is not how I would phrase my position), but I could not agree more with your comment, Filelakeshoe. It's getting even more disruptive than last year. Jenks24 (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here are comments copied from GoodDay's talk page, as discussed there:

I haven't edit-warred with Djsasso. I didn't reverse the page move he recently made nor did I revert edits he made at the articles I was recently blocked for. In the past, I've always kept diacritics hidden on North American hockey articles, while Djsasso kept diacritics shown on Non-North American hockey articles. He doesn't revert me & I don't revert him. Our major spats have (in the past) occured on talkpages, not on the articles themselves. We've only ever edit-warred on one article. I believe the Adminstrator blocked me before looking. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:HOCKEY, agrees with deleting/hiding diacritics on North American-based hockey articles. Therefore, my edits weren't disruptive & my promise to re-continue executing WP:HOCKEY's views on diacritics usage on those (North American) articles, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I promise to continue maintaining the North American based hockey articles (i.e. keeping diacritics hidden) in a gnome fashion. Resolute is correct about 'one' thing - I should've (as before) hid the dios without mentioning it. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this not sufficient? GD is promising to return to the status quo ante, i.e., enforcing the current WikiProject guideline in a gnomish fashion rather than out of retaliation. He's acknowledged what his attitude was wrong and has had plenty of time to cool down, so why not lift the block and let everyone move on with their lives? Blocks aren't meant to be punitive, but since this one has already served its purpose, it is in danger of becoming so. -Rrius (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

More from GoodDay's talkpage:

BTW: I apologies to Steven, for showing up at his talkpage in a 'red faced' mood. I should've merely asked Steven to review Djsasso's page moves, to see if they breached the mutual agreement. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef for threatening to edit war is excessive. Heck, many editors don't get sanctioned that severely for actual edit warring. Let's see if he behaves better when the 60 hours have expired. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

nothing to see here, move on --Guerillero | My Talk 00:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Restoring my comment which was abusively called vandalism but is in fact WP:NOTVANDALISM. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC) LOL! PwilliamQ99 (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Editing another's comments is highly WP:DISRUPTIVE. Please refrain from this type of behavior, PwilliamQ99. Thank you. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Double LOL! PwilliamQ99 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Will you agree to cease editing another's comments or shall I open an administrative thread about your disruption? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Not if you get blocked. PwilliamQ99 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC) So you are indicating that you will continue to edit another's comments? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Editing and removing one's comments are two completely different things. Steven Zhang Talk 23:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Neither of which is appropriate. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Pwilliam's userpage is against policy. Please attend to this. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Actually it isn't the policy says "User talk pages" not "User pages". -DJSasso (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Although it still fails WP:R#DELETE on at least two points, so I have blanked it again. This is regardless of the fact the redirect is both cross-namespace and utterly useless. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked him per a good faith unblock request. I think this thread is now moot. MBisanz ^talk 19:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposed ban of user Catcreekcitycouncil

The following discussion is closed. 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 this seems to be a case where WP:DENYing and hoping it goes away hasn't made it go away, I'm proposing a community ban from Wikipedia for Catcreekcitycouncil (talk · contribs) and its army of sockpuppets. The history is this: awhile back the article on Cat Creek, Montana was expanded using questionble, if not fully erronious, sources, including one that had the claim that African lions were present near the town. As there are no African lions in the US in the wild, this was reverted - and then an edit-war started with the "city council" account and sockpuppets attempting to keep the lions in and also crying censorship. This was brought to ANI awhile back (I'll find the link if need be), and I stepped in, cleaned up, and the article was massively improved by another user. And CCCC socks kept returning to vandalise, revert, and attempt to keep the lion claims in the article, to the point the article was full-protected (due to blatant gaming the system to get autoconfirmed) and the talk page semi-protected, despite it being pointed out several times that old sources (the source in question being claimed as a local book of which only a few copies were made and fewer exist (and which likely doesn't meet WP:RS anyway)) use just plain "lion" to describe the Mountain lion, thus causing the confusion; however it has become apparent that this user/s, whom CheckUser has indicated are sourcing from educational IPs (saying the school mascot is probably a lion is a sucker bet), aren't good-faith editing but are edit-warring and socking for the sake of pure disruptiveness, including vandalising userpages, creating accounts with attack names, creating - so far - 62 confirmed sockpuppets in just one month, and multiple declarations of intending to continue to sock no matter what, culminating with this gem.

At this point, it's obvious that this group of meddling kids is not here to improve the encyclopedia, and is determined to continue disrupting and trolling Wikipedia. Therefore, I propose that User:Catcreekcitycouncil and his/her/its band of renowndrawerful of socks be formally banned from editing for the good of the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This one's a no-brainer. waggers (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• oppose his claim to sockpuppet without sleepers (though he could use proxies) is just that a claim as for now. Nothign demonstrable. That said a warning should suffice. Further this discussion doesnt involve any evidence/diffs. It also uses presumptions: "As there are no African lions in the US in the wild" seems like an opinion without sources (remember on any page WP editors are not RS) + " which likely doesn't meet WP:RS anyway" is not valid reason. It should be taken to RSN to judge its notability as a source, then with a conclusion against the source and it still being added would be grounds for ore action.Lihaas (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, sources: Peterson's Field Guide to Mammals, Kaufman Field Guide to the Mammals of North America, National Geographic Field Guide to the Mammals of North America; I can provide a wall of text of sources if you want it; WP:COMMONSENSE is the operative WP:ALPHABETSOUP here. As Nyttend points out below, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Specific diffs weren't provided in the OP because (a) the entire article history is the evidence, and (b) there has been losts of vandalism of other pages I don't watch, plus (c) 62 sockpuppets confirmed in a month is evidence enough, I'd wager. As for the sockpuppeting, his sockpuppets are checkuserered and he has made multiple attack usernames too ("Foo sucks"). Note the links above to the sockpuppet category, and here's the original batch of SPI: [99]. As for the source, there is no evidence it even exists except in the mind of the user/s; there were repeated statements that they would "try to track down a copy...there are very very few copies that exist"; it can't be verified. There is zero good faith left to be assumed here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I had unwatched this page a while back, not sure why. This person(s) has an obsession that can't be reasoned with, and it has been tried. Why the obsession, the faith behind it, the accuracy of it, I have no idea. The disruption is pretty obvious though.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Even if there was some nugget of truth behind the original contention about lions (a fact which I do not stipulate), the behavioral shenanigans totally override that. Is a rangeblock of the school district / educational system worthwhile, or are there productive editors we'd need to IPBlockexempt? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban, silly kiddie trolling, just rangeblock it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• COMMENT this is not a vote count...where it the evidence? nothing by the nominee who needs to provide diffs. Seem slike others are vengeance mongering over some past misdeed. WP is not a stress ball/pinata!Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no "vengeance mongering", and your assumption of bad faith is disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Obvious disruptive troll. Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support When you're bugging OTRS with blatant lies (observe that Cat Creek is unincorporated and thus can't have a city council, so this user is pretending to represent a nonexistent jurisdiction) and creating multiple socks to do it, you've broken enough policies and been disruptive enough to deserve a permanent break from the project. Lihaas, do you dispute the sources on Lion that tell us that Panthera leo is native only to the Old World? When you have solid sources saying one thing, you're going to need ultra-solid sources in contradiction to it to demonstrate the contrary. We don't need to recognise the hoaxing at the Cat Creek article with sources telling us that the species lives wild only in the Old World; we simply delete the hoax and don't again refer to it in mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• You are correct about the name. I reported it to UAA [100] and they were blocked [101] by The Bushranger back on April 1. Took forever to find the diffs. Rather impressive sock army in such a short time. Must be a class project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comments – First off, there is no "Cat Creek City Council". Moreover, User:Catcreekcitycouncil did not edit from Cat Creek nor anywhere in Montana. Instead, this and all the socks are editing from Agoura Hills, California; this is clearly evidenced by the sock puppets User:Agourahigh, User:Agourahighschool, User:Agourahillscity, and User:Ahschargers as well as overlap in edits by other socks. (more specifically, this RevDeleted edit on Agoura Hills, California)

Here is a detailed list of diffs documenting the disruption and outright taunting this vandal has done to date:

• ahhaahah, block me
• accepted structure as a last ditch effort to improve this page without these asswipes deleting everything
• CVU is defenseless and will not be able to stop it without some industrial washing machines... there are just too many smelly socks on our side! :)
• You'd all better get a damn good washing machine as some mighty strong detergent, I got a nice smelly drawer of socks for you! ;)
• QUACK QUACK QUACK
• (deleted) QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK LIONS WILL RULE QUACK!
• (deleted) There are many copies in the area, but unfortunately due to the time of publishing and the author, the book was self published. All copies were put together with paper, scissors, and glue, so no more than a few copies were ever made.
• (deleted) THE WHOLE CITY WILL BACK ME UP ON THIS. NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO TO BAN US FOR "VANDALISM", WE WILL COME BACK AND ADD WHAT IS FACTUAL INFORMATION TO THIS PAGE!
• (deleted) QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK LIONS WILL RULE QUACK!
• The lions of Cat Creek are driving me insane!.
• Indeedy indeed! If only you were right! I pity you, for one day the lions shall consume you whole.
• QUACK QUACK QUACK THERE ARE LIONS IN CAT CREEK NO MATTER WHAT BUSHRANGER SAYS QUACK QUACK QUACK
• There are Lions in Cat Creek. You'd better get some strong detergent and a good washing machine, because there are some really stinky socks in a drawe waiting for you.
• We shall prevail!
• Quack, quack, quack bitchass
• I scoff at your pathetic check user process. "No sleepers" it says, HA! We have around 30 sleepers created at various times all from different IPs. ¡Viva leones!

--MuZemike 16:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support clearly disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - enough is enough; this sort of disruption is not helpful to the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban, and also the enabling of autoblock. ;) Minima© (talk) 18:45, 5 May 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

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

Please block the above IP for personal attacks and disruptive editing. Look at the edit summaries here. Look at this post on another editor's page. I've posted two warnings (should have used a different template for the first), the second of which was a final. I didn't see any need to start at the bottom of the ladder given the attitude. ANI seems overkill for this sort of thing, but I know of no other forum to go to (protection isn't warranted as the abuse is coming only from one IP). (The "disruptive editing" involves a dispute over the genre of Black Swan (film), which has been and is being discussed on the article Talk page, as well as at WP:RSN).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP is now auto-blocked, presumably because GayBanAss (talk · contribs) was indef'ed. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have a couple of questions on autoblock, if you don't mind. I can see you added an entry to the "Blocked users" list, but (1) how would an editor know that 201. is the IP for that entry and (2) how would anyone looking at 201.'s contributions know they are autoblocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Trick of the trade ;) When I blocked the named account, the IP's contrib list changed so that instead of "block" it says "change block". If the IP had had a previous, expired block to its record, that one would have been displayed. Some call it a bug, I call it a feature. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, whatever you call it, I don't see it. When I look at the contribution list for the IP, there is nothing that says "change block". Perhaps that's something only an admin can see? If that's true, I'd call it whatever-negative-term-you-wish as there would be no way for a non-admin editor to know that the IP is autoblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Shucks! Sorry about that. Been an admin for so long, I don't remember how things looked before. Anyway, the IP will be out of the game for at least 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm guessing that any non-admin could figure it out from reading Special:BlockList without too much effort. Even IPs can have access to that list. Just tested in another browser as an IP to be sure. *added* well, maybe not. Not sure.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, how would anyone figure it out from the list? See search of list. I'm afraid I don't understand the last part of your comment starting with "added".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First thanks to you all for your vigilance regarding the IP and named user. FYI this is more than likely long time and prolific sock creator Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The warring over genre and the inevitable attacks on User:Andrzejbanas bear all the hallmarks of that Brazilian. Since blocks have already been issued I don't know that a new SPI is needed but I wanted to let you know the likely perpetrator. MarnetteD | Talk 18:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you tagged the IP as a possible sock puppet, thanks. It's so nice to have people with long memories around here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The *added* meant I added that last line one minute later, I didn't want to start a new line, and I guess I did it awkwardly. I saw that my initial assumption was flawed. You could see that an IP was blocked, but you couldn't see the actual ip. If you suspected the IP, I'm guessing you could go check their block log, which is accessible, to see the change in that log. I'm thinking all changes are logged. I'll tell you what the real problem is, you don't have the mop yet and you should ;) Then it would be moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC

(edit conflict)You are welcome. This one tends to lay low for a few months and then come back with a rush. A lot of us tend to grow out of certain behaviors over time - not all though :-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Equazcion

I have been having some wikihounding problems with the above user and I believe he is taking matters way too far in personal attacks and attempts to humiliate me (or make humiliation a perception from his actions or words), hound me and continue to berate me and my edits that now an involved editor has asked me to stop editing.[102] The request is not the actual the issue, but that the representation of me is meant to define me as unworthy to make me leave or for others to ask me to leave. If this is how we do things I am shocked. But I believe the editors has done enough to be discouraged from further behavior. I have some rights as an editor and one is my reputation should not be stained by these kinds of attacks that effect the way others see me to a point of requesting I stop editing. Look...I have a right to edit without personal attacks and use of intimidating and personal tactics aimed directly at me and for the full purpose of driving me off Wikipedia. I will not be like other editors and just walk away. I have invested far too much time and effort in collaboration and attempting to better myself as an editor to put up with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I came upon Amadscientist's BRD changes for the same reason he went there to edit it -- we were both engaged in a dispute that involved it. I didn't check his contribs once to see where he went. As for my comment on his writing, I was at a loss for an alternative. He insisted on editing BRD almost unilaterally, reverted reverts of his edits, and even after giving up on that, continued with rapid numbers of "copyedits" that resulted in the same degradation of the page's quality. I was being honest as a last resort.

It's not like I called him an asshole, twat, or idiot, for the purposes of releasing aggression -- as various editors have gotten away with numerous times here. His copyediting skills are just not good, and being kinder about it would've involved inventing some new excuse to tweak each of his changes to basically revert them without warring. I thought this was the better option. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't we just cover this a day ago? I suggested reverting back as a neutral party and you just dismissed the idea Amadscientist, saying [103] "let the discussion and editors do their work. It's just how we do things and I feel there is no reason for administrators to intervene at the moment and perhaps at all as i am sure there is an editor that will be as bold as I." so I left the subject alone. Now you complain that there is an editor as bold as you are, and he is using the talk page in the spirit and letter of BRD. Equazcion's comments to you were blunt but not incivil. There wasn't a consensus for the changes then or now, which is what the talk page is for, and it seems to be moving along just fine. Reverting them to the previous state seems perfectly fine. You've been bold, it was reverted, now go discuss. This is exactly what you asked for, and exactly what the page says to do. Nothing to do here at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We have no rights here. Multiple editors have told OP his edits to BRD are not improving the essay and suggested he stop, I don't see any reason for admin intervention. Nobody Ent 22:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I am not here saying that I want intervention in the article or the talk page. If that were the case I would be here arguing for something like "stop him from messing with my changes" or "we should revert back to the way before his changes now" or anything about the article or the talk page. I was talking about his personal attacks on me as an editor and not the edit itself that has continued from the OWS Project Page to the OWS article and then through dispute resolution in more than aggresive behavior in ways designed to do more than simply annoy me. I may not have been clear. My my apologies. I do not exactly appreciate or agree with your use of my words you present back to me as it is not my suggestion that you intervene in the editing or any content dispute there in regards to BRD. Equazcion's comments were a personal attack and a pretty egregious one designed as continued wikihounding, but I understand you feel this is about just editing BRD. For the record, let that go naturaly as I sated but discourage editors from personal attacks. I see this as a misunderstanding in my original post. So I clarified. I think we do have at least that much right (edit) expectation or at the very least...permission to simply treat the situation in the same manner back. I can be blunt in the same manner back to Equazcion himself, would that help the siuation? Is that the direction I am recieving or was my original post misread?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And I don't mean "right" in any legal sense, so perhaps the best way to have said that would have been "expectation".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In the context of how and what he said, this is not a personal attack in any way whatsoever. It was a blunt observation that he expressed with some hesitation. Sometimes we don't like hearing someone tells us something in such a clear fashion, but I don't see any malice, any ill will, or any bad faith in his statement, even if it was very direct. Sometimes, you just have to say it like it is, and he felt this was one of those times. As for treating the situation in the same manner back, of course you are free to make observations. I would warn you, however, that since you have trouble differentiating "blunt" from "personal attack" that you use your best judgement and focus on what will persuade others, not what you think is "the same manner". Again, no administrative action is required here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with having trouble "differentiating "blunt" from "personal attack" at all. How did you come up with that? Becuase it isn't on the list of things that are never accepted? I would call that disimissing my issue. You said "in any way whatsoever". That is under who's definition? How are you differentiating the context of what and how he said it? I see....made my bed sort of thing. Stuck out like a sore thumb and now I have to pay the consequences of that by letting this guy make accusations about my persona ablities. And the wikihounding thing is not even addressed but just dismissed. Got it. Thanks anyway Dennis, I don't feel satisfied with your assesment at all but at least I can accept them as the final word. Basicly...move along.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You may call the differentiation between blunt and personal attack a subjective measure, just as easily as one could interpret your response as rude and dismissive. I don't think Equazcion was reverting your edits to spite you; I think he genuinely felt that your contributions were not enforcing the integrity of a page that is intended to provide guidelines. He does not be deserve to be berated for that, which is specifically what this thread is for. Others reverted over a period of time, which is not an edit war- an edit war only exists if there are three reversions by an editor under 24 hours, while your case had several editors over an extended period of time. That being said, you insinuated far more than Equazcion on the essay's talk page, which doesn't provide a good foundation for your unilateral argument. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

BRD

I have boldly restored the WP:BRD essay to the state it was in before Amadscientist started tinkering with it. I don't believe his changes were, in general, improving the essay. Amadscientist should now discuss his proposed changes on the essay's talk page, and arrive at a compromise or consensus with other interested users before further editing it. What should not happen, as I understand the Bold, revert, discuss process, is for Amadscientist to reinstate the changes he wishes to make without that discussion, the first step in a potential editwar, since the goal is not BRRR... without D.

Since I am not an admin, this is not an admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you made a bold edit...the next part of this method IS a revert. BRD is not an excuse to demand discussion BEFORE editing...but that is not what this ANI was about anyway and those edits you boldly removed were also edits of another editor so you are basicly saying BRD is consensus and no one can touch it and it stands exactly as it is until consensus agrees to any change whatsoever. That's not BRD. That's concrete.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that my logic was wrong, and that a Revert would be the next step in the BRD process. Nevertheless, since many of your edits have been disputed throughout your editing of this essay, I hope that you will not revert, and will instead engage in a consensus discussion with fellow editors instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not have reverted you and I have agreed to a request from a resonable editor to cool off for a day or so. Thanks. In all this madness you are the first person to actually acknowledge something I was correct about.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For a Yankee, BMK is indeed pretty reasonable. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the important thing to note here is that there is so much disagreement with the edits to BRD that they have spilled over to ANI twice now: a clear sign that talk page discussion needs to take place. Thank you BMK. Amadscientist, good luck with your pursuit--you'll have to start it on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The main point was to attract attention and discussion. I made a VP thread about it. I then made an edit and went slowly over three days and 40 something edits. I was also starting over from the beginning attempting to work with the most interested editor and that still didn't work. I am talking on the talk page and have been and will continue to do so.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. We are now at the Discussion phase and need to reach a consensus on these changes before they are reinstated. This is what collaborative editing is all about. Acting solo and being bold can be okay, but when other editors show their concern by reverting, then the BRD cycle starts and the solo editor who was bold needs to collaborate with the other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY

This isn't helpful. MBisanz talk 20:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Investigation by the professional detective agency: we can see this result (personal website). In the relation of him. Presumption of innocence acts (of course). - 176.15.138.84 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC). What exactly is the issue that you feel an administrator needs to address? Your post here is probably actionable as a violation of WP:OUTING -- Avanu (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Haha... No. That site was probably set up by the "OTRS-Beatles Content Donation" LTA-Sock who wants to be able to link copyright violations of Beatles content to Wikipedia. I have never been an Administrator, I've never met Jimbo in person, and editors in good standing may use the email feature to verify that I am not at that email address. Hasteur (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is this fellow?

Encyclopedic Joshua (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ander Crenshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This newly registered account has made massive deletions on the above two articles. I've reverted them on both. On the Rubio article he insists, and although I reverted a second time, he reverted me, and I have not reverted a third time. He also had this very odd discussion on another user's Talk page that set off red flags to cause me to come here. He suggested to the other editor creating a "new article" to replace the Occupy Wall Street article, and when properly challenged by the editor, said, "In all respect, I cannot go back to that article for lawful reasons." When questioned some more, he said, "Could you talk with the main contributors of that article to tell them I'm back and want to contribute, rightfully but only if they don't put any investigations against me again." He was also told that he might be violating WP:POVFORK, at which point he went to that page and deleted a template (since restored). My assumption from all this is he is another user come back to avoid sanctions or a block, but I'm not sure how to go about investigating this, so here I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That all suggests an intriguing past, but even without an investigation of the user's history, the persistent deletion of sourced content is problematic, and merits administrative attention on its own. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is almost admitting he is a sock, and at least one person knows who for. Posting here was a good idea, I'm betting someone else will know. Going to see if I can find who has been indef'ed from the main article lately... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on the talkpage of the editor who has identifyed SP issues with the other accounts and filed the other SPIs, but he wanted to wait until the editor actually made any edits before taking any action.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• The name seems to align with Joshua the Patriot (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 23:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the collective memory of Wikipedians. Thanks, Calton, as well for your support in restoring the two articles he's been editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• The sockmaster for Joshua is CentristFiasco. I'm still looking, if anyone feels comfortable enough for an SPI, go for it. I've given him a final warning on warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dennis, he's got a fair number of warnings now to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• SPI filed after reviewing edit summaries [104]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like MuZemike took care of the problem[105] via WP:DUCK. Thanks to Calton for making this easy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent quick work, thanks. He's been indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Equazcion

I have been having some wikihounding problems with the above user and I believe he is taking matters way too far in personal attacks and attempts to humiliate me (or make humiliation a perception from his actions or words), hound me and continue to berate me and my edits that now an involved editor has asked me to stop editing.[106] The request is not the actual the issue, but that the representation of me is meant to define me as unworthy to make me leave or for others to ask me to leave. If this is how we do things I am shocked. But I believe the editors has done enough to be discouraged from further behavior. I have some rights as an editor and one is my reputation should not be stained by these kinds of attacks that effect the way others see me to a point of requesting I stop editing. Look...I have a right to edit without personal attacks and use of intimidating and personal tactics aimed directly at me and for the full purpose of driving me off Wikipedia. I will not be like other editors and just walk away. I have invested far too much time and effort in collaboration and attempting to better myself as an editor to put up with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I came upon Amadscientist's BRD changes for the same reason he went there to edit it -- we were both engaged in a dispute that involved it. I didn't check his contribs once to see where he went. As for my comment on his writing, I was at a loss for an alternative. He insisted on editing BRD almost unilaterally, reverted reverts of his edits, and even after giving up on that, continued with rapid numbers of "copyedits" that resulted in the same degradation of the page's quality. I was being honest as a last resort.

It's not like I called him an asshole, twat, or idiot, for the purposes of releasing aggression -- as various editors have gotten away with numerous times here. His copyediting skills are just not good, and being kinder about it would've involved inventing some new excuse to tweak each of his changes to basically revert them without warring. I thought this was the better option. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't we just cover this a day ago? I suggested reverting back as a neutral party and you just dismissed the idea Amadscientist, saying [107] "let the discussion and editors do their work. It's just how we do things and I feel there is no reason for administrators to intervene at the moment and perhaps at all as i am sure there is an editor that will be as bold as I." so I left the subject alone. Now you complain that there is an editor as bold as you are, and he is using the talk page in the spirit and letter of BRD. Equazcion's comments to you were blunt but not incivil. There wasn't a consensus for the changes then or now, which is what the talk page is for, and it seems to be moving along just fine. Reverting them to the previous state seems perfectly fine. You've been bold, it was reverted, now go discuss. This is exactly what you asked for, and exactly what the page says to do. Nothing to do here at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We have no rights here. Multiple editors have told OP his edits to BRD are not improving the essay and suggested he stop, I don't see any reason for admin intervention. Nobody Ent 22:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I am not here saying that I want intervention in the article or the talk page. If that were the case I would be here arguing for something like "stop him from messing with my changes" or "we should revert back to the way before his changes now" or anything about the article or the talk page. I was talking about his personal attacks on me as an editor and not the edit itself that has continued from the OWS Project Page to the OWS article and then through dispute resolution in more than aggresive behavior in ways designed to do more than simply annoy me. I may not have been clear. My my apologies. I do not exactly appreciate or agree with your use of my words you present back to me as it is not my suggestion that you intervene in the editing or any content dispute there in regards to BRD. Equazcion's comments were a personal attack and a pretty egregious one designed as continued wikihounding, but I understand you feel this is about just editing BRD. For the record, let that go naturaly as I sated but discourage editors from personal attacks. I see this as a misunderstanding in my original post. So I clarified. I think we do have at least that much right (edit) expectation or at the very least...permission to simply treat the situation in the same manner back. I can be blunt in the same manner back to Equazcion himself, would that help the siuation? Is that the direction I am recieving or was my original post misread?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And I don't mean "right" in any legal sense, so perhaps the best way to have said that would have been "expectation".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In the context of how and what he said, this is not a personal attack in any way whatsoever. It was a blunt observation that he expressed with some hesitation. Sometimes we don't like hearing someone tells us something in such a clear fashion, but I don't see any malice, any ill will, or any bad faith in his statement, even if it was very direct. Sometimes, you just have to say it like it is, and he felt this was one of those times. As for treating the situation in the same manner back, of course you are free to make observations. I would warn you, however, that since you have trouble differentiating "blunt" from "personal attack" that you use your best judgement and focus on what will persuade others, not what you think is "the same manner". Again, no administrative action is required here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with having trouble "differentiating "blunt" from "personal attack" at all. How did you come up with that? Becuase it isn't on the list of things that are never accepted? I would call that disimissing my issue. You said "in any way whatsoever". That is under who's definition? How are you differentiating the context of what and how he said it? I see....made my bed sort of thing. Stuck out like a sore thumb and now I have to pay the consequences of that by letting this guy make accusations about my persona ablities. And the wikihounding thing is not even addressed but just dismissed. Got it. Thanks anyway Dennis, I don't feel satisfied with your assesment at all but at least I can accept them as the final word. Basicly...move along.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You may call the differentiation between blunt and personal attack a subjective measure, just as easily as one could interpret your response as rude and dismissive. I don't think Equazcion was reverting your edits to spite you; I think he genuinely felt that your contributions were not enforcing the integrity of a page that is intended to provide guidelines. He does not be deserve to be berated for that, which is specifically what this thread is for. Others reverted over a period of time, which is not an edit war- an edit war only exists if there are three reversions by an editor under 24 hours, while your case had several editors over an extended period of time. That being said, you insinuated far more than Equazcion on the essay's talk page, which doesn't provide a good foundation for your unilateral argument. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

BRD

I have boldly restored the WP:BRD essay to the state it was in before Amadscientist started tinkering with it. I don't believe his changes were, in general, improving the essay. Amadscientist should now discuss his proposed changes on the essay's talk page, and arrive at a compromise or consensus with other interested users before further editing it. What should not happen, as I understand the Bold, revert, discuss process, is for Amadscientist to reinstate the changes he wishes to make without that discussion, the first step in a potential editwar, since the goal is not BRRR... without D.

Since I am not an admin, this is not an admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you made a bold edit...the next part of this method IS a revert. BRD is not an excuse to demand discussion BEFORE editing...but that is not what this ANI was about anyway and those edits you boldly removed were also edits of another editor so you are basicly saying BRD is consensus and no one can touch it and it stands exactly as it is until consensus agrees to any change whatsoever. That's not BRD. That's concrete.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that my logic was wrong, and that a Revert would be the next step in the BRD process. Nevertheless, since many of your edits have been disputed throughout your editing of this essay, I hope that you will not revert, and will instead engage in a consensus discussion with fellow editors instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not have reverted you and I have agreed to a request from a resonable editor to cool off for a day or so. Thanks. In all this madness you are the first person to actually acknowledge something I was correct about.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For a Yankee, BMK is indeed pretty reasonable. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the important thing to note here is that there is so much disagreement with the edits to BRD that they have spilled over to ANI twice now: a clear sign that talk page discussion needs to take place. Thank you BMK. Amadscientist, good luck with your pursuit--you'll have to start it on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The main point was to attract attention and discussion. I made a VP thread about it. I then made an edit and went slowly over three days and 40 something edits. I was also starting over from the beginning attempting to work with the most interested editor and that still didn't work. I am talking on the talk page and have been and will continue to do so.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. We are now at the Discussion phase and need to reach a consensus on these changes before they are reinstated. This is what collaborative editing is all about. Acting solo and being bold can be okay, but when other editors show their concern by reverting, then the BRD cycle starts and the solo editor who was bold needs to collaborate with the other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WFSB

I'd appreciate some help regarding my initial involvement at WFSB [108], and subsequent discussion. In short, I reverted a large swatch of unsourced content and was warned for vandalism, all of which I explained at what I thought would be the appropriate project page. Since then it's been a rather downhill affair [109]. I'm happy to walk away from this, and have no intent to edit war over the content in question. I don't find it particularly controversial, but it offers a lot of factual detail without references, and comes from an IP account with a history of unsourced edits and a copyright violation or two. In fact, after this I never want to see a tv article again. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First, although you don't mention him by name, I've notified the editor (User:Neutralhomer) with whom you're having the dispute. Second, unless there's some back story on you with which I'm unfamiliar, I'm not sure why Neutralhomer is coming down so hard on you for removing unsourced material (recently added by another IP), nor am I sure why Neutralhomer is labeling your edit as vandalism. You properly included an edit summary in your reversion, and it seemed to comport with precisely with what you were doing. Also, I fail to understand why he accused you of violating 3RR - there's no indication of that without a lot of synthesis on his part. He also accuses you of being a sock puppet of User:Markvs88 (related to his 3RR accusation when you challenged it) - I have no idea if that's true, but a better course of action if that's what he thinks would be to file a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--I didn't notify Neutralhomer because his page is protected. I was surprised by the entire chain reaction you've outlined, and by the bit of roughing up I received. I didn't mention the editor by name because I prefer that the history, with the IP's edits, be viewed in its entirety. Also, I'd rather not make the issue needlessly pointed or personal, especially since it involves an editor who is a valuable contributor, as he clearly is. I'm not operating as an alternative account for anyone, and certainly not trying to evade 3RR by using multiple accounts. A WP:SPI report is welcome, though it would be fruitless. Anyway, I've shown up as a 99 IP on these boards before, and you're always helpful. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a complaint but as reference for future cases, if you're unable to notify someone for some reason such as a semiprotected talk page, it's best to mention this in your first comment so people can do it for you, and also so people know you tried. Nil Einne (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed in more detail at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#WFSB. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP already provided a link to that discussion in his initial post. Indeed, most of what I criticized Neutralhomer for came from comments made by him in that discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

99. seems to have a lack of patience when it comes to getting a response. Real life happened, so I wasn't ignoring him or avoiding his questions, I just wasn't anywhere near my computer. Now, to answer Bbb23's points (thanks for the notification), the reason I reverted as vandalism is the information 99. removed is included in all TV station pages per WP:TVS rules (modeled after MOS) for TV station page development and layout. User:Markvs88 removed the same information earlier and I took it that 99. was User:Markvs88's IP. If this is against AGF, I'm guilty as charged. The accusation of 99. being User:Markvs88 is the same as above, same with the 3RR.

As for my answer to 99.'s questions, I have posted that on the thread on the TVS talk page so we don't have conversations spread out over multiple talk pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd respond that my report here evidences some small amount of patience, given the accusations and tone at the TV projects page. The content we're discussing includes passages devoted to the station's history and ratings. None of it's sourced. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As I told 99., the burden lies with him. He has tagged the page with "references" templates, so the burden is on him to find those references. I have told him where/how to find one (or several depending on his choice), the rest is up to him. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's not how it works. The discussion has indeed continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#WFSB, and I'm finding it increasingly puzzling, as the policies I'm encountering there, at least as enunciated by Neutralhomer, are very different from those I've worked with in other branches of Wikipedia. I'd really appreciate more eyes there. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good idea, cause I am tiring quickly of the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude and the inability to "get it" of 99. Apparently, an IP who has made a couple hundred edits since May 3 knows more than I do about policy and I have been here 5 years, 8 months and 21 days (according to the little userbox on my userpage). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If we're waving credentials, I'm an older academic who's edited here since 2006. Your version of policies is unlike any I've encountered here, and seeks to protect unsourced content, and place the onus for referencing on a party who challenges it. As for intransigence, and not to belabor the point, but you issued me a vandalism warning, accused me of socking and edit warring, and stand fast by unsourced material. I'd suggest being tired is appropriate. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm only tired of you 99. and your inability to "get it". I am actually quite awake thanks to some Pepsi. :) Unless anyone else has anything else to add and since this is going nowhere fast, I think this can be marked as resolved (at least on ANI) and discussion can continue on the WP:TVS talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I would appreciate this not be closed as 'resolved'. I've got all the patience in the world to allow this to percolate. I think you're misinterpreting several Wikipedia policies, and my question now is whether your views represent just yourself or the TV project as a whole. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Nuetralhomer's apparent personal attack and attack in general, either. so much of that article is without inline citation, that substantial deletion would be appropriate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Alan: I am just following WP:TVS rules. To change those, ya gotta take it up with WT:TVS. I don't make 'em, I just follow 'em.

@All: I have done my best to help 99. with sources for the areas he wants sourced, I have even linked him to the page, I can do no more. I am not doing it for him as I have taken a Melatonin and am near sleep. This will be my last response on this because I am not sure what else I can say or how else I can help that I haven't already either said or tried. If anyone has any questions, message me on my talk page and I will respond sometime tomorrow morning (give me time to respond in case I sleep in). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I thought perhaps I was the only one who wondered about the situation:

• I understand the concerns about "drive-by tagging", but I don't believe it really is policy that the onus is on the editor who finds unreferenced content to provide those references. (If I'm wrong here, please show me.)
• Some of the items noted as unreferenced do seem easy to reference (like anchor names), but some of the text is more than just anchor names, and it does seem reasonable to trest some of those the way unreferenced information is treated in articles in general. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP removing the content most certainly was not vandalism, and if you want content restored it is up to you to add the sources, not the editor removing the content. Also, where is this consensus that "the reporter/anchor names are standard on all TV station articles?" My understanding was that notable entries belong on such lists, to prevent it from being an indiscriminate list of unverified and non-notable names, which is what I'm seeing in the diffs (and it doesn't matter what the MoS says, wider consensus such as WP:V would supercede it; the IP would be quite correct to remove the unsourced content) - SudoGhost 01:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has stamped the discussion here [110] as resolved. I really don't want to make a crusade of this, but there's little in their contentions re: sources and notability guidelines, nor in the tone of discussion, that gibes with the policies as I've known them. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the matter is clearly not resolved, I've removed the "Resolved" tag from the WP:TVS thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I haven't looked into detail at the case, but if the WP:TVS rules suggest it's encouraged to add large amounts of unsourced content or prevent recently added unsourced content from being challenged and being removed in the absence of references, this sounds like a major violation of WP:Verifiability. It's generally accepted that wikiproject rules don't overturn well accepted policies, and it would seem this would particularly apply to a cornerstone policy like WP:V. Also I somehow doubt the wikiproject rules encourage people to label things vandalism when they aren't. And it is your problem because if you're violating policy, you're the one likely to get in trouble, potentially even if you were under the mistaken impression wikiproject rules overode cornerstone policies. To be clear, I'm not saying the revert was wrong, I haven't looked enough to say, simply noting that the edit shouldn't have been labelled vandalism, and the defence 'wikiproject rules say so' doesn't really help. In any case, I will also ask for other participants to clarify. While in many cases editors are encourage to find references to non contentious claims instead of simply tagging or deleting, it's never really requirement particularly when the info was recently added and so broad as to require significant research. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY

This isn't helpful. MBisanz talk 20:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Investigation by the professional detective agency: we can see this result (personal website). In the relation of him. Presumption of innocence acts (of course). - 176.15.138.84 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC). What exactly is the issue that you feel an administrator needs to address? Your post here is probably actionable as a violation of WP:OUTING -- Avanu (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Haha... No. That site was probably set up by the "OTRS-Beatles Content Donation" LTA-Sock who wants to be able to link copyright violations of Beatles content to Wikipedia. I have never been an Administrator, I've never met Jimbo in person, and editors in good standing may use the email feature to verify that I am not at that email address. Hasteur (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is this fellow?

Encyclopedic Joshua (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ander Crenshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This newly registered account has made massive deletions on the above two articles. I've reverted them on both. On the Rubio article he insists, and although I reverted a second time, he reverted me, and I have not reverted a third time. He also had this very odd discussion on another user's Talk page that set off red flags to cause me to come here. He suggested to the other editor creating a "new article" to replace the Occupy Wall Street article, and when properly challenged by the editor, said, "In all respect, I cannot go back to that article for lawful reasons." When questioned some more, he said, "Could you talk with the main contributors of that article to tell them I'm back and want to contribute, rightfully but only if they don't put any investigations against me again." He was also told that he might be violating WP:POVFORK, at which point he went to that page and deleted a template (since restored). My assumption from all this is he is another user come back to avoid sanctions or a block, but I'm not sure how to go about investigating this, so here I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That all suggests an intriguing past, but even without an investigation of the user's history, the persistent deletion of sourced content is problematic, and merits administrative attention on its own. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is almost admitting he is a sock, and at least one person knows who for. Posting here was a good idea, I'm betting someone else will know. Going to see if I can find who has been indef'ed from the main article lately... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on the talkpage of the editor who has identifyed SP issues with the other accounts and filed the other SPIs, but he wanted to wait until the editor actually made any edits before taking any action.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• The name seems to align with Joshua the Patriot (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 23:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the collective memory of Wikipedians. Thanks, Calton, as well for your support in restoring the two articles he's been editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• The sockmaster for Joshua is CentristFiasco. I'm still looking, if anyone feels comfortable enough for an SPI, go for it. I've given him a final warning on warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dennis, he's got a fair number of warnings now to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• SPI filed after reviewing edit summaries [111]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like MuZemike took care of the problem[112] via WP:DUCK. Thanks to Calton for making this easy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent quick work, thanks. He's been indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Equazcion

I have been having some wikihounding problems with the above user and I believe he is taking matters way too far in personal attacks and attempts to humiliate me (or make humiliation a perception from his actions or words), hound me and continue to berate me and my edits that now an involved editor has asked me to stop editing.[113] The request is not the actual the issue, but that the representation of me is meant to define me as unworthy to make me leave or for others to ask me to leave. If this is how we do things I am shocked. But I believe the editors has done enough to be discouraged from further behavior. I have some rights as an editor and one is my reputation should not be stained by these kinds of attacks that effect the way others see me to a point of requesting I stop editing. Look...I have a right to edit without personal attacks and use of intimidating and personal tactics aimed directly at me and for the full purpose of driving me off Wikipedia. I will not be like other editors and just walk away. I have invested far too much time and effort in collaboration and attempting to better myself as an editor to put up with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I came upon Amadscientist's BRD changes for the same reason he went there to edit it -- we were both engaged in a dispute that involved it. I didn't check his contribs once to see where he went. As for my comment on his writing, I was at a loss for an alternative. He insisted on editing BRD almost unilaterally, reverted reverts of his edits, and even after giving up on that, continued with rapid numbers of "copyedits" that resulted in the same degradation of the page's quality. I was being honest as a last resort.

It's not like I called him an asshole, twat, or idiot, for the purposes of releasing aggression -- as various editors have gotten away with numerous times here. His copyediting skills are just not good, and being kinder about it would've involved inventing some new excuse to tweak each of his changes to basically revert them without warring. I thought this was the better option. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't we just cover this a day ago? I suggested reverting back as a neutral party and you just dismissed the idea Amadscientist, saying [114] "let the discussion and editors do their work. It's just how we do things and I feel there is no reason for administrators to intervene at the moment and perhaps at all as i am sure there is an editor that will be as bold as I." so I left the subject alone. Now you complain that there is an editor as bold as you are, and he is using the talk page in the spirit and letter of BRD. Equazcion's comments to you were blunt but not incivil. There wasn't a consensus for the changes then or now, which is what the talk page is for, and it seems to be moving along just fine. Reverting them to the previous state seems perfectly fine. You've been bold, it was reverted, now go discuss. This is exactly what you asked for, and exactly what the page says to do. Nothing to do here at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We have no rights here. Multiple editors have told OP his edits to BRD are not improving the essay and suggested he stop, I don't see any reason for admin intervention. Nobody Ent 22:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I am not here saying that I want intervention in the article or the talk page. If that were the case I would be here arguing for something like "stop him from messing with my changes" or "we should revert back to the way before his changes now" or anything about the article or the talk page. I was talking about his personal attacks on me as an editor and not the edit itself that has continued from the OWS Project Page to the OWS article and then through dispute resolution in more than aggresive behavior in ways designed to do more than simply annoy me. I may not have been clear. My my apologies. I do not exactly appreciate or agree with your use of my words you present back to me as it is not my suggestion that you intervene in the editing or any content dispute there in regards to BRD. Equazcion's comments were a personal attack and a pretty egregious one designed as continued wikihounding, but I understand you feel this is about just editing BRD. For the record, let that go naturaly as I sated but discourage editors from personal attacks. I see this as a misunderstanding in my original post. So I clarified. I think we do have at least that much right (edit) expectation or at the very least...permission to simply treat the situation in the same manner back. I can be blunt in the same manner back to Equazcion himself, would that help the siuation? Is that the direction I am recieving or was my original post misread?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And I don't mean "right" in any legal sense, so perhaps the best way to have said that would have been "expectation".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In the context of how and what he said, this is not a personal attack in any way whatsoever. It was a blunt observation that he expressed with some hesitation. Sometimes we don't like hearing someone tells us something in such a clear fashion, but I don't see any malice, any ill will, or any bad faith in his statement, even if it was very direct. Sometimes, you just have to say it like it is, and he felt this was one of those times. As for treating the situation in the same manner back, of course you are free to make observations. I would warn you, however, that since you have trouble differentiating "blunt" from "personal attack" that you use your best judgement and focus on what will persuade others, not what you think is "the same manner". Again, no administrative action is required here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with having trouble "differentiating "blunt" from "personal attack" at all. How did you come up with that? Becuase it isn't on the list of things that are never accepted? I would call that disimissing my issue. You said "in any way whatsoever". That is under who's definition? How are you differentiating the context of what and how he said it? I see....made my bed sort of thing. Stuck out like a sore thumb and now I have to pay the consequences of that by letting this guy make accusations about my persona ablities. And the wikihounding thing is not even addressed but just dismissed. Got it. Thanks anyway Dennis, I don't feel satisfied with your assesment at all but at least I can accept them as the final word. Basicly...move along.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You may call the differentiation between blunt and personal attack a subjective measure, just as easily as one could interpret your response as rude and dismissive. I don't think Equazcion was reverting your edits to spite you; I think he genuinely felt that your contributions were not enforcing the integrity of a page that is intended to provide guidelines. He does not be deserve to be berated for that, which is specifically what this thread is for. Others reverted over a period of time, which is not an edit war- an edit war only exists if there are three reversions by an editor under 24 hours, while your case had several editors over an extended period of time. That being said, you insinuated far more than Equazcion on the essay's talk page, which doesn't provide a good foundation for your unilateral argument. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

BRD

I have boldly restored the WP:BRD essay to the state it was in before Amadscientist started tinkering with it. I don't believe his changes were, in general, improving the essay. Amadscientist should now discuss his proposed changes on the essay's talk page, and arrive at a compromise or consensus with other interested users before further editing it. What should not happen, as I understand the Bold, revert, discuss process, is for Amadscientist to reinstate the changes he wishes to make without that discussion, the first step in a potential editwar, since the goal is not BRRR... without D.

Since I am not an admin, this is not an admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you made a bold edit...the next part of this method IS a revert. BRD is not an excuse to demand discussion BEFORE editing...but that is not what this ANI was about anyway and those edits you boldly removed were also edits of another editor so you are basicly saying BRD is consensus and no one can touch it and it stands exactly as it is until consensus agrees to any change whatsoever. That's not BRD. That's concrete.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that my logic was wrong, and that a Revert would be the next step in the BRD process. Nevertheless, since many of your edits have been disputed throughout your editing of this essay, I hope that you will not revert, and will instead engage in a consensus discussion with fellow editors instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not have reverted you and I have agreed to a request from a resonable editor to cool off for a day or so. Thanks. In all this madness you are the first person to actually acknowledge something I was correct about.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For a Yankee, BMK is indeed pretty reasonable. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the important thing to note here is that there is so much disagreement with the edits to BRD that they have spilled over to ANI twice now: a clear sign that talk page discussion needs to take place. Thank you BMK. Amadscientist, good luck with your pursuit--you'll have to start it on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The main point was to attract attention and discussion. I made a VP thread about it. I then made an edit and went slowly over three days and 40 something edits. I was also starting over from the beginning attempting to work with the most interested editor and that still didn't work. I am talking on the talk page and have been and will continue to do so.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. We are now at the Discussion phase and need to reach a consensus on these changes before they are reinstated. This is what collaborative editing is all about. Acting solo and being bold can be okay, but when other editors show their concern by reverting, then the BRD cycle starts and the solo editor who was bold needs to collaborate with the other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WFSB

I'd appreciate some help regarding my initial involvement at WFSB [115], and subsequent discussion. In short, I reverted a large swatch of unsourced content and was warned for vandalism, all of which I explained at what I thought would be the appropriate project page. Since then it's been a rather downhill affair [116]. I'm happy to walk away from this, and have no intent to edit war over the content in question. I don't find it particularly controversial, but it offers a lot of factual detail without references, and comes from an IP account with a history of unsourced edits and a copyright violation or two. In fact, after this I never want to see a tv article again. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First, although you don't mention him by name, I've notified the editor (User:Neutralhomer) with whom you're having the dispute. Second, unless there's some back story on you with which I'm unfamiliar, I'm not sure why Neutralhomer is coming down so hard on you for removing unsourced material (recently added by another IP), nor am I sure why Neutralhomer is labeling your edit as vandalism. You properly included an edit summary in your reversion, and it seemed to comport with precisely with what you were doing. Also, I fail to understand why he accused you of violating 3RR - there's no indication of that without a lot of synthesis on his part. He also accuses you of being a sock puppet of User:Markvs88 (related to his 3RR accusation when you challenged it) - I have no idea if that's true, but a better course of action if that's what he thinks would be to file a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--I didn't notify Neutralhomer because his page is protected. I was surprised by the entire chain reaction you've outlined, and by the bit of roughing up I received. I didn't mention the editor by name because I prefer that the history, with the IP's edits, be viewed in its entirety. Also, I'd rather not make the issue needlessly pointed or personal, especially since it involves an editor who is a valuable contributor, as he clearly is. I'm not operating as an alternative account for anyone, and certainly not trying to evade 3RR by using multiple accounts. A WP:SPI report is welcome, though it would be fruitless. Anyway, I've shown up as a 99 IP on these boards before, and you're always helpful. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a complaint but as reference for future cases, if you're unable to notify someone for some reason such as a semiprotected talk page, it's best to mention this in your first comment so people can do it for you, and also so people know you tried. Nil Einne (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed in more detail at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#WFSB. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP already provided a link to that discussion in his initial post. Indeed, most of what I criticized Neutralhomer for came from comments made by him in that discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

99. seems to have a lack of patience when it comes to getting a response. Real life happened, so I wasn't ignoring him or avoiding his questions, I just wasn't anywhere near my computer. Now, to answer Bbb23's points (thanks for the notification), the reason I reverted as vandalism is the information 99. removed is included in all TV station pages per WP:TVS rules (modeled after MOS) for TV station page development and layout. User:Markvs88 removed the same information earlier and I took it that 99. was User:Markvs88's IP. If this is against AGF, I'm guilty as charged. The accusation of 99. being User:Markvs88 is the same as above, same with the 3RR.

As for my answer to 99.'s questions, I have posted that on the thread on the TVS talk page so we don't have conversations spread out over multiple talk pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd respond that my report here evidences some small amount of patience, given the accusations and tone at the TV projects page. The content we're discussing includes passages devoted to the station's history and ratings. None of it's sourced. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As I told 99., the burden lies with him. He has tagged the page with "references" templates, so the burden is on him to find those references. I have told him where/how to find one (or several depending on his choice), the rest is up to him. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's not how it works. The discussion has indeed continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#WFSB, and I'm finding it increasingly puzzling, as the policies I'm encountering there, at least as enunciated by Neutralhomer, are very different from those I've worked with in other branches of Wikipedia. I'd really appreciate more eyes there. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good idea, cause I am tiring quickly of the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude and the inability to "get it" of 99. Apparently, an IP who has made a couple hundred edits since May 3 knows more than I do about policy and I have been here 5 years, 8 months and 21 days (according to the little userbox on my userpage). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If we're waving credentials, I'm an older academic who's edited here since 2006. Your version of policies is unlike any I've encountered here, and seeks to protect unsourced content, and place the onus for referencing on a party who challenges it. As for intransigence, and not to belabor the point, but you issued me a vandalism warning, accused me of socking and edit warring, and stand fast by unsourced material. I'd suggest being tired is appropriate. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm only tired of you 99. and your inability to "get it". I am actually quite awake thanks to some Pepsi. :) Unless anyone else has anything else to add and since this is going nowhere fast, I think this can be marked as resolved (at least on ANI) and discussion can continue on the WP:TVS talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I would appreciate this not be closed as 'resolved'. I've got all the patience in the world to allow this to percolate. I think you're misinterpreting several Wikipedia policies, and my question now is whether your views represent just yourself or the TV project as a whole. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Nuetralhomer's apparent personal attack and attack in general, either. so much of that article is without inline citation, that substantial deletion would be appropriate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Alan: I am just following WP:TVS rules. To change those, ya gotta take it up with WT:TVS. I don't make 'em, I just follow 'em.

@All: I have done my best to help 99. with sources for the areas he wants sourced, I have even linked him to the page, I can do no more. I am not doing it for him as I have taken a Melatonin and am near sleep. This will be my last response on this because I am not sure what else I can say or how else I can help that I haven't already either said or tried. If anyone has any questions, message me on my talk page and I will respond sometime tomorrow morning (give me time to respond in case I sleep in). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I thought perhaps I was the only one who wondered about the situation:

• I understand the concerns about "drive-by tagging", but I don't believe it really is policy that the onus is on the editor who finds unreferenced content to provide those references. (If I'm wrong here, please show me.)
• Some of the items noted as unreferenced do seem easy to reference (like anchor names), but some of the text is more than just anchor names, and it does seem reasonable to trest some of those the way unreferenced information is treated in articles in general. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP removing the content most certainly was not vandalism, and if you want content restored it is up to you to add the sources, not the editor removing the content. Also, where is this consensus that "the reporter/anchor names are standard on all TV station articles?" My understanding was that notable entries belong on such lists, to prevent it from being an indiscriminate list of unverified and non-notable names, which is what I'm seeing in the diffs (and it doesn't matter what the MoS says, wider consensus such as WP:V would supercede it; the IP would be quite correct to remove the unsourced content) - SudoGhost 01:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has stamped the discussion here [117] as resolved. I really don't want to make a crusade of this, but there's little in their contentions re: sources and notability guidelines, nor in the tone of discussion, that gibes with the policies as I've known them. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the matter is clearly not resolved, I've removed the "Resolved" tag from the WP:TVS thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I haven't looked into detail at the case, but if the WP:TVS rules suggest it's encouraged to add large amounts of unsourced content or prevent recently added unsourced content from being challenged and being removed in the absence of references, this sounds like a major violation of WP:Verifiability. It's generally accepted that wikiproject rules don't overturn well accepted policies, and it would seem this would particularly apply to a cornerstone policy like WP:V. Also I somehow doubt the wikiproject rules encourage people to label things vandalism when they aren't. And it is your problem because if you're violating policy, you're the one likely to get in trouble, potentially even if you were under the mistaken impression wikiproject rules overode cornerstone policies. To be clear, I'm not saying the revert was wrong, I haven't looked enough to say, simply noting that the edit shouldn't have been labelled vandalism, and the defence 'wikiproject rules say so' doesn't really help. In any case, I will also ask for other participants to clarify. While in many cases editors are encourage to find references to non contentious claims instead of simply tagging or deleting, it's never really requirement particularly when the info was recently added and so broad as to require significant research. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY

This isn't helpful. MBisanz talk 20:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Investigation by the professional detective agency: we can see this result (personal website). In the relation of him. Presumption of innocence acts (of course). - 176.15.138.84 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC). What exactly is the issue that you feel an administrator needs to address? Your post here is probably actionable as a violation of WP:OUTING -- Avanu (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Haha... No. That site was probably set up by the "OTRS-Beatles Content Donation" LTA-Sock who wants to be able to link copyright violations of Beatles content to Wikipedia. I have never been an Administrator, I've never met Jimbo in person, and editors in good standing may use the email feature to verify that I am not at that email address. Hasteur (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is this fellow?

Encyclopedic Joshua (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ander Crenshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This newly registered account has made massive deletions on the above two articles. I've reverted them on both. On the Rubio article he insists, and although I reverted a second time, he reverted me, and I have not reverted a third time. He also had this very odd discussion on another user's Talk page that set off red flags to cause me to come here. He suggested to the other editor creating a "new article" to replace the Occupy Wall Street article, and when properly challenged by the editor, said, "In all respect, I cannot go back to that article for lawful reasons." When questioned some more, he said, "Could you talk with the main contributors of that article to tell them I'm back and want to contribute, rightfully but only if they don't put any investigations against me again." He was also told that he might be violating WP:POVFORK, at which point he went to that page and deleted a template (since restored). My assumption from all this is he is another user come back to avoid sanctions or a block, but I'm not sure how to go about investigating this, so here I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That all suggests an intriguing past, but even without an investigation of the user's history, the persistent deletion of sourced content is problematic, and merits administrative attention on its own. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is almost admitting he is a sock, and at least one person knows who for. Posting here was a good idea, I'm betting someone else will know. Going to see if I can find who has been indef'ed from the main article lately... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on the talkpage of the editor who has identifyed SP issues with the other accounts and filed the other SPIs, but he wanted to wait until the editor actually made any edits before taking any action.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• The name seems to align with Joshua the Patriot (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 23:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the collective memory of Wikipedians. Thanks, Calton, as well for your support in restoring the two articles he's been editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• The sockmaster for Joshua is CentristFiasco. I'm still looking, if anyone feels comfortable enough for an SPI, go for it. I've given him a final warning on warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dennis, he's got a fair number of warnings now to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• SPI filed after reviewing edit summaries [118]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like MuZemike took care of the problem[119] via WP:DUCK. Thanks to Calton for making this easy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent quick work, thanks. He's been indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Metrication of British Transport involing a possible banned user

An annonymous editor using IP address 94.197.146.76 has started reverting my work on the article Metrication of British Transport. One of the reversions [120] has all the hallmarks of User:DeFacto who was banned a month go and who subseqently made two attempts to reenter Wikipedia via Sock Puppet accounts. The give-aways are to reword the reference to the Railway Group Standards body (who are the authortity on the matter) to "one British website" implying that it has no authority. He also demanded a citation that a difference of 0.1 mm which was noted as being "well within engineering tolerances". Anybody who has an iota of knowledge about engineering tolerances will know that such a request is pure pedantry.

I have checked activity on this IP address and it appears that no editor has used this address in the past.

As I write this, I see that this annonymous editor is now plastering the article with many more "corrections" of the type that I assocate with DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your best option is to go to WP:SPI, which is where it would have to go eventually anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a wholly disingenuous allegation. There was no impersonation of a banned user, no rewording of references, no "plastering" and the only citations requested were for unsupported claims and assertions. I have done no more than attempt to reflect in the article what the sources say and remove homemade commentary which is not supported. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, isn't it? 94.197.146.76 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a habit in this topic of making sweeping statements about usage and them citing them to individual instances of usage. For example, one might take this article and use it to say that the BBC uses kilometres for distance. This is OR: the article doesn't refer to the usage of units of measurement, so all we can say is that that particular article uses kilometres for distance. The extrapolated conclusion may be accurate. It may not be. We don't have the evidence from individual instances of usage to know. This is the sort of thing that the IP is getting at.

I have enough experience to know that there are several editors who do not consider such original research to be a problem. My example demonstrates that it is - because it's trivial to find cites from the BBC that use miles for distance.

The article does not help itself in that it is entirely reliant on primary sources. It doesn't cite any secondary sources at all. While lists of sources have been provided on talk, all of those that are also independent of the subject (i.e. excluding those produced by pressure groups that deal with metrication in general) are news reports dealing with a relatively small part of the article scope (road signage). So, concerns about notability are genuine and legitimate.

Is the IP De Facto? I don't know, though it would not surprise me. But some of the criticisms made of this article are fair and the concern about notability is a valid one. Kahastok talk 13:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Stalkery weird user with one contribution

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – obvious troll sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'llBeWatching (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Account seems to have been created with the specific intent to harass User:Prioryman. Recommend that you check to see if its a sock and block the user. Has only one contribution so far and sounded like cryptic harassment. -- Avanu (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This board ain't fer fishin'. This is barely an AIV report. How is this worthy of an AN/I thread? Doc talk 07:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is worthy of AN/I per the instruction at the top: This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Not sure what you mean, if a person creates essentially a throw away account, where else do you bring it if not to the attention of administrators? -- Avanu (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here then. I'd have gone to Prioryman's talk page first, rather than directly here, personally. Done a little research with them, you know, to possibly determine whose sock it might be. Then, maybe SPI. But, suit yourself. Doc talk 07:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no research to do. The 1 edit done by User:I'llBeWatching is very questionable, and in light of the recent AN/I involving Delicious Carbuncle, it seems to be some kind of provocational edit intended to simply cause more problems. The content of the edit, along with the choice of username indicate a problem user. Not sure what kind of research is needed to figure that much out. Whether they're a sock is yet to be determined, but the idea that they're not here for the right reasons is obvious. -- Avanu (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. I have a pretty good idea of who's behind it, too (a banned user - see your email, Avanu). It will probably turn out to be a proxy IP but I suggest a checkuser run to find out if there are any other accounts lurking on that IP address. Prioryman (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't keep us in suspense! If it's a banned user, speak up! We're bypassing SPI entirely, based on one edit, so a CU should magically pop in and solve this one momentarily. Why wait for weeks at SPI, with bothersome things like "evidence" and "other accounts" to present? I won't make that mistake again, I can tell you. Doc talk 08:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In cases like this where there is something immediately suspicious, checkuser may be used without a known sockmaster per WP:NOTFISHING. I've seen it done before, though I can't remember when (I think it was with User:SadSwanSong, but I may be wrong). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You sound just a bit sassy, Doc. I don't care if or who's sock it is. It doesn't really matter. It's called harassment, and since they come in on their first edit being a stalker, they're probably a sock. Duh. What's the "wait for weeks" thing about? You seem to be acting like some bureaucratic approach should trump common sense. If you have a preferred approach just mention it. No one is *demanding* anything, but if the advertisement at the top of the page is correct, this is the place to bring a concern for admins. If that is wrong or something else is wrong, don't be a snarky douche about it, just speak up in plain English and explain the problem that you've got with it. -- Avanu (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Snarky douche". Nice. Why is the account not blocked already? Why is this thread still here?!? Doc talk 09:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of wondering that myself, actually - it's obvious that the account user is up to no good so it shouldn't be a difficult call, surely? Prioryman (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Continued edit warring by Martinvl

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

Metrication of British transport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Despite being warned here and despite being reported for continuing with the edit warring here (which has not yet been actioned) user Martinvl has continued his warring on Metrication of British transport here. He even removed a "notability" flag from the article whilst the question of notability is still under discussion on the article talk page, and made absurd accusations. Please block him so we can continue to edit without his constant tendentious behaviour. 94.197.n1.n2 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In view of this recent developements, I have blocked User:94.197.n1.n2 as a sock of banned User:DeFacto. Favonian (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See also #Edit warring at Metrication of British Transport involing a possible banned user, above. Kahastok talk 13:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

wholesale deletions on Wine

There have been two deletions lately of the same content but for different reasons. Portions of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph were first deleted by User:Haldraper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) because they were "undue bits" Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views). These "undue bits" were content relevant to wine, wine regulation, and different types of wine. I reverted the deletions. The exact same content was then deleted by User:Wran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) because of a "contradicted cited source" Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views). As there are four citations, it was unclear which was contradictory. Looking at the first page of Encyclopedia Britannica's Wine and its subsection Fruit wines, this source is not contradicted. Barley wine discusses barley wine, but it does not include information about ginger or rice wine. As such additional citations would be needed to cover the rest of the information. I was unable to verify the content of The Simon & Schuster Pocket Wine Label Decoder and Vintage: The Story of Wine. Simon & Schuster. I asked for clarification on the talk page. Another editor offered to check the references. Rather than engage in discussion, Wran reverted my edit—Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views)—thus deleting the content again, leaving the edit notes, "don't undo CORRECTION because you can't understand it!" [sic].

As Wran has been cited for edit warring this article within the last few months, and rather than engage in an edit war myself, I felt it best to raise the issue of wholesale deletions, nebulous justifications for deletions, nonconstructive comments, and refusal to use the venue for discussing article edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycloshave (talk • contribs)

• As to Haldraper, I don't see any issue. They have only edited Wine once that I see, and they sometimes edit other wine related articles. They didn't do anything except boldly make an edit, and you reverted and have been talking about the general deletions on the talk page, which is the normal process of WP:BRD. No reason to have even mentioned him here at ANI.

• I notice Wran will scold others for not discussing[121], but has never once used the Wine talk page themselves. They have been blocked before for warring [122] and I noticed their edit summaries are often pointy and combative as well. I'm not sure if the summaries are just due to a cultural difference or what, but they aren't actionable at this stage. Really, this is more of a content dispute that should be handled via WP:DRN if he won't go the talk page, and if he violates 3RR or you think the totality of his edits are warring, then go to WP:3RRN. The article is only getting a few edits a day at most, so I'm thinking ANI isn't the solution here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned Haldraper only because Wran gave a different reason for deleting the same content. While it may have been meant as a clarification, it was equally lacking in clarity. My concern was coordination between the two, though I wouldn't go so far as to say sock puppetry. I guess I should have raised this issue at WP:DRN, but I had only found this board and didn't realize it pertains to incidents in the stronger sense of the word. Another editor, BarrelProof, has reverted Wran's deletions. I'll wait to see if Wran reverts BarrelProof's revision before posting the issue on DRN or 3RRN. Encycloshave (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sockpuppets are usually new accounts that make multiple edits of the same type. If you look at Haldraper's contribs, you find he has been here since February 2009 and edits a wide variety of articles, including some wine related. User:BarrelProof has been around well over a year and edits a variety, including many alcohol related topics. You have be careful and check the histories of users before even considering socking as an issue. These editors are clearly not, they just show an interest in articles about alcohol, and likely have it on their watchlist, a perfectly normal thing. I think DRN is your better bet, as this isn't close enough to warring to warrant a go at 3RRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have checked the histories, hence I wrote that I wouldn't go so far as to call it sock puppetry. Though the changing reasoning for the exact same deletions was concerning. As for BarrelProof, who reverted Wran's, it was not my intention to raise any concern at all. I apologize if I implied otherwise. Encycloshave (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have left a couple of messages on the talk page for Wine informing them that they need to discuss rather than constantly revert back, and was greeted with less than a warm welcome. We will see what happens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Wran is now blocked for 1 week for edit warring and personal attacks. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Frivolous "account audits" by StephanieGuilletz

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

Resolved

 – user blocked, page protected, threatening edit sumarries deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

This user has been posting notices like this. I'm pretty sure that this constitutes harassment and I'm requesting a block of this user.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. Strange. Does anyone know which drawer this sock came from? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow. can you imagine if this bot really existed. I'll bet Dr Blofeld editing ability would fry its programming in the first 3 minutes. Thanks for ending this quickly Drmies. MarnetteD | Talk 03:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

this appears to be related to an attack on the BLP article Daniel S. Loeb Could someone please watch & semi-protect if necessary--I can't, since I edited it substantially. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That explains the fake bot message to you and C.Fred but how did Zhou Yu gore her ox? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Zhou Yu reverted their edit to C.Fred's talk page and left a warning on their talk page. How dare you! seems to have ensued.... --64.85.216.47 (talk) 16:08, 7 May 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 Salimfadhley - personal attack

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

---

I believe this is a grossly uncivil and personal attack . [[123]] I request that an admin redacts all instances of this and that the user does not repeat the behaviour. I have already stated to this individual that I have no connection to the school yet he persists with this line of attack. isfutile:P (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm nipping this in the bud right now. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 7 May 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.

False accusations at Editwarring noticeboard

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

---

• Edit warring noticeboard discussion

On the edit warring noticeboard, Masem is being intentionally misleading to try and claim a 3RR violation which did not happen.

He claims that me reverting myself counts towards it, gives a false revision being reverted to, and Ridernyc claims that me setting out the changes for discussion on the talk page is an edit of the policy page.

I find this lying and misrepresentation morally repugnant. And people wonder why Wikipedia loses editors, when someone lies on the edit warring noticeboard about me, and the only admin response is "let's ignore the lying about you, and discuss what you're going to do to collaborate with the people lying about you.86.** IP (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ridernyc, he made a simple mistake and has already admitted so [124]. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's equally repugnant that someone runs right to ANI to get it fixed, rather than discuss with the user - especially when, after all, they have admitted their error. (Don't forget, however, that you don' tneed to break 3RR to edit war :-) ) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked Masem, both there and on his talk page, to fix his errors. This was a last straw. 86.** IP (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This was his original reply [125]. Boomerang anyone? Ridernyc (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Kangaroo court at edit warring - not a problem. Me getting upset at being subjected to a kangaroo court? Oh, ehell, yes, that's a problem. 86.** IP (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOOMERANG Ridernyc (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The revision history of the page does seem to paint an edit warring sort of picture. Your explanation that the page just doesn't follow policy isn't a good excuse for reverting several other editors. I'm uninvolved at that page and basically don't know anyone here, FYI. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm about ready to block 86.* for his bold, large, incivility on that page. Hey, you got pegged for possible edit-warring - starting off your defence by "it's a lie" is not the way to do it. Escalating to calling people "misleading" is worse. The investigating admin(s) will do their due diligence ... have some WP:AGF - in fact, the louder you argue that you DIDN'T do it, the deeper I look to see that yes, it looks like you DID. You need to sign off for a few hours, really (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The tone of 86.**'s comments in the AN3 and here at ANI don't put him in a good light. I'm not averse to a compromise solution but I see no compromise coming from 86.**. Rather than lock down an important MOS page, I think a block of the person who won't negotiate properly is a better option. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this seems to have moved on to more then just the edit war. I'll take this time to point out that this editor has a long history of arguing. It's hard to tell though becaused this user removes anything negative from their talk page regularly, [126], even this for a very similar incident [127]. There appears to be a very long pattern happening here. Ridernyc (talk) 17:07, 7 May 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.

Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire under control of school?

Resolved

 – Nyttend protected, DGG adjusted, all is well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure of the history of this article but as it currently stands, it *appears* (and I'll let others use their own judgement about that) that there is a concerted effort to stage-manage the article. There are concerns about the sources used in the article (user-generated reviews are being used to suggest it is one of the best in the country) but any attempt to add tags to indicate there is a current discussion about sources at RSN are pretty much immediately reverted in an attempt to make it appear there is no discussion about the matter. Some more eyes would be helpful. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The best place to request protection is WP:RFPP. However, this page works for protection requests, so I've semiprotected in hopes that things will calm down. Please note that semiprotection is indefinite; the potential that the school is attempting to whitewash the article means that it may need more than a week or so of semiprotection, and I'm not familiar enough with the article to know how long is needed. As I said in the protection log, admins should unprotect (or set an ending time for protection, or whatever else they believe sufficient) whenever they believe it beneficial. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the semi-protect. Much of the abuse seemed to be coming from IP users. I've documented one specific incident here[128]. At least one IP editor seems to have been manipulating the media via a contact in The Grocer (a trade-publication for the British food retail industry) and then making changes to the article reflecting the news that s/he has just created. I strongly suspect that this article has been created entirely for promotional purposes. The initial editors were either SPAs or individuals who were known to be linked to the school[129] (for example Tom Tolkein has been listed as a member of it's faculty[130]). The history of the article is an extraordinary record of COI, blocked-users and revert wars. Recent edits have attempted to 'bulk-up' the article with the addition of trivia links apparently with the intent to help the article survive an AFD discussion. I'm probably too "involved" with this article to be entirely neutral so I'd appreciate the involvement of any editors who'd be willing to assess this article for notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I gotta say, the current version looks pretty good. I haven't looked at all the sources, but the few I did look at aren't bad at all. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I urge all interested parties to read and review Talk:Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire#Two_issues_now_at_the_Reliable_sources_noticeboard, especially the article protection that has been executed in violation and contrary to protection policy. It's quite mystifying that Nyttend, a veteran administrator, would fail to employ the measures as directed by policy. Why is he protecting articles contrary to policy? 134.241.58.240 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the protection very strongly, but I've changed it to 4 months, because indefinite protection is discouraged. all school articles are potentially open to this sort of thing, but we don't protect them all indefinitely. The possibility of a longer period can be dealt with then. If consensus thinks I was wrong, it's OK to do whatever is agreed on by others. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban requested for McKhan

user:McKhan is a single purpose account who for years used sockpuppets and IP's to edit war on articles relating to the Al-Ahbash group. Since 3 May 2007 he used socks and IP's to edit war to his preferred version on Abdullah al-Harari. Since 25 August 2005‎ he did the same on the Al-Ahbash article. He is violently opposed to them as can be seen with this comment he made after being blocked for one week for sockpuppetry[131] He is back from his block and is flooding the Al-Ahbash talk page with wallsotext[132], his attitude towards this group are venomous to say the least. I am quite sure the term "Habashies" is derogatory. This editor needs to be topic banned from any article dealing with Al-Ahbash given his attitude towards them. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - After the block expired the editor hasn't edited the Al-Ahbash further, instead discussing it on the talk page, despite the fact that they disagree with the content currently in the article; I think this alone is a huge improvement from the pre-block behavior. Although the editor's comments have been a bit wordy, I think if the editor refrains from copying the entire blocks of article content into the talk page every time they refer to something in the article it would greatly reduce the size of their comments. I don't think any of their actions since their block has expired have been particularly disruptive in any way, and from assessing this set of edits, I'd have to oppose a topic ban right now. - SudoGhost 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Observation Kudos to Sudo, who sums it up nicely. It would be helpful if McKhan avoided the dumps of text, but it appears his efforts are in good faith and avoiding editing and instead working on the talk page is clearly good faith. As for "Habashies", I have no idea but I give a wide berth for cultural differences and language usage, and whether or not it is offensive isn't clear from my brief googling. Darkness, I'm sure you are frustrated, and came here in good faith, but you are overstating your case here and I don't see a need for any administrative interference. I suggest going back to the talk page and just working it out, as I don't see anyone getting topic banned today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Friendly Commons Admin available to undelete or move a deleted image to en?

The file University_of_New_Mexico_Seal.png was recently deleted from Commons. It was a reasonable deletion because fair use images don't belong in Commons and the image should have never been uploaded there. However, the image does qualify to be used here. So can a friendly Commons admin help me move the image to en so it can be restored to the infobox University of New Mexico?

And to preempt some potential questions: I have not asked the admin - Fastily - who performed the deletion as (a) he or she has retired from en and (b) I have previously asked him or her to help in an identical situation and received not help but a snippy reply. I have not notified him or her of this discussion because he or she is retired from en. And I would have gladly taken action on this earlier if I had known that this problem existed but there was no warning here in en that there was a problem with this image and it was about to be deleted. ElKevbo (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, you could also make this request at Commons:COM:AN; most English-speaking admins at Commons likely have autoconfirmed en:wp accounts and would be able to upload an image over here. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But as I told Jafeluy on his or her Talk page, I didn't post this at Commons because I've had negative experiences asking for help in this situation (fair use image used in en deleted at Commons without warning leaving en hanging). I hypothesize that some of the (bizarrely intense) negative reaction I've received is because some Commons admins don't understand or care that (a) en can host copyrighted images under fair use and (b) en articles use Commons images and we aren't warned when those images are in danger of being deleted. ElKevbo (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuous Personal Attacks by User:Beyond My Ken

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

---

Without even a shred of evidence, Beyond My Ken is accusing me of being a sock:

• [133]
• [134]
• [135]

Please remind him of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 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:POVbrigand is making repeated unsourced negative comments about a respected academic in relation to the Energy Catalyzer article.

There has been an ongoing debate regarding the Energy Catalyzer article lede, and in particular, to the inclusion of a quotation by Ugo Bardi (a science professor at the University of Florence), who characterises the E-Cat affair as "pathological science". From what little credible coverage of the device that has been published, Bardi's views on the matter seem to very much reflect that of the mainstream, but proponents of 'LENR/cold fusion' have chosen to charaterise Bardi as having 'an agenda' and 'bias', due to his support for a minority scientific perspective on an entirely unrelated issue - he is involved with the Italian branch of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. Despite repeated requests, POVbrigand has provided no sources whatsoever to support his claims that this would lead a respected academic to give misleading or 'biased' comments on the E-Cat. Given the unsourced nature of the claims, the repeated refusal to withdraw them or back them up with evidence, and the persistant soapboxing that POVbrigand has been engaging in over the topic, I can see no solution other than asking that he be topic-banned from the E-Cat article, and any others relating to 'cold fusion/LENR' until he accepts that WP:BLP policy applies to Wikipedia talk pages, and that they are not an appropriate forum for smearing respected academics in order to promote fringe (or pathological) 'science', and wild claims regarding household 'LENR' reactors allegedly about to go into production soon (if they can locate the robotised factory that is supposed to be making them - it seems to move around with a will of its own. Or at least, to move around when its last claimed location becomes an embarrasment...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Andy is grossly misstating my conduct and the situation in general. Discussing whether a quote is biased in order to assess Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements is not a BLP issue. In his blog, Bardi uses a picture of the sunken cruise ship Costa Concordia, which I think is clearly showing the opinion nature of the blog. However, I have repeatedly stated that Bardi does raise valid points, I am not smearing Bardi. I think that I raised valid points regarding NPOV because of the use of the quote from the blog in the lead of the article and my conduct cannot be mistaken as soapboxing. My interest is to improve the article and I have made a proposal how this dispute can be solved. I have repeatedly stated that I do not think that Rossi's device has been proven to work, so I am not promoting anything or anyone other than promoting NPOV for the article --POVbrigand (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you assert that Bardi's involvement with ASPO makes his comments on the E-Cat 'biased': this was a specific claim you have repeatedly made, and have refused to justify. Stating that his support for a minority perspective on an unrelated issue makes his comments on the E-Cat invalid is a smear, plain and simple. It was obvious right from the start that the ASPO issue was picked on to 'justify' attempts to make Bardi appear a less credible source than he is. He says nothing regarding the E-Cat that isn't in accord with a mainstream perspective. And yes, you were soapboxing on the article talk page - and seem to be doing the same here. Your claims to be promoting 'NPOV' are frankly getting tiresome, and somewhat ridiculous considering your endless attempts to promote fringe 'science' - though there isn't much that science can say regarding the E-Cat, unless the science in question is psychology... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note. POVbrigand is still making the same unsourced negative comments in the discussions: "...Bardi is linked to an association which makes the use of the quote in the lead even more troublesome". [136]. He clearly has no intention of complying with my request to either provide evidence to support his claim that Bardi's position on the 'Peak Oil' issue would lead him to misrepresent the E-Cat, or withdraw the claims. And still he continues with his ridiculous claims to be supporting 'NPOV' while at the same time promoting fringe 'inventions' dubious 'science' and old-fashioned hokum. Wikipedia doesn't need POV-pushing SPAs like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I haven't made any edits after to put this AN/I up. You are trying to convince somebody to ban me, so you can end the content dispute. I think it is easy for an uninvolved editor to conclude that my conduct is fair enough. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for that: I'd misread the timestamp. However, you still have neither justified your claims regarding Bardi's alleged 'bias' due to his position on 'Peak Oil', nor withdrawn the claims. Which are you going to do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not AnnaBennet --POVbrigand (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What the heck has that got to do with anything? Answer the question: are you going to justify your claims regarding Bardi, or withdraw them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article and its history, i think the statement is usable, even in the lede. It does represent the scientific consensus, and the Arb Com psudoscience case does ensure we represent pseudoscience as such. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The Ugo Bardi quote is appropriate, an accurate portrayal of the mainstream viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the article is subject to general sanctions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Also note that POVbrigand has a history of POV pushing on this topic: [137]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That is plain wrong. The outcome of the Arbcom case was not - in no way - that I had been POV-pushing. I was warned to keep decorum and I have heeded that warning.

I think it is totally unacceptable behaviour to try to sway opinion with false facts here on AN/I. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There was no outcome in the ArbCom case because no admin reviewed it. I am referring to the diffs presented and statements from third parties. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFP

Need an able and willing admin to clear up the last of a bit of backlog. This one is willing but no longer able. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

IBAN violation

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

---

This page now at MFD[138] is a violation of the IBAN between myself and that user. WP:IBAN says make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly and my name is all over that page. I cannot tell the other as that would violate the IBAN so would appreciate another doing so. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• The page is not a vio. 1) It has been the same since before the IBAN was instated. Such instances also occur at talkpages where we commented... those old edits do not constitute IBAN, 2) There has been no reference to DS on that page and is not an IBAN violation per se... it is a list of archived threads for reference to content and conduct discussions and the only instances where his name appear are the one where the thread includes his name in the title. This is not a violation. It was not even reported even though the user knew all the time about the page, why is this being reported now just when some one uninvolved sent it to MFD? We were warned last time at ANI to not initiate useless interaction by making reports such as this (and I was able to stay away from ANI for about two months after my last report till I got dragged by this one now). It was already clarified before where an admin commented it was against the spirit of wikipedia to say you can't refer to the ban itself and to quote "We're not in the business of issuing super-injunctions here." These threads are either a few 3RR threads from before the IBAN or the ones that link to IBAN vio reports and clarification archives; those links refer to the threads and not the user and this is quite clear. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• The interaction ban was put into place on Feb 24, 2012 [139]. The diff of this page for before and after the IBAN is here [140]. It appears that the only references to you that have been added are links to ANI discussions where you and he are both mentioned. This is only a small part of what he is using the page for, and the entire list is completely neutral, only listing the links and results, and the page is used to track GA noms, SPIs, and his other interactions with "official" boards as well. To be honest, I keep similar lists that are considerably less neutral. If he was adding opinions to the list, or editorializing in general, or most of the entries were about you, it would be a different story, but that isn't the case. In essence, it is a selective history log, organized by activity, to which you are incidentally a part of. If someone can point me to a guideline or policy that directly prohibits this then please do, but otherwise, I don't see this as a violation of the spirit of the IBAN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The IBAN page says it, make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly You think having a list of links about me is not just that? I have been blocked for far less. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And I am saying that his actions are within the spirit of the IBAN. He didn't offer an opinion, he cataloged events in the same manner he has previously cataloged them. I've already voiced my opinion at the MFD, btw. I understand your confusion Darkness, and I know you have no choice but to come here to express your concerns, and yes, he technically typed your name in a list, but what he did was to continue to log entries as he had already did, not boldly in public view but on a page he had already designated to organize his participation in events. He didn't refer to you, he was referring the discussion. His only other option would have been to substitute your name for (redacted), which is an option, but I don't think required. You are concerned about the technical details of him typing the letters that comprise your name in an incidental fashion. I'm more concerned about the spirit of the IBAN, which hasn't been violated because he was already cataloging events before the IBAN. Others are free to disagree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Per analysis above concluding it a neutral list of archives rather than comments or any reference to any user, I think this report qualifies for a WP:BOOMERANG for initiating a baseless report long after the IBAN while it was the same way for that page ever since just when some one nominated it for MFD. I interpret this report, to put very simply, as screwing with me making reports about my user space when I have long avoided any kind of interactions even in the article or article talk space. See also our block logs for how it has been over time - zero vios on my part. There have been IBAN clarifications before, ironically stated on the page in question - which as been useful for me to refer to those - and an administrator already said before that it might be a blockable IBAN vio to refer to the editor without naming him and might not be a vio at all even when you technically type in the name. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Block review, please

I was going to reset the block of User:Namuslu since they had been socking and screwing around on Istanbul during a block for edit-warring. I was alerted to this behavior by a note on my talk page (see User_talk:Drmies#Namuslu_evading_his_block.3F); the DUCK evidence for one of the IPs in the recent history is good enough for me. Anyway, I was going to restart the two-week block today, and then I saw (and remembered) that they had been re-blocked for exactly the same thing earlier. And so I changed my mind and changed the block to indefinite: this editor has been given the rope to hang himself with, and that he did, in my opinion. Still, jumping to indefinite is a high jump, even for a trigger-happy bastard like me, and I invite your scrutiny. If the community wants to give Namuslu another change and lower the block, I'm fine with it. Thanks for your time, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support block '-No problems here, he evaded the block and it isnt a first offense.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 06:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, editor is evidently unwilling to play nice with others. I've never been able to make up my mind if he was a sock of Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs) anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fut. Perf., can I have you for my memory? That's from 2007! I don't even remember what I ate for breakfast that year. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, Shuppi has been around, on and off, most of the time in various reincarnations. He's difficult to forget. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Since he said a not so nice thing about his opponent and wasn't asking for an unblock, I've revoked his talk page access. I do love a man that loves his city, though, but maybe Tariq does as well. Someday we'll all have coffee together on the Bosporus, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nadine Coyle SemiProtect please?

The 1st edit to Nadine Coyle after semiprotection expired was yet more OCAT vandalism from IP (who is now edit warring over it). I'm using iPhone, so using PP board and warning IP as I normally would is difficult. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have given the IP a level-3 warning for disruptive edits. I don't really want to protect yet. I've also notified the editor.

  On a sidenote, does anyone know why those "disruptive editing" templates don't show up in the Twinkle box with automated warnings? Drmies (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas and User:Anupam

The following discussion is closed. 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 read this debate. The following facts have been clearly established:

• Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in problematic conduct
• This includes plagiarism, POV-pushing and edit-warring
• There is evidence of canvassing in respect of this discussion

The overall conclusion is that Anupam is attempting to push Wikipedia content in the direction of sympathy with his POV, and is supported in this by others who share that POV.

My reading of the consensus from this debate is as follows:

1. Anupam is placed on a final warning with respect to plagiarism. Any further examples of plagiarism will result in an immediate and lengthy ban. No further warnings need be issued, any administrator noting plagiarised content inserted by Anupam from this date may block immediately for a period at their discretion but probably between one and twelve months, which block would be considered a community ban per the consensus here, so that any appeal would be to WP:BASC.
2. Anupam is placed on 1RR parole for 6 months.
3. Anupam may be topic banned by any uninvolved administrator from any article where he appears to be violating WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE). No further warning is necessary. Initial topic bans should be of short duration but escalating durations in case of second or subsequent issues would be appropriate.

I would suggest that if the above do not yield the required improvement in Anupam's behaviour, the matter should be remitted to Arbcom, who have the patience to wade through the word-storm and pick apart genuine input from votestacking, canvassed !votes and the like.

I believe this is at the light end of what consensus supports, in reflection of the fact that Anupam has been here a long time with a clean block record.

I will inform Anupam. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Hello, I am writing here to inform the reviewing administrator of a threat made against me here by Viriditas (talk · contribs). This individual has followed me to several articles in the last few months where he has not been an editor, including Big Bang, as well as recently Effects of cannabis. In addition, this individual has unfairly placed warnings on my talk page, stating that I have "plagiarised" material (Exhibit One, Exhibit Two), despite the fact that I always provide a source for my additions. User:Viriditas has been warned by other editors that his accusations are incorrect, but he still persists. In addition, the individual in question stated that I improperly used the rollback feature, despite the fact that I reverted my use of rollback because I accidentally clicked the rollback button and could not stop the rollback in time (I was informed that rollback is to be only used for vandalism on 22 April). I understand that User:Viriditas might be a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, but I think it is in the best interest of both of us that an interaction ban be set between us. I have tried several times to discuss issues with this user nicely but he is always hostile to me in his comments and replies. Thank you for taking the time to read this message and consider my request. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that none of that is true, Anupam. I have not followed you anywhere; if anything, your recent edits to the cannabis topic was a form of baiting on your part, as I was active on the talk page right before you showed up to disrupt the article with the same plagiarism you were previously warned about in regards to the Big Bang related set of articles. In other words, you were hounding and baiting me with more of the same policy violating edits, and I think you deserve a long block for it. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be an attempt by Anupam to "head 'em off at the pass", as Viriditas notified Anupam that he would be filing an ANI report less than half an hour prior to Anupam's report: [141] aprock (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam mentions in his comment to which Viriditas replies that he was planning on seeking an interaction ban and I'm guessing that he just wanted to deal with the situation and so decided to escalate. I don't think he is the type of editor who thinks in terms of "heading them off at the pass." I've disagreed with Anupam a lot, actually I can't think of a time where I agreed, but one thing I can say about him is that he has always maintained civility and acted in good faith. I would be surprised if it was different here. Not commenting on the case in general, just wanted to throw this in. SÆdon^talk 04:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam pulled the exact same stunt against me: I notify: 06:28, 27 September 2011, he preemptively files 07:12, 27 September 2011. Given his history of disruptive editing, there is little reason to assume good faith here. aprock (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A review of Viriditas' edits shows that he has indeed been following Anupam around for months. And V has been warned. Does it rise to a level of WP:HOUND? Before Viriditas can be blocked, there would have to be a showing that Anupam's enjoyment of editing has been adversely affected. While it is obvious that V is following Anupam, Anupam has not shown "distress." If Anupam has evidence that he has been distressed, then V should be blocked. In the meantime we should move to put in place a I-ban.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"A review of Viriditas' edits shows that he has indeed been following Anupam around for months."'

• Hardly : Viriditas↔Anupam.

"And V has been warned."

• By? Diff?

"Does it rise to a level of WP:HOUND? ... While it is obvious that V is following Anupam, Anupam has not shown "distress." If Anupam has evidence that he has been distressed, then V should be blocked."

• Try reading this part of WP:HOUND again "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." (i.e. just to be a dick.)

With all due respect Counselor, this sounds a lot like you jumping to Anupam's defense with little or no supporting policy or evidence (and not for the first time Anupam↔Lionelt). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how Anupam has managed to escape being blocked with their combative style of editing and their filing ANI grievances that never come to anything. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(I wanted to post this on Anupam's page rather than here, but he removed the thread there). I can't speak to the mutual charges of hounding (in particular, I've been unable to figure out what incident "I commented on the talk page and then you showed up to edit" was meant to refer to). About the plagiarism issue: first, I must note that in the cited instance of Gandalf61's objections against Viriditas' earlier warnings [142] I'm with Viriditas. Plagiarism applies not just to the appropriation of ideas and thoughts, but also to the appropriation of their expression. When somebody literally copies a substantial piece of text and then adds a footnote to the source, the footnote alone only tells the reader that the facts are taken from that source, but not that the literal expression is taken from it too. Thus, the use of the literal expression remains unattributed and hence may constitute plagiarism. Applying this to the "cannabis" edits at question here [143], we have a borderline case: taking over a literal passage without marking it as a quotation, adding a footnote, and then repeating the original literal text as an explicit quote inside the footnote, may be seen as narrowly escaping the plagiarism charge. It is, however, very poor academic writing. What's so difficult about writing a proper paraphrase instead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What is difficult about it, is that Anupam refuses to do it. He is a serial plagiarizer. Simply look at his most recent contributions to Conservapedia.[144] They are all copy and paste jobs taken directly from books, without any quotations or attributions.Here is a recent edit where he plagiarized p. 70 in Kinnear 2011. He continues to do this on Wikipedia after being asked to stop. I don't see this as "borderline", it is his primary editing style and he refuses to stop. How many contributions has he made to Wikipedia that consist of nothing but copy and paste jobs without quotes or attribution? Yes, he adds citations, but the content is not his own nor clearly marked as that of another author. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a previous incident with Anupam in mid-February, which led to the proposal of a topic ban at WP:AN (for Anupam and Lionelt, commenting above). That report does not seem to have been archived properly, so here is a historic link.[145] Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How has anupam avoided a block for their long-term civil pov-pushing? (And apparent sockpuppetry last year) bobrayner (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner, you have accused me of sockpuppetry two times for two different users (one being an SPA, and another being an administrator) and yet, despite me and administrator User:Master of Puppets encouraging you to pursue WP:SPI, you have never done so. I would highly appreciate if you could please stop making baseless accusations when you have not even pursued the proper venue for your claims. Once again, please do not try to frame me; if you have legitimate concerns, pursue them at the proper department. I will provide you with a quote that might help you understand why I feel so hurt when you speak this way of me: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” ~Warren Buffet I hope you understand my concerns. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we please deal with your accusations against me, first? You say I followed you to several articles, most recently effects of cannabis. Do you have any evidence? Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, viriditas, for distracting from the current problem. I agree that it should be dealt with. However, pre-emptive attack is nothing new here.

In response to anupam: I posted a very large collection of deeply suspicious diffs surrounding the Militant Atheism article. They were removed repeatedly. Other dissent with anupam's position was also shut down (although thankfully the community has now prevailed and the awful pov-pushing content has been removed). At that time, I was quite convinced that if I raised an SPI, that too would be shut down promptly; and I was very stressed due to the pov-pushing and the messages I was getting, so I didn't push the point any further. Would you like me to present the evidence again here? it seems like an appropriate venue. I'd be happy to offer a big stack of diffs for which sockpuppetry is the only sane explanation. Of course, if you could offer some alternative explanation, that would be welcome too. Calling them baseless accusations is just another lie; just another pre-emptive attack against somebody who has evidence of long-term problematic editing. bobrayner (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, have you looked closely at the diffs to see if the content was copied directly from cited sources without quotes or attribution? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree; there does seem to be very liberal copying of text. (Sorry for the derail; my main concern was about pov-pushing, and sock-puppetry and canvassing to further that pov-pushing rather than the plagiarism per se) bobrayner (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Another issue: even after the problem was pointed out to him earlier in March,[146] Anupam is continuing to import non-neutral, polemical Conservapedia content into Wikipedia in extremely sneaky ways. For example, on April 11, Anupam copied content from Conservapedia's Atheism and health article and added it to Wikipedia's article on Religion.[147] This content was plagiarized from the Mayo Clinic without any inline quotes or attribution. On the same day, he again copied content from Conservapedia's Atheism and health article, but this time rewrote it, and added it to the Wikipedia article on Suicide.[148] Along with the previously mentioned problems with copying and pasting unquoted and unattributed material, the problem of Anupam continuing to add Conservapedia content to Wikipedia has not yet been addressed. The pattern that I've observed over several months appears to be obvious. When Anupam copies over Conservapedia content to a single article on Wikipedia, it generally gets deleted and his edits are reverted. However, he has discovered a way around this problem. Instead of copying over the entire article, what he has been doing instead is copying over small sentences and paragraphs, and then distributing (merging) Conservapedia's content to multiple articles so as not to draw any attention. In this way, the content which would otherwise not be appropriate for Wikipedia on a single article or topic is preserved by placing it in many different articles and topics in smaller chunks so as not to attract attention, and amounts to a sneaky method of proselytizing. This is what he did when he added off-topic material about "atheism and the suppression of science" from Conservapedia to Wikipedia. It was deleted, but Anupam salvaged it when nobody was looking by adding it in small chunks to religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• More recent plagiarism in creation and evolution in public education in the United States.[149] Anupam writes: "Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory." The source (Discovery Institute) writes: "Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation protecting the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory."[150] Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There's compelling evidence in this thread that Anupam has problems with plagiarism/copyright violation and if this doesn't stop immediately he should be blocked. Because of his plagiarism, and because of the POV-pushing that Viriditas documents above, I find the charges of stalking unpersuasive—Anupam clearly needs to be monitored, and any problematic edits he made need to be ameliorated or eliminated. So if Viriditas has been checking regularly on Anupam's edits, that's a good thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that Anupam is either unaware of or unwilling to respect the differences in goals and standards between Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Much of his editing gives the impression of searching for increasingly roundabout ways to import Conservapedia content onto Wikipedia.

His use of sources also seems ideologically driven in the extreme; the content about suicide and atheism is a classic illustration. The cited source states that "atheist" countries are "the healthiest and wealthiest nations on Earth", and that a country's level of atheism is correlated with higher development, lower infant mortality, less poverty, fewer homicides, and greater gender equality. The only metric by which atheist countries fare worse than "religious" countries is suicide rate. The authors conclude:

In sum, with the exception of suicide, countries marked by high levels of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on Earth, while societies characterized by nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most unhealthy.

How does Anupam use that source? By going to suicide and prominently linking it to atheism. Note that while the source clearly correlates atheism with societal health, Anupam cherry-picks the one isolated factoid which correlates atheism with societal dysfunction and presents it in isolation. Note the cherry-picked quote in the footnote.

That's textbook: he's mining these sources to advance his personal viewpoint, rather than respecting the actual content and context of the source and presenting it appropriately. For another example of questionable use of sources, see this thread, where I presented my concerns in table form. Because Anupam is unfailingly civil, I doubt that his ideologically driven editing or questionable use of sources will ever result in sanctions. Certainly his civility has so far trumped all content-related concerns, as is typically the case here, but still. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• We need much better tools to combat this exact kind of intellectually dishonest but civil pov pushing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Civil (or at least sub-block level uncivil) pov pushing seems to be the most pressing problem of wiki governance. a13ean (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand quite well the difference between the standards in Conservapedia and Wikipedia, the former favouring a conservative point of view in its articles, and the latter favouring a neutral point of view. The sources I place in articles are academic sources and I always provide the original quotation upon which I base my writing. If one looks at the talk page on the Religion article, one can note that there are comments stating that the article seems to focus on the criticism of religion; adding a statement on the positive health benefits of religion, supported by a reference from the Mayo Clinic, is not POV pushing, it is adding valuable information to the article. Contrary to what User:Viriditas stated, I did attribute the quotation and even placed the quote parameter around the information I added (verify). Similarly, with the study on atheism, the source is from the The Cambridge Companion to Atheism and it states:

Concerning suicide rates, religious nations fare better than secular nations. According to the World Health Organization's report on international male suicide rates, of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. Of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

This is the information that I inserted in the article? I am not sure why that is POV pushing? User:MastCell, I understand that there were other conclusions about atheism in that reference but why are they relevant to an article on Suicide? I would appreciate if you pleased assumed good faith here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrator User:Akhilleus, thank your for your comments here. I see that you have written that you do see problems with plagiarism in my work at Wikipedia. I want to take the time to humbly apologize before you and others here, including User:Viriditas, for doing so. I stand corrected and am sorry for my actions. This was never my intention, as I only desired to make a summary of the references I used, in order to meet WP:V. I never realized that my work constituted plagiarism. I firmly commit to using my quotation parameters and paraphrasing the content more than I have before. In light of these events, I will be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while. I hope you all have a nice day. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In this edit Anupam clearly demonstrates an inability to see how his editing of the Suicide article represents cherry picking. While Anupam claims to understand that Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral source of information, his inability to recognize his own POV pushing is very problematic. While he may be editing in good faith in an attempt to edit neutrally, this clearly demonstrates that he is not capable of doing such. Given that he cannot even recognize his disruptive editing, apologies are not going to solve the problem. Given how long this disruptive editing has been going on, with no improvement despite dozens of apologies, I think it's time to reflect on this editors role in the project. aprock (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the apology is very polite, but fails to address the important issue of biased editing. Given that this user has been here since 2006 and has a history of problematic editing (as has been shown in this thread), I'm not optimistic that he's going to alter his ways now. Perhaps we should discuss a topic ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand. Every one of my edits uses a reliable source and contains verifiable information. If there is ever a content dispute, I discuss the issue on the talk page and open up an RfC to gain input from the community. I always accept the decision of the community no matter what. I was very sincere in my apology and I do not think this will be necessary. It would be very devastating to me to be banned from articles of my interest, especially when I have been polite and willing to discuss my contributions. I would appreciate if you could please reconsider your comment. I would highly appreciate it. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Using a reliable source is not enough when you use it to say the opposite of what is clearly the authors intention when read in context. Selectively quoting information in the way you have done is intellectually dishonest whether or not it is done on purpose. You must understand that if you wish to edit neutrally. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, boy. Having read through this thread and gone over all the diffs I see we have a real problem here. The plagiarism is obviously a major issue, but now that we know about it we can simply enforce Anupam's future avoidance of plagiarism with escalating blocks. The wider issue is the civil POV-pushing. I guess we could consider a topic-ban, but the major problem I see with this is selecting a topic. Religion? Science? Topics that would conventionally be of interest to someone who edits Conservapedia? I guess the latter, but good luck defining it. We could community ban, and I wouldn't be unhappy with such at outcome at all, but it seems a shade harsh right now and I don't think it would get consensus anyway ATM.

• Perhaps some kind of probation and custom-tailored editing restriction? I guess we could form some kind of collective mentorship agreement, whereby a group of sysops get together to monitor Anupam, have the authority to impose blocks/bans/further restrictions on him, and who he can come to for advice? I guess the question with this is whether we'll get enough out of it to be worth the time.

• The other problem is we're not quite sure whether or not he has been socking and generally editing in bad faith. If he has been then we should probably default to community ban right now. Perhaps bobrayner could post the diffs and we can have a look and try to put the pieces of the puzzle together, or send them off for checkuser. Best, Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Moreschi, I would be happy to have a group of administrators monitor me and let me know if I have problems with my edits. Once again, any time there has ever been a dispute, I take the time to discuss it with others, and start and RfC to gain wider input. I always accept community consensus on the issue. I would be glad to work with a group of sysops on articles. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• From recent experience on Atheism it is apparent he is a (mostly) civil POV pusher. He tried to insert a cherry picked single analysis (it wasn't actually a study) which suited his POV to try and offset a meta-analysis of no less than 43 studies, 39 of which favoured the opposite conclusion (on religion and intelligence correlations). (There are many more in the literature too) Promptly another editor reverted the addition, asking him to take it to the talk page. Anupam reverted this editor twice: [151] even though being asked to specifically gain consensus. Then user User:Justice007 jumped in to Anupam's rescue with two more reverts with the comment of "What is than WP:NPOV ??." [152] [153]. (I note that Justice007 made no constructive comments beyond being borderline incoherent: [154][155]). Even though it was obvious that a single study had no due weight beside a meta-analysis. Anupam tried to justify including an uncited paper by citing, amongst others, the daily mail and "Christian Post", I think it's clear to any wikipedia editor that these won't help give it due weight. Anupam also hid the daily mail behind a link naming it as "The Telegraph": [156]. Here is the discussion: Talk:Atheism#Study. After only 8 and a half hours after his first comment he started an RfC (aren't RfC's meant to be discussed before being started?); this seems extremely premature to me in any discussion. During the RfC Anupam appeared to have decided that a particular adminstrator would close the RfC although it seems he was not aware of this promise: User_talk:Kuru#RfC_at_Atheism. Anupam also appears to not have grasped basic guidelines and policies, when i quoted WP:N verbatim [157], he replied with "I respect your opinion, but disagree with it" [158]. I find it very hard to believe that an editor with 15 thousand edits confuses notability with due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have created numerous articles here on Wikipedia and have helped many editors out, in addition to improving the quality of several articles here. I do not appreciate the misrepresentation of my desire to discuss with other editors and conduct an RfC to gain input from the community. For example, stating that I intentionally labelled a Daily Mail article as an article from The Telegraph, despite the fact that I thanked User:IRWolfie for pointing out the error, is wrong and a clear attempt to defame me. I have been polite and respectful to everyone and am hurt by the lack of compassion and understanding here. If you or any of the others start a process to "topic ban" me, I would rather quit editing Wikipedia and retire instead. So please let me know if you follow through and I will be gone. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I said you were a civil POV pusher (the mostly was for the edit warring). Your thanks is fully consistent with being a civil POV pusher. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest moving toward starting up a topic ban discussion on AN. There seems to be some consensus that your editing has been disruptive and tendentious, both from this discussion and earlier ones. I have to concur, but think that it is no longer productive to discuss the matter here on ANI instead of discussing an actual topic ban on AN. In fact, the only thing holding me back is that there is no clear picture of what your topic ban should entail. I'm thinking an indefinite ban on all topics related to religion/atheism and controversial social and political issues, very broadly construed? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't think we can take Anupam's apology at face value. e.g. in the Kashmir article he had copy-pasted whole scale from sources and was informed of this issue on July 7 2011 when the content was removed (July 7). He did not respond to the warning, instead, he goes in adds it back to the article after a month (Aug 7). After a month, quite obviously copyvio cleaners aren't watching the article as they deal with way too many, so this one has now stood within the article until now. This is highly irresponsible behavior from someone and these sugar laced apologies do not justify it. —SpacemanSpiff 04:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bhai Sahib, the reason I restored the content was because I did not copy directly from the references. I attempted to put it into my own words so I was surprised when it was removed, which is why I restored it when I saw that it was gone. I do not remember even seeing the warning in the first place (my talk page has 384 threads on it). I am sincere when I tell you that I did not mean to do anything wrong. I think the problem here is that I need to do a much better job of putting things into my own words and I am willing to work on this. I guess that the information I added to the Kashmir article should have been put into my own words better, even though I did try to paraphrase the content. Instead of topic banning me, I would commit to working with a group of administrators who could monitor my edits and correct me when I am wrong. I would really appreciate a another chance User:SpacemanSpiff. I left a comment below that you might be interested in reading. Thanks for taking the time to read this comment. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Threats to quit aren't constructive either, and more importantly aren't binding. If a topic ban is to be initiated then that should happen regardless of whether Anupam sticks a {{retired}} up this week or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy collection of old diffs, just for background information about an earlier period of problematic editing

As requested by Moreschi. I compiled this list after other people raised concerns about sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. This is a complete biography of turnsalso's life as an SPA on Militant Atheism. There are other SPAs; we may discuss those later, if you wish. 21:00, 27 June Turnsalso account is created at a time when anupam really needs support; somebody else has proposed splitting up anupam's essay. 21:37, 27 June Turnsalso turns their userpage link from red to blue. 22:05, 27 June Turnsalso !votes "Keep; oppose split", just as Anupam had. It's their first ever talkspace edit, but nonetheless Turnsalso has a precocious understanding of wikipedia markup and policy. and does so in an edit only 5 minutes from an anupam edit. I wish I'd known how to do piped links to policy pages the first time I used a talkpage! 22:14, 27 June After that single edit, Anupam swiftly finds the new user and turns their red talkpage link blue, though they have not extedned that courtesy to any other users in the last year. In only an hour, Turnsalso has got bluelinks and looks like a bona fide editor! (When I was a newbie, it took far longer) The proposal was subsequently closed as "no consensus" by Fountainviewkid, whose pov-pushing on christian subjects earned a barnstar from lionel but warnings and blocks from the rest of the community. 01:35, 6 July Turnsalso starts their second talkpage session: Opposing reforms suggested by Dannyno / Liberal Classic. Anupam, coincidentally, holds the same opinion. This new editor confidently cites lots of policies - the same ones used by Anupam. It's not obvious because they don't edit in the same places, but anupam edits and turnsalso edits are typically about 2 minutes apart in this editing session. 03:22, 13 July Anupam adds the Burkeman ref. JimWae makes some changes. 08:07, 13 July Apparently dissatisfied with JimWae's changes, Anupam adds the Burkeman ref back in a second time. (There are now two refs in close proximity using the same long quote) 08:29, 13 July Anupam reverts the distinctive double Burkeman ref back into the article. 18:07, 13 July Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did. 18:49, 13 July Turnsalso returns to the talkpage making a similar argument to Anupam. One minute after that, Anupam edits the article, then a few minutes later Anupam adds a comment below Turnsalso. 19:40, 13 July Anupam makes a controversial revert; adding swathes of disputed text back into the article - and removing an NPOV tag amid a controversy over NPOV. 20:03, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert. 20:16, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert again, and is now on the 3RR threshold. 18:21, 14 July Anupam creates a separate section demanding that Man jess revert certain other edits. 18:29, 14 July Anupam's habit of reverting is causing some strife on the talkpage. With perfect timing, Turnsalso is here to help, saying that they will "revert until the issue is settled". 18:32 14 July Turnsalso comes to the rescue again! Their second edit to the article is a revert to anupam's preferred version - despite the fact that there have been several intervening edits. 18:36, 14 July Turnsalso now goes to the new separate section created by anupam, and seconds their proposal that man jess revert, a mere 15 minutes after it was made. Others are not so keen to support. Turnsalso's edit timestamps continue to coincide closely with anupam's timestamps. 14:14, 15 July Another editor raises concerns about sockpuppetry. 17:47, 15 July For turnsalso, reverting man jess' edits is more important than dealing with sockpuppetry concerns. 18:01, 15 July Turnsalso opposes reforms proposed by Peter S Strempel. 20:19, 15 July Turnsalso turns up to support Anupam on the Man Jess thing. Apologises for being late to arrive - less than an hour after anupam's comment (though anupam has been editing elsewhere in that interval). 03:25, 20 July Turnsalso is back on the talkpage, supporting anupam. There's a slightly larger gap here, with an hour and a half between anupam's and turnsalso's edits, which is very high by their standards but would be rather low if you'd compared two random unrelated editors. Abhishikt and peaceloveharmony propose a new lede without all the usual stuff that anupam wants. Needless to say, anupam opposes. Turnsalso dutifully opposes a little later. 20:49, 26 July: Anupam makes an alternate proposal for the lede which is basically the same thing that anupam has kept in their lede all along. Just to make the votes clear, they add an extra support of their own beneath it. Unfortunately, the votes don't go how anupam would like; [159] 15 minutes after the fourth oppose, turnsalso arrives to support anupam. 23:43, 18 August Turnsalso's directly support's anupam's quest to add in multiple refs, as though many trivial mentions make a grand concept. Just as with anupam, WP:V is used repeatedly; who cares about NPOV or synth? Anupam cites a contrived "consensus" and, supposedly, administrative support for keeping anupam's preferred wording All those people who disagree should keep quiet because anupam has The Consensus. A few minutes later, turnsalso arrives to provide unflinching support for the "consensus". As usual, anupam's and turnsalso's editing sessions overlap, and edits are separated by a few minutes. IRWolfie points out an obvious synth problem. An uninvolved editor agrees. Anupam defends their preferred wording. 16 minutes later, Turnsalso is there to support anupam. 19:33, 25 August After JimWae makes a series of suggestions, turnsalso disagrees with each point in turn, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution. Anupam then arrives, disagreeing with each of jimWae's points, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution. Anupam makes another proposal for the lede, and again adds their own support vote. When support from others starts to waver, Turnsalso is on hand to help! Only half an hour after the first oppose, turnsalso supports. 21:04 25 August Caught out, turnsalso concedes that there might actually be different flavours of militant atheism which do different things, but insists that they're conceptually related; anupam would be proud. 23:27, 12 September Turnsalso defends anupam's article against yet another person's concerns of pov-pushing and synth. Also refers to administrative declarations on content (but only when they favour the status quo; other admins in the discussion are not mentioned), which is a rather quirky interpretation of policy shared only by anupam. 16:06, 16 September Two minutes after anupam's last edit, turnsalso supports anupam against concerns raised by JimWae. 18:01, 17 September Turnsalso's third edit to the article; removing an unsourced word. 02:25, 20 September 190.92.44.9 makes exactly the same revert that Anupam has made. The revert is repeated at 02:47 and 02:53. This IP address has never edited any other article but nonetheless helps anupam escape the clutches of 3RR. 05:46, 20 September: 190.53.90.122 makes exactly the same revert. Again, this IP has never edited any other article. Anupam is very lucky that anonymous editors have appeared from thin air to pretend anupam's preferred version of the article against the hordes of dissenters. Anupam repeatedly praises these editwarring IPs as two additional voices in anupam's support - always pretending that they are completely new people, rather than an existing editor who's logged out to avoid 3RR. 16:31, 20 September turnsalso supports Anupam's (and the IP address') reverts, for the same reason. 16:59, 20 September bobrayner creates a new section raising concerns about sockpuppetry. 40 minutes after turnsalso's last edit in their support, anupam appears to acknowledge the section about sockpuppetry, but then removes the heading, and bizarrely refactors other people's comments to bury the concerns in the middle of a busy thread on a different subject (although anupam's edit summary acknowledges it's a different subject) where the concerns would get much less attention. Needless to say, nobody else replies to this after it's been buried. 18:51, 20 September Turnsalso offers a "compromise" which is actually in line with anupam's previous position. Turnsalso's editing session coincides with that of anupam, who made an edit 1 minute earlier. 19:04, 20 September Anupam graciously accepts the compromise offered by turnsalso; it's only 5 minutes since turnsalso's last edit. 20:06, 21 September Turnsalso opposes the latest proposal, 18 minutes after anupam's lengthy opposition. As usual, editing sessions overlap. There are a handful other relevant diffs which I omitted for lack of time. For instance, the edits where turnsalso went to the talkpage of anupam's preferred administrator, to ask for their intervention, although turnsalso had never interacted with that admin before. To conclude: When anupam approached 3RR on the article, somebody else was always there to help - either turnsalso or a mysterious IP address steps in to make exactly the same revert. When anupam was in trouble on the talkpage, Turnsalso suddenly appeared to provide support votes when they're most needed. The editing times show a series of remarkable coincidences. Immediately after I raised concerns about sockpuppetry, Turnsalso stopped editing. The account has been abandoned; but it wasn't the first SPA which only edited in support of Anupam, and I doubt it'll be the last.

I shouldn't have to dig this up again, but claims that anupam made in this thread are totally incompatible with the available evidence. bobrayner (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, in your opinion, does this look like the work of a fanatical hobbyist with too much time on his hands, or a paid editor working on behalf of a special interest group? I ask, because when one talks about job losses and unemployment, the word "devastating" is used quite a bit. Up above, Anupum said, "It would be very devastating to me to be banned from articles of my interest..." I found that wording very unusual, as in normal discourse, the use of that word is associated with the loss of one's paid profession.[160] I also find much of Anupam's so-called civility to be more artificial than natural in tone. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to guess whether this kind of editing is driven by personal interest or pay. That's a whole new can of worms and - though I respect you as an editor - I think it could distract from the main problem; bad editing is bad editing, regardless of what motivates it. Civility of long-term problematic editors could be viewed simply as an evolutionary artefact; if an editor pov-pushes and is rude/abrasive, they are strongly selected against in our current ecosystem, whilst somebody who pov-pushes and says "please" and "thankyou" is much more likely to survive each AN/I thread unscathed. bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, let's not go down this road. Viriditas' speculation about things being "devastating" is less than convincing. Viriditas, please don't sideline the discussion with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I think speculating on whether or not an editor is paid is pointless. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a lot of coincidences. Well, I've been through the diffs Bob posted and I'm fairly well convinced that Turnalso is a sock/meatpuppet of Anupam, but what do others think on this one? Bob, you mentioned other SPA accounts - would you mind listing them here? Don't bother doing diff-by-diff analysis for these if you have better things to be doing, we can probably work through them ourselves. Moreschi (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Anupum has definitely been prone to plagiarism and at the very least of inadequate or misleading sourcing. I've pulled him up on it several times in the last couple of years (eg https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Militant_atheism/Archive_3#Quoted_material_not_in_quote_marks), so his claim here that he "didn't realise" is not credible. I can't speak to the other allegations. --143.52.87.123 (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have participated in some RfCs initiated by Anupam, and as far as I saw, he behaved the way he claims, contributing in a civil manner to discussions, and not contesting their outcome. There were obviously disagreements during these discussions, but this happens in most disputes requiring a RfC. While I do not deny that Anupam has done some obvious mistakes previously, I nonetheless think there has been too much bad faith assumed about his actions, and a permanent topic ban looks far too harsh in my opinion, especially for someone who contributed on many articles, as well as writting new ones. I think Moreschi's suggestion, to have Anupam monitored by a group of administrators, could be a more constructive solution. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cody7777777 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Cody7777777, did somebody tell you to come here? Were you emailed or was there a message on another site somewhere? After all the concerns about canvassing, I'm surprised to see an editor come to this thread to defend anupam despite being semi-retired, with no talkpage notification, and having edited eight articles in the last six months. bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reached this discussion through Wikipedia_talk:Christianity_noticeboard#User_attrition (that page is on my watchlist), which led me to User_talk:Anupam#Notice (where I saw the link to this discussion). Since I have observed Anupam's behaviour during these RfCs, I thought could comment here about them. I do not see anything wrong with that. And to be honest, I would also have been curious to know how some other users (who support Anupam's banning) have reached this discussion. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been involved with Anumpam on a number of articles over the past year, and this sort of behavior comes up every time. He clearly has an ideological goal to motivate his editing here, and it is clearly disparate to the aims of wikipedia. He plagiarizes. He exhibits disruptive IDHT behavior. He cherry picks sources, claims sources say things they don't, and uses sources to support controversial statements which are entirely irrelevant. He lies about previous editors actions, consensus, article content, and sourcing in the presumed hope that editors unfamiliar with the history will take his word. Most infuriatingly, however, every time he gets stuck in a rut, there is a sudden influx of editors who rush in to support him. It's funny, because I was planning to mention Cody777, only to find he'd commented just before I hit edit. Check his contrib history - at least half of his edits in the past year have been to articles involving Anupam. All of them have been articles he wasn't involved with previously (Big Bang, Atheism, Militant Atheism, MOP's talk, here). Anupam has a posse of editors, like Cody, Lionel and Turnsalso, who pop in to support him in contentious issues, which includes disruptive POV pushing his conservative, religious agenda. There's 5 to 7 others, who I won't name.

A few of his group are great contributers elsewhere, which makes sock-puppetry unlikely. We could file an SPI, but I also don't think Anupam is careless enough to have used multiple accounts from one IP. I think this is a case of meatpuppetry; users are being recruited either through email, personal contact, or a private forum. This behavior is disruptive for numerous reasons, including the often unmentioned issue of editor retention. Anupam has driven me away from numerous areas of the project very directly, and decreased my editing and motiviation to continue editing anywhere. I'm sure I'm not alone. Allowing this behavior to continue drives away productive, actually collaborative editors. That he says "Hope that helps", apologizes without understanding the issues or changing his behavior, threatens to retire to avoid sanctions, or what-have-you, should in no way be taken into account when determining if sanctions should be imposed. I'd like to see this handled, finally... after all the ANI threads, drama and disruption, we need to deal with this and move on. Can someone post a formal request for sanctions (whatever those may be) here or at AN? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to assume any bad faith, but in my opinion this is beginning to look like some sort of witch hunt. Regardless, what you want to believe I have seen his RfCs at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy.

Regarding the "Militant Atheism" article, I had actually edited on that article's talk page as early as february 2010, before Anupam even started to edit on it.

Most of my interaction with Anupam began during the 2011 "Militant Atheism" debates, where we shared similar views (but as I already said, I was interested in that article from an earlier date). Regarding, the other two RfCs about Big Bang, and Atheism, I do not deny that I might had also been influenced by the fact that there were some people involved (on both sides) who also participated the previous "Militant Atheism" debates, but I have not entered those debates just to add more !votes, most the time I tried to search for sources related to these respective topics, to help their improvement. For example, you can check my comments from the Big Bang RfCs[161][162]. But regarding the RfC on "Atheism", I admit I was unable to do any serious contribution, despite my initial hopes.Cody7777777 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of Anupam's disputes in the last ~6 months include Militant atheism, Big Bang, Atheism, Christmas Eve, MoP's talk, his previous ANI case, and this ANI. Both you and Lionelt were involved in all of them. In 6 of those 7 cases, you arrived at the discussion after Anupam was 'in trouble' without any previous involvement, ever. Five of those seven appear in your last ~25 edits, the remaining 2 in your last 50. The idea that you and Lionelt and all the others just happened across all of them on your own is kind of silly. The two of you are not the only ones magically appearing, either, or even the best examples in some cases. I don't think your editing rises to the level of disruption on its own, which is why you're not the subject of this thread. However, Anupam's magical "vote for me" and "save me from 3rr" posse is at issue here, and you are unfortunately involved in that crowd. That behavior, along with the plagiarizing, POV pushing, misrepresentations, etc, all needs to stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out to the administrators that many of the individuals here who wish to censure me participated in this RfC and took a position different than myself in the content dispute. There was a legitimate position who voted to keep the article intact, which is being underrepresented here. I would kindly ask the administrators to please look at this RfC and realize that some of the individuals at this ANI thread have taken a position in a content dispute, in which I took the opposite position. Yes, I did not use any sockpuppets and I have yet to see an actual checkuser performed to verify that I am not any of the SPAs (which participated in both sides of the content dispute). For example, Jkhwiki (talk · contribs), Obhave (talk · contribs), Runirokk (talk · contribs), Devilishlyhandsome (talk · contribs), et. al are single purpose accounts who took the same position as Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs), Mann jess (talk · contribs), and ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs). At the same time, there were SPAs that voted to keep the article, including Jacob800 (talk · contribs), Turnsalso (talk · contribs), Troisprenoms (talk · contribs), Jwaxman1 (talk · contribs), etc. User:Mann jess is quick to say that User:Cody7777777 appeared at the Big Bang RfC, which was listed at WP:XNB and the Religion and Philosophy RfC list, but denies the fact that his compatriots here, User:IRWolfie-, User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:ArtifexMayhem, along with himself (User:Mann jess) all magically showed up at the article, picking the exact same Draft, and yet, are the same users who are working together to censure me. Individuals, such as User:Dominus Vobisdu hope to remove me from editing articles so that they can censor information in articles to fit their interpretation, such as this recent edit. Once again, please consider this before making any decisions. It is very unfair that one group of editors target me and try to ban me for holding different views than them. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang is an article that I've edited previously; it's been on my watchlist for a long time. AFAIK, the same is true for all the other editors you listed beside my name. It is not true of Cody or others who magically show up in all your disputes, just when you need help. Here's a great example; I came here only after being notified. Lionelt and Cody, on the other hand, seem to just have noticed the discussion, even with Cody being semi-retired. That happened on Militant atheism too. It also happened on Atheism. It also happened in your previous ANIs. Attacking my character on the basis that we've been in previous disputes is ridiculous, considering I'm commenting on your behavior in those disputes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Obhave is not an SPA. See Special:Contributions/Obhave. You also missed quite a few SPAs magically showing up to vote keep on the other end. Trying to equate the two is grossly misrepresenting facts, yet again...   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is it a mystery that I turned up at the RFC on the Big Bang theory? I had it in my watchlist from the previous RFC and you posted it at the wikiproject physics talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Big_Bang_RfC_.28Part_II.29 which I look at, I even commented on your post at wikiproject physics for the first RfC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_February_2012#Big_Bang. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thankyou for remaining superficially civil. However, you have repeatedly lied, misrepresented sources, plagiarised, ballot-stuffed, and generally cheated - whatever it takes to push your message. You have got away with it for a long time but that kind of editing has no place on en.wikipedia. This crusade is a net negative to the encyclopædia. Essays like Militant Atheism may be welcome on conservapedia, but not here, because en.wikipedia requires truthfulness and neutrality. Some good editors have been driven away; others have wasted many hours trying to mitigate the pov-pushing. Since you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge or fix the problem - and instead have the chutzpah to pretend that there's a conspiracy against you - I think it's time to propose a topic ban. The last time this was tried, the thread was shut down 2 hours later; I hope that won't happen again. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I remain civil because I prefer to engage in friendly dialogue with others, discussing content rather than attacking individuals. If I wanted to prove a point with the Militant atheism article, then why would I write an entire section criticising the term in that article. I have repeatedly explained that every source in that article was from an academic book or journal, thus fulfilling WP:NPOV. There is a reason that I placed every single quote from the original book or journal in the quote parameter of the references - to demonstrate that these are not my words, but the words of the authors who wrote them. An administrator on Conservapedia interpreted my edits similarly to the way you do, but did you see my response to him? It is evident that I am not the one here who is pushing a message. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why you added back plagiarized/copyvio text after being told not to both on your talk and in edit summaries? And of course, you didn't respond to the warning either. This canvassing and plagiarism (I'm not commenting on the POV bit as I haven't spent any time at all on those articles) been going on for far too long, that I'm sure the topic ban below is too narrow to be of any use. —SpacemanSpiff 20:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to add that I find Anupam's approach to dispute resolution to be problematic as well. In this edit: [163] Anupam demonstrates that he's also willing to plagiarize wikipedia itself, inserting articles wholesale into Conservapedia with no attribution. Compare versions: Wikipedia, Conservapedia. When community consensus leads to an article being deleted, the appropriate response is not to export the disputed content, unattributed, to another site. aprock (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Details of Anupam's WP:OWN - here and here, with details of diff and complains of multiple editor. The WP:OWN of Anupam also resulted in many editors left editting. But the Anupam's preferred admin didn't take any action. -Abhishikt (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

As a result of the long-term pov-pushing problem - including plagiarism, misuse of sources, deception, sockpuppetry, and so on - I propose that anupam is topic-banned from editing on atheism or religion, broadly construed. Alas, this seems to be the best solution to a long-term problem, because other attempts to help anupam edit honestly have failed.

• Support as proposer. bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC) (Edited to add: Considering that anupam has at length refused to acknowledge any of the problems and has framed it all as a partisan POV dispute, I now realise a community ban would be a better option if possible. However, I'll leave this proposal here as a topic ban has much more obvious support; if the closing administrator feels there's not enough support for a community ban, I hope a topic ban will be accepted as the fallback option, hopefully including Dominus Vobisdu's proposed extension.). bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed Extension: I propose that controversial social and political issues be added to the topic ban. The ban as proposed is too narrow, and Anupam has been disruptive in basically all areas that would interest a Conservapedia editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support with extension above, though I much more prefer an outright community ban. Anupam has a long history of disruptive and tendentious POV pushing. Based on his attempts to minimize his transgressions and to shift blame elsewhere in this very thread, it's clear that Anupam intends to always be a disruptive editor in the areas included, and that POV pushing, misrepresenting sources, ignoring consensus, edit warring, filibustering, sock puppetry and meatpuppetry are fundamental elements of his editing repertoir, which is clearly calculated to consume the time of editors who disagree with him. His apologies and promises to improve can't be taken seriously because they fail to address the many problems countless editors have enumerated during the course of the discussion. He has made a huge mess that other editors will have to spend countless hours cleaning up. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but to disrupt that process and push his own POV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Anupam is an valuable contributor with a clean, unblemished, block-free record. The plagiarism issues need to be dealt with: but not with this Draconian response. The best method for dealing with this is specialized mentoring tailored for this issue, and escalating blocks. Plain and simple.

The gallery of users who have lined up here to crucify Anupam for the most part are those who were on the losing end of a content dispute. ANI is not a place for settling old scores. We all have a POV and we don't topic ban people who don't share our POV. Anupam wins content debates the old fashioned way: with sound and polite reasoning, and when all else fails RFC. This is nothing more than a crucifiction: an attempt to censor an editor who has successfully been neutralizing the rampant pro-atheist POV. I pray that the community will not allow this group to drive away another veteran editor.– Lionel ^(talk) 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

From my experience recent experience on Atheism Anupam tries to win content debates with some light edit warring and then a talk page discussion trying to push obviously undue material that suits his POV by starting frivolous RfC's at the drop of a hat (as you say, he's been an editor for 7 years, kind of hard to believe he doesn't know the policies and guidelines). Also, how could a 7 year veteran be still plagarising? (and no, I wasn't on the "losing end" of the debate). You refer to "rampant pro-atheist POV" and "anti-Christian vandals". You claim Anupam is editing Atheistic articles from a christian perspective. Editors should not be editing atheist articles from a "christian perspective" as you put it, they should be trying to be neutral [164]. If an editor said there were going to edit Catholic sex abuse cases from an "Islamic perspective", I'd clearly be worried about their bias as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring????? He has a clean block record. WTF are you talking about? These are exactly the kind of attacks that are representative of this entire farce masquerading as a Topic Ban Discussion. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, honesty is not optional, it is required. Anupum has received numerous warnings from admins. For example, he was warned by EdJohnston in March 2010.[165] He was warned about his edit warring in September 2011 by admin Wifone[166] and admitted to edit warring in November 2011 in another incident where he was warned yet again by admin Wifione.[167] Additionally, he's been constantly warned by the user community, for example by Griswwaldo and Tryptofish in March 2011,[168] and by multiple users over many years.[169][170][171][172] So for you to question this, Lionelt, is indicative of a larger problem. Just because someone is civil doesn't allow them to flagrantly violate every major policy and guideline. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Anupam has never been blocked in 7 years. The incidents you cite, one of which was not EW but tendentious editing, for the most part were not egregious, were resolved to the satisfaction of the involved admin, and in totality do not justify besmirching this editor's reputation with the label "edit warrior." – Lionel ^(talk) 06:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice Chewbacca defense. You deny he's been warned by multiple admins and editors about his persistent edit warring because...he's never been blocked? Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're opposing on the grounds that a block is more appropriate, then we can do a block. A lot of editors have said they support an outright block, rather than second chance with a TB. If, on the other hand, you're opposing because Anupam has "been neutralizing the rampant pro-atheist POV", then I think that speaks for itself.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Mann jess, I would be open to a temporary block, much more than an indefinite topic ban. That being said, if it is the community's desire (right now there are also several votes opposing a ban), I will follow through with a topic ban, but I would like for the topic ban to list a specific time period (e.g. six months, one year, two years, etc.). I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, by "Christian perspective" I was referring to the Wikipedia precept that "Everybody has a point of view" WP:NOVFAQ. Sometimes when an editor is very closely aligned with the subject in which they edit they develop tunnel vision. In these cases it is helpful for an "outsider"--as it were--to help make the content neutral. I.e. a fresh set of eyes. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, indefinite does not mean infinite. An indefinite topic ban could be lifted at any time that the community felt you had demonstrated a willingness and ability to edit productively in these areas. Considering the level of disruption here (enough to potentially warrant being indefinitely community banned), I don't think putting a timer on a a topic ban is a good idea. Editors with such a timer often just "wait it out", without learning to edit productively. You're welcome to propose a definite topic ban, but I have my doubts the community would support it at this time. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that would help. How can I "learn to edit productively," as you state, without gaining experience on those articles that you deem that I edit problematically? I am confident that if this proposal (which is not neutrally worded at all) passes (which it might or might not), many of the editors who voted here will be unwilling to let me edit in this topic. For this reason, I think this proposal should specify a time, even if it is one or two years. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes.... if the topic ban proposal passes, you will not be allowed to edit in the topic. That's the point of a topic ban. If you demonstrate you can edit productively in other areas, you may appeal the topic ban after some time has passed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow where that quote is from, it's not in WP:NPOVFAQ. What I do see is a section on Dealing with biased contributors. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. I have already expressed most of my reasons in this comment. Since he is an editor who also has done many useful contributions (including new articles), I don't think it is fair to assume he cannot become a better editor, despite his previous mistakes. And the claim that his civility is superficial looks more like a bad faith assumption in my opinion. As I said before, I also think Moreschi's previous suggestion, to have Anupam monitored by a group of administrators, is a more constructive solution, since Wikipedia should not throw away editors with good potential. But if there is a ban, it should only be temporary. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cody7777777 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

So you are okay with topic ban? -Abhishikt (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I stated quite clearly I oppose the topic ban proposed here. And it should have had at least a time limit specified.Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on religion, atheism, and politics related articles, broadly construed, per discussion and evidence presented above. There is more than enough evidence for his civil POV pushing, plagiarism, misuse of sources and deception. I'm not sure there is enough evidence for sockpuppetry, but there are strong indications. If anyone is still unsure about his true intentions, please take a look at his conservapedia talk page.--В и к и T 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do. You can see my response right there. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Editor has a clear POV as evidenced the continued plagiarism and misuse of sources. MarnetteD | Talk 20:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support Anupam has always been one of the most polite people I've encountered on wiki. Many people here seem to believe it's a ruse for civil POV pushing. I don't agree, I would rather AGF on his end, especially since I've seen what bad faith religious POV pushing looks like. I don't need to say any names, most of the editors commenting above could probably pick someone from memory and they'd be a good enough example. With that said, a lot of the above commentary and diffs do illustrate what I would consider to be problematic, and so I have to support a topic ban for the good of the encyclopedia. No prejudice to a removal of the topic ban if Anupam can demonstrate at some point in the future that he understands the concerns expressed by other editors (especially the idea that almost nothing on Conservapedia is worthy of being part of WP, and that WP serves an entirely different purpose), but I think a 3-6 month break in the meantime will be necessary. SÆdon^talk 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Saedon, the problem is that this topic ban thread does not specify a time frame. If it is the community's desire, I will follow through with a topic ban, but it should specify a time period, three to six months, one year, two years, etc. I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I would support 3-6 months; it will be up to the closing admin to decide the length after considering the arguments made in the proposal. It's not uncommon for users to express multiple opinions on ban length, it's just part of the process. SÆdon^talk 22:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support with extension - I don't really think this guys is fooling anyone any more. I also would have nothing against a community ban. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per Cody777777's comments - and as per the users article creation list - the user has a large percentage of wiki beneficial contributions - a less extreme restriction is far preferable - Youreallycan 21:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • YRC; I respect your opposition; you're haven't been mired in most of the previous disputes on these topics so nobody could accuse you of being partisan. However, if I remember correctly, you've made great efforts on BLP and this is close to your heart; how would you feel if problematic editing touched on BLPs too? For instance, going to the Breivik article and adding "Breivik quoted liberals like Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins" as part of a crusade to prove that Atheists are Bad People. Personally, I think there have been enough second chances; the BLP violations should be stopped. bobrayner (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support On the topic of Atheism related articles broadly construed. Anupam is clearly unable to leave his own bias at the door and try and edit the articles from a neutral point of view and has been involved in POV pushing etc on these articles. That he edits these articles from a "christian perspective" as Lionelt put it, is worrying. I don't edit christianity articles from an an atheistic perspective; nor should any editor. I would suggest a temporary block as well to stop the "never been blocked" mantra which keeps appearing at these ANI discussions. Outside of this, I am unsure how serial plagerism (even after warnings) can be dealt with. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The partisan aspect of all the main contributors in this area is tangible , not just this user but all of them - removing one user from the topic area when all of the players are equally partisan is detrimental to the neutral position. Youreallycan 22:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't being partisan when I encountered Anupam on Atheism, Editors should have a reasonable expectation that other editors won't POV push, "I'm not the only one breaking the rules" isn't a valid defense. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a strong COI amongst many of the contributors there - basically all the interested users are conflicted - they are all biased - restricting a single one is a biased partisan desire - Youreallycan 22:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you believe other editors have broken the rules bring that up in a separate ANI filing, other than that it's mere speculation. Other editors breaking rules or not has never been a defense before and it should not be now for your friend Anupam from what I've seen (it just results in both parties being reprimanded). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- enough already, it's perfectly obvious that if this isn't done the disruption will continue unabated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per IRWolfie. Editors should edit from a neutral point of view, not with a bias to balance some other percieved bias. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with a BLP example: In this addition, sourced to a partisan opinion piece in a partisan tabloid, Anupam links Richard Dawkins to Anders Behring Breivik and the Unabomber, and doesn't miss the opportunity to call Dawkins a "militant atheist". In reality, Breivik wrote about Dawkins unfavorably. Prolog (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Continued and unrepentant plagiarism and edit warring is not excused by hollow apologies. Given that this problematic behavior extends outside the proposed topic area this will give Anupam a good chance to turn over a new leaf and edit collaboratively with the community in areas where he has in the past been disruptive. aprock (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Edit warring???? I demand that you strike. He's been here 7 years and never been blocked. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So if an editor isn't blocked, that means he isn't edit warring? That's a strange definition. Editors are typically only blocked for 3rr, which Anupam is very careful to avoid. He edit wars constantly, however. There are at least a few examples in this thread alone.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support with extension, but prefer community ban. My overwhelming preference, of course, is that Anupam understands that the community finds his behavior unacceptable, and begins editing productively across the site. However, I don't have any confidence that will ever happen. His repeated misrepresentation of sources, article history and other editors in an attempt to manipulate consensus is unacceptable on any article. In previous ANI cases, I wanted lighter sanctions imposed, but I have since lost faith that they will be sufficient. I don't put any trust in the content he contributes to the site due to his extended history of sneaky pov pushing and meatpuppetry to influence consensus, and it's unfair to expect multiple other productive editors to scrutinize his every edit while we give him yet another trial run. That said, a topic ban is better than nothing, and maybe it'll turn out that I'm wrong. Very unfortunately, I doubt it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand with clarity that I have broken the plagiarism policy at Wikipedia. For me, the problem should be to avoid close paraphrasing, even if I provide a reference. User:Moreschi suggested the alternative of working with a group of administrators to monitor my work. Most of individuals who wish to ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC and differed from mine and many others' view there. As such, this is a content dispute and I feel I should not be blocked for holding different views than these editors. I have created countless articles (e.g. Works of Piety, Qaisar Bagh) and have contributed to many more since 2006, never having been blocked. In addition, I am the editor for Ichthus. Moreover, I have helped several new editors out with editing the encyclopedia. Whenever there are content disputes, I take the time to discuss the issue, and start an RfC to gain input from the community if the dispute is unresolved. I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well. I know that many users here do appreciate my work and I would miss editing my favorite topics, as well as the friends that I have made here too. I recognize the close paraphrasing/plagiarism issue now and hope that I can improve in this area by working with administrators, rather than being topic banned. I also sincerely apologize for these actions and to the editors that have been hurt by my actions. I hope that the community will have compassion on me and will give me the opportunity to improve. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly not a content dispute as the numerous diffs have shown throughout this discussion. I did not comment on the Militant Atheism RfC, nor have multiple other editors in this discussion. This is again more deflection from your own editing pattern. What Prolog showed is pretty damning. Seems like he didn't comment on that RfC either. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, If plagiarism was the only disruptive conduct, this might suffice. But the problem extends well beyond simple plagiarism. Your failure to acknowledge your other disruptive behavior (ignoring multiple notices and warnings, edit warring, POV pushing, canvasing, misrepresenting sources, etc) only points to further disruptive editing down the road. Your claim that you "accept the decisions of the RfCs" is contradicted by the fact that when the Militant Atheism RfC went against you, you immediately exported the content to Conservapedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=922868&oldid=909277. Adhering to the letter of the RfC while simultaneously contravening the spirit of the RfC is exactly the sort of disruptive editing that needs to end. aprock (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Calling an veteran editor with a clean block record an edit warrior is false, and a personal attack. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, it is, indeed, unfortunate that you will be unable to edit your preferred topic. However, understand that there are two options on the table right now: a community ban or a topic ban. If the community decides that a topic ban is preferable, that says we want you to stay and continue editing, and that if the problems outlined here are addressed, then maybe (at some point in the distant future) you can get the topic ban lifted and continue editing these articles again. Continuing to apologize for only one aspect of the thread won't help matters; we need to see your behavior improve, which is an opportunity you would be afforded with a topic ban. I have my doubts that will happen, but I'm hopeful that I am wrong. Please accept that the community views this behavior as disruptive, and stop recruiting editors off-site to post in your discussions, double-check that sources say what you're claiming before adding them, stop cherry-picking from the literature to support an ideological agenda, stop close paraphrasing, and try to hear what other editors are saying, and accept those contrary opinions without trying to force an RfC, votestack and manipulate consensus. If you can do that, we want you here. If you can't, then that's not behavior we can accept. Being honest about your intentions and clearly indicating what communication/canvassing is going on off-site (as well as putting an end to it) would go a long way. Short of that, it's hard to see these issues clearing up on their own.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Mann jess, I am not guilty for half of those accusations that you list. I always try to discuss things with others and do indeed accept the community outcomes of RfCs. If the community does feel a topic ban is necessary (although I believe that any problems can be easily remedied by working with an administrator), I would appreciate a specified time: one year, two years, five years? However, proposing an indefinite topic ban is not helpful. Thanks for taking the time to read this. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you again claim to "accept the community outcomes of RfCs" in a thread where it was clearly illustrated that you don't. It's difficult to imagine a positive outcome when this level of denial is demonstrated. aprock (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed accept the community outcome for all RfCs. Take the most recent one for example, here. Did I ever try to push the information back into the article or did I leave it as is? This is representative of my behavior at Wikipedia - to discuss disputes and gain input from the community if there are disagreements. To ban me for this is what is really sad. Have a nice day, Anupam^Talk 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This RfC is representive of your behaviour? So I summarise then that you typically edit war before making RFCs without discussing them first, and then refuse to close the RfC when consensus is very clear, and then make an invention that a particular administrator will close the RfC. This is your standard practice? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, the funny thing is, even if you were only guilty of "half" of it, as you claim, that would still rise to the level of a community ban, IMO. That said, strong evidence has been presented in this thread of each one of the things I asked you to stop doing. Your big apology above resonated with me, which is why I reached out and suggested you stay on the site and work within the confines of the TB. That you've switched back to denying everything and accusing everyone of wanting to censor dissenting opinions (below) quashes any sense of sympathy I had. We're right back where we started: You're being disruptive, lots of editors have warned you about it every way they know how, and you still won't accept there's anything wrong. This indicates you'll continue your problematic behavior, and we can't have that. These responses of yours are why I supported a community ban, and until you're able to hear criticism and edit collaboratively, that's IMO the only solution that will actually work.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support for ban for Atheism, religion or controversial topics. Reasons: Anupam has shown issues of WP:POV, WP:OWN multiple times in many atheism/religion/science related articles like Atheism, Militant Atheism, Big Bang, Creation–evolution controversy‎, Existence of God‎, etc. He often refuses to get to the point during discussion - an example of it. We should not forget that the fact that he is a regular Conservapedia editor. When Militant Atheism article got removed, he moved the entire article as it is to Conservapedia and it was made article of the month there. This shows how biased his POV is for atheism/religion/science related articles.

His recent 3RR incident, where I mentioned that his POV pushing takes lot of effort from other editors, resulting in wastage of hundreds of hours of WP community.

Anupam complained about unfair warnings to him, but he himself give me such recently here. Unrelated dubious thing: Anupam deleting notice from his talk page diff.-Abhishikt (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to comment on User:Abhishikt's recent participation in an RfC. He states: "The discussion in above section is pretty clear that this is WP:UNDUE and cherry picking of sentences to push POV for showing that religious people are not stupid/less educated." He also, like most of the editors here wishing to ban me, held the position opposite mine in this content dispute. Once again, editors here simply wish to ban me because I held a different position than them in a content dispute. One can imagine that this kind of POV will be normative if I am banned, as the individuals opposing me and several others in this RfC wish. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you give the context of the RfC? Above comment was for opposing the including of sentence - "However, a 2011 scholarly study published in the Review of Religious Research demonstrated that education is not correlated with disbelief in God". That reminds me: Anupam pushes hard for his POV even against the already formed consensus. This RfC is good example of that. -Abhishikt (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy violation in holding a view contrary to yours. Did I try to reinstate the academic journal after the RfC was closed, or while it was running? I did not, but instead, discussed the situation and accepted the outcome of the RfC. No editor should be banned for this. I hope this helps. Thanks for your understanding, Anupam^Talk 01:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you still saying that you are correct and the result of RfC (closed as per WP:SNOW) was wrong? The RfC created by you was entirely unnecessary as there were consensus in above section. This is just a very small example for wastage of valuable wiki community's efforts. -Abhishikt (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This sounds like an attempt to censor an opposing view. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Fasttimes68, thank you for your kind comments. This is exactly what is taking place. Most of the editors wishing to ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC/content dispute, despite the fact that I accepted the outcome of the RfC. I always discuss content disputes with others and if RfCs are held, I accept the outcome. I feel hurt that some individuals want to ban me simply for holding a viewpoint different to theirs. Thanks again for your participation. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Fasttimes68. Personally, I edit in controversial areas so there's a very long list of editors that I disagree with on some point of content (if you think atheism is partisan, try editing Balkan geography or alt-med or diacritics). We usually get along fine, though; discuss, bring better sources, negotiate, compromise. I have not proposed topic bans for these hundreds of editors; I don't bring them to AN/I at all. I'm proposing a topic ban for the one editor who has consistently distorted, plagiarised, cheated, and lied - whatever it takes to push their POV, with contempt for the community, and burning out other editors. bobrayner (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support community ban, but would accept a topic ban as described as a bare minimum. In addition to the inexcusable plagiarisim (and editor of his tenure should no better), the wp:battlefield and viewpoint expressed above ("editors here simply wish to ban me because I held a different position than them in a content dispute" - I'm uninvolved, thank you) indicate that the principles behind Wiki are not accepted and that future conflicts are inevitable. Regarding the idea espoused that his other contributions require opposition to the proposal, I add that should he only be topic banned, there's plenty of other topics within WP awaiting the editors contributions. Respectfully, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose* IRWolfie-,first of all thanks for letting me know on my talk page about this discussion.Actually I am travelling and not able to log in regularly to edit wikipedia's articles.You mentioned my name in the discussion,that is not problem for me.But problem is that how much eager are the one chain of editors to be blocked an editor. Anupam is not only valuable but also a good editor to patrol monopolies and WP:Own,I do realy not see the grounds to be blocked from editing or editing religious articles.I would like to show a mirror that makes me surprised This,and on talk page of Atheism, where Tiderolls noticed, That. After Dominus Vobisdu, you immeddiately placed edit warring tag,here, it was not legitimate reason to notice me after two reverts. I consider it is WP:Hound and WP:Own. Any Consensus as the policy I have to accept,but I realy will not it recognised as a real concept of the wikipolicies on the demand of one chain of editors. There should not be applied "blocked" rule, untill fair and unrelated editors consensus is there,I think. I have not much time to discuss it in detail,sorry.(It was my comment but using now for vote. God bless you all. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment:I demand that the unproven accusation of sockpuppetry and "and so on" be removed. This constitutes a personal attack. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Bobrayner: maybe you should work on controlling your own edit warring tendencies before accusing others [173].– Lionel ^(talk) 05:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, the report you linked to resulted in page protection, not sanctions. Below, you've indicated repeatedly that Anupam has not edit warred because he hasn't been blocked. Are you being genuine here, or are you just trying to start fights so as to derail the thread? You can't claim Anupam hasn't edit warred on some bogus criteria you made up, but then ignore that criteria to claim other editors have. Read the diffs in that report if you're going to cite it; 3 of the 5 reverts came from another editor, not Bobrayner. Anupam's history of edit warring, on the other hand, is abundantly clear; frankly, it's a wonder he hasn't been blocked.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Lionel was unaware that that 3RR noticeboard report was a pre-emptive measure filed by an edit warrior who was a few reverts ahead of me, after I'd given them a talkpage warning. An edit-warrior who was stripping well-sourced content out of an article because only a subset of the sources fitted their POV. Such tactics will surely be familiar to any editor close to anupam. How was this thread started? (Also, even if the tu quoque were accurate, it would still be a fallacy). As for the sockpuppetry, the diffs speak for themselves. bobrayner (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Is it harmless editing or further evidence of a crusade? Make up your own mind. bobrayner (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What? User:Conservative is not my account; I am User:Anupam. If you noticed my words there (one, two) you would find comments that accurately characterizes me, as espousing neutrality. I am not responsible for what others post on my talk pages. User:Bobrayner, congratulations on trying to frame me here. Not only did you open a topic ban thread which was worded non-neutrally, you've outright lied about my contributions and have made accusations without evidence. --Anupam^Talk 12:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I see neutral has a different meaning on conservapedia, neutral includes your creation of and massive work on "Atheism and the suppression of science". I see a friendly Conservepdia admin appears to have wiped nearly all of the edit history of your talk page, including the rather conspiratorial message that was left by User:conservative. good thing it's still cached here: [174]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Anupam makes valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and I think it is pretty clear even in this discussion that he is very civil. I have had problems with editors in the past, but never with Anupam. I can't even say I ever had an ideological dispute with him. (BTW, I am atheist). AFAIK, Anupam has contributed to Wikipedia for years on a wide variety of topics. Unfortunately, I have seen a similarly valuable and dedicated editor be banned altogether from Wikipedia before, even as vandals get off scot-free. I don't want to have to see that again. I am sure that Anupam has good intentions here. I don't really understand why some users seem to have a problem with him, or why they feel so sure that they should not continue to assume good faith as (if I remember correctly) Wikipedia absolutely requires. Frankly, I think trying to topic-ban an editor like Anupam is a waste of time. In the amount of time it takes to argue for such a ban, you could instead fight vandals or actually try to improve the encyclopedia's content. --Kuaichik (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Kuaichic, thanks for returning to wikipedia. I notice that the last time you edited anything other than your userpage was in 2009. What brought you to this thread? Did somebody ask you to defend anupam? There have been concerns about canvassing in previous debates involving anupam, so - alas! - suspicions are inevitable. bobrayner (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have been following Atheism for a long period and have noticed Anupam's methodology, which has been accurately summarized above. Some people are not able to be neutral about some topics, and a formal parting would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Conduct problems on these issues are recurrent on wikipedia and this suggestion seems the sensible way forward. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with additional conditions for copyvios After looking through the contribution history it is clear that this topic ban is required, albeit a very lenient approach. I'd like to add that any copyvio/close paraphrase/plagiarism that follows should be dealt with by escalating blocks, the third or fourth of which ought to be indefinite. It is also disingenuous to claim that Anupam is not disruptive because he's civil, we're here to build an encyclopaedia not have a jolly good conversation over tea and crumpets, the disruption is in the quality of content and passive aggressive behavior. The canvassing concerns are even visible on this topic ban proposal. —SpacemanSpiff 08:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, clearly a pattern of persistent tendentious and problematic editing. Whether or not it regularly crosses the line into plagiarism or not, it is still piss-poor writing. We can do without editors who have both obvious ideological agendas and such a poor grasp of academic writing, messing up our most intellectually high-profile and most sensitive articles, such as Religion or Atheism, in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as second preference, also support community ban as first preference. The longer this thread goes on the longer I get the feeling that there is some serious meatpuppetry going on here. This entire scenario is setting my spidey-sense tingling. It reminds me far too much of the Polish-Russian ethnic warfare of 2007-2010 that culminated in the Eastern European mailing list case, and also of the Hindutva brigades of Rama's Arrow and other cases. The effortless coordination of bona fide accounts and SPAs is really suspicious, and absolutely typical of what we have come to expect in these kinds of cases. I really, really think this seemingly Conservapedia-based editing is being coordinated through some kind of off-site forum or mailing list. I could of course be wrong, and accounts like Turnsalso (talk · contribs) may be simple sockpuppets, either of Anupam or somebody else, but that doesn't change the overall picture here that much. Either way, I think I've seen enough that the presumptions of good faith I would usually extend are rapidly disappearing. I think it's time to purge this hornet's nest with fire. Moreschi (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well Moreschi you figured it out. Yes, I am a meatpuppet. A puppet for Lionelt. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as a prelude to a community ban if they can't get their act together in the spirit of WP:ROPE. This user is nominally civil, but their contributions are horrid. Take a look at their editing at The Hunger Games (film), where they cherry picked one phrase out of a quote to support a single interpretation which vastly misrepresented the source. This is par for the course, and Anupman has totally failed to acknowledge that there is any sort of problem whatsoever with their constant plagiarism and agenda-driven editing. The fact that they seem to have a small group of supporters that come out of the woodwork at any criticism of their editing makes me question how effective this will be.eldamorie (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with extension, would also support a community ban. I lack confidence that habitual plagiarists will change their ways, but if Anupam wants to become a better researcher and writer, he should work on that somewhere other than Wikipedia. The ideologically motivated editing is an even stronger reason for him to go elsewhere, and as Moreschi says this thread is making me highly suspicious that there's sock- and/or meatpuppetry going on. So my preference would be that Anupam leave Wikipedia entirely, but if that's not going to happen he should be restricted from atheism/religion articles, where he seems to be causing the biggest problems. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - After looking at all of the diffs presented, it seems clear that Anupam has not only a problem with plagiarism but an inability to see that he is misrepresenting sources to push his POV. I think it's a little odd that somone who is unfailingly polite gets to exhibit IDHT behavior for years, disruptively; if Anupam had ever showed any aggression or incivility in his comments, his block log would not be so clean. Being civil is not a license to be academically dishonest (even if it's not deliberate). Chillllls (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• 'Comment: Unfortunately, an administrator on conservapedia has hidden some of the evidence since it was mentioned here. Anupam can always count on support from certain editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the page has been deleted today (deletion log)--В и к и T 19:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

One again, User:Bobrayner and User:Wikiwind, both participants of this RfC/content dispute, in which they held a viewpoint different from mine among many others', misrepresent me. If you care to look at the context of the situation, see Bobrayner's talk page. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment For those users who deny any partisan interest here, refer to the comments of User:Bobrayner, the individual who opened the proposal to ban me: "I thought that incessant lying and manipulation and cheating were considered bad things in christianity? Speaking as an atheist, I hate that shit; but they seem to be standard tools in your crusade." User:Nomoskedasticity, also states: "Did you actually just use a FoxNews slogan as an argument? Oh, I get it -- you're trying to mock that version of oppose arguments. Well done." The intolerance for individuals who disagree with their viewpoints is atrocious. User:Youreallycan really hit the nail on the head here (by the way, thank you for your comments, User:Youreallycan). User:Bobrayner, User:Mann jess, and others here are creating a Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND by trying to ban me for disagreeing with their viewpoint in this RfC/content dispute. Being of Indian origin, I am exposed to the viewpoints of many religions and views (Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, Sikhism, etc.) and respect individuals views. In real life, many of my friends are atheists, as well as adherents of other religions. To want to ban me for "POV pushing" when I always discuss my edits, participate in RfCs and accept their outcome is inappropriate. Has anyone even bothered to look at the latest RfC I opened? I attempted to add a study in a five sentence paragraph which discussed an inverse correlation on religiosity and intelligence. I thought that adding one sentence from a study which demonstrated a direct correlation between religiosity and education would help balance the other five sentences, keeping the paragraph in line with WP:NPOV, as well as WP:DUE (since I only proposed adding one sentence). What do I get in return? I am accused of misrepresenting the source, cherry picking, etc. despite the fact that three mainstream media sources (CNN, Daily Mail, and CP) published a news story on the academic study, reporting the same facts that I did. Nevertheless, consensus was against me after the RfC and I did not protest or anything. Like usual, I accepted the outcome of the RfC. Now, I am being banned for simply discussing an addition. This kind of behavior is not only unjust, but it is outright hurtful. Yes, I realize that I should have done a better job of paraphrasing and I was willing to work on that. User:Bobrayner, et. al. however, thought it would be a good idea to ban me altogether. --Anupam^Talk 19:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This post once again illustrates the problem precisely. Anupam again repeats the falsehood that he "participate[s] in RfCs and accept[s] their outcome". Exporting unattributed content to another website to promote your point of view when an RfC goes against you is precisely not "accepting the outcome". This level of unrepentant misrepresentation is exactly the problem with your editing. aprock (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How is that relevant? If I wrote the content and wanted to preserve my work outside Wikipedia, that is acceptable. I never reverted the redirecting of the article at Wikipedia, which is what is relevant here. The article at Conservapedia now, and the article at Wikipedia, read the same. Moreover, there is no promotion of any point of view; I wrote the article in accordance with WP:NPOV, which is why the article includes a "Criticism of the term" section. When some editors tried to make the article favorable to a certain position, they were quickly reverted by myself. In addition, articles that I created here, such as Qaisar Bagh, are also featured there without any problem. I hope this addresses your point. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How is it relevant? Your response is a prime example of the problem here:

1. Exporting the content unattributed is a violation of wikipedia copyright.
2. You explicitly reject the outcome of the RfC here by asserting that the disputed content was neutral despite a clear consensus to the contrary.
3. You repeatedly refused to understand/accept a clear illustration of your POV pushing and disruptive editing.

Based on your response here, I suspect that a community ban is more appropriate than a topic ban. Continued unrepentant denial of disruptive editing is not the path to improving the project. aprock (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You state "Exporting the content unattributed is a violation of wikipedia." In response, I state, look at the attribution template on the talk page. You state "Yu [sic] explicitly reject the outcome of the RfC by asserting that the Conservapedia article represents NPOV." In response, I state when are editors required to agree with the outcome of an RfC? I simply must accept the outcome and let business on Wikipedia proceed as normal. You state "You repeatedly refused to understand/accept a clear illustration of your POV pushing and disruptive editing." I state that I have discussed any edits that I have made on this encyclopedia and open RfCs to gain the wider input of the community, and accept their outcome as I delineated above. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that attribution. Unsurprisingly, it violates Conservapedia's guidelines: Permitted: You are copying something that someone else wrote, with their explicit permission. Pushing your POV on wikipedia, and then exporting disputed content is disruptive. It doesn't matter how polite you are. That is not what wikipedia is for. aprock (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Most strongly oppose permanent topic ban or community ban. Weakly support two-week topic ban or more strongly support a general censure by administrators, with no strong action taken unless the behaviour continues in a disruptive manner. In my dealings with Anupam, he has been nothing but civil; he has a POV; so does everyone who either supports or opposes him, and, as I oppose as per virtually every oppose !vote above, I also add my voice to the sentiment, that this seems to be the effort of one, predominant POV, to censor another, less-predominant POV, using such policies as WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT as a WP:COATRACK or clothing: but The Emperor Has No Clothes. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded dozens of fair use and public domain files and even with my exposure I still get confused with the myriad of copyright laws and relevant WP policies. CC-BY-SA, GNU, PD-NO-NOTICE... Anupam cannot be faulted for making an attribution error. He is not an attorney. So stop with this ridiculous obession with Conservapedia. I wonder if Conservapedia is being repeatedly invoked merely to stoke the rabid anti-Conservapedia sentiment against Anupam.– Lionel ^(talk) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I don't care about Anupam exporting stuff to Conservapedia. I don't care much about what junk gets written on Conservapedia at all, by him or anyone else. His history there shows a bias, sure, but who cares? What matters to me is his behavior here, which up to now has been deplorable. It matters to me when he tells me he's acting on consensus, only to find out later the consensus he referred to unambiguously opposed him and he assumed I wouldn't check. It matters to me when he tells me a source backs up a statement, but when I read it, the source isn't even on the right topic. It matters to me when he quotes one line from a source out of context, when its conclusion is in actuality entirely opposite. It matters to me when he gets into disputes and manipulates RfCs by votestacking, meatpuppetry and canvassing in order to improperly sway consensus. We all realize that, even here in this discussion, he posted requests to users who had previously supported him in past ANIs to come support him again, right? It matters to me when he plagiarizes after being warned. It matters to me when he doesn't listen to other editors, and then repeats the same arguments over and over in the hopes that new users to the discussion won't want to read through the mess to find out he's misrepresenting facts. It really matters to me that this tactic actually works. But it matters to me, above all else, that despite repeated warnings, from tenured editors and admins alike... despite multiple ANI cases, repeated reports, and even the strong, unwavering consensus here (formed from a plethora of users he's interacted with and brand new editors he's never before seen) that his behavior is out of line, he still can't admit he's done anything wrong; he's still touting the line that we're censoring his religion; he's still implying we're heartless atheist pov-pushers trying to quash dissenting opinions, and that's the only reason we're all ganging up on him. That is why a community ban is in order.

Lionelt, you and your group aren't doing him any favors. You're encouraging him to continue battling this out, rather than accepting the input he's getting from the community which may have allowed him to improve his editing under a topic ban and eventually return to his favorite articles. Because of your encouragement, he's demonstrated that he is unable or unwilling to accept criticism of his behavior and improve, which is why it appears he won't be afforded an opportunity to, for fear of continued damage to the encyclopedia. You can keep arguing about these atheist conspiracies if you want, but it hasn't swayed consensus yet, and it doesn't seem likely it ever will. I think it's time we let this back and forth between you and every other editor drop, and just let the community speak for itself.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: when Anupam speaks of "partisan interest" he may be referring to the kind of mindset displayed here by ArtifexMayhem above and moved here:

Crucifixion's a doddle. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 3:19 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

Was he baiting Anupam? Me? (In fact I bit on this one, but that's beside the point.) I think this post speaks volumes. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing of the sort. It is a quote from Monty Python's Life of Brian, Scene 16: Crucifixion: Could Be Worse... and was, in its original placement, simply a humorous response to your comment claiming editors "...have lined up here to crucify Anupam..." and that "This is nothing more than a crucifiction: an attempt to censor an editor who has successfully been neutralizing the rampant pro-atheist POV." Obviously a failed attempt on my part and for that I apologize.

Of course you did have the option of assuming good faith and asking me to clarify or even strike the comment. Instead you decided to use it as an excuse to make a direct personal attack against me and my kind of "mindset".

So yes, I agree, your post does speak volumes. Reams in fact. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mann jess is also misrepresenting the situation again. He states that "we're heartless atheist pov-pushers trying to quash dissenting opinions, and that's the only reason we're all ganging up on him," demonstrating a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. He also states that "he's still touting the line that we're censoring his religion." User:Mann jess, please be straight with me. When have I ever said that? I would appreciate if you could tell me the answer to my question right now, and provide a diff. If you cannot provide one, I expect you to apologize and explain to me why you are trying to put words into my mouth. What I did assert was that there was a genuine content dispute in which you and I held different viewpoints. Please don't misrepresent me in order to further your agenda to have me banned here. Rather, please be honest. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to use Qaisar Bagh as an example, then you're shooting yourself in the foot. It's an example of blatant copyright violation.

Content from Anupam:

"Paintings and photographs of the Qaiserbagh gardens taken before 1857 indicate that the main quadrangle, which was the heart of the palace complex, had an elaborate charbagh"

Content from the source

"A study of paintings and photographs of the Kaiserbagh gardens taken before 1857 indicate that the main quadrangle, which was the heart of the palace complex, had an elaborate charbagh"

You were already asked in July 2011 to check your contributions for such copyvios, but you chose to ignore it. And now, you're talking about these copyvios as good contributions. That even now you don't seem to care about these problems and are in fact defending them as good contributions is very concerning. —SpacemanSpiff 08:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've marked the article for copyvio check as I can't access one online source and one offline source. —SpacemanSpiff 08:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I received a DYK for that work demonstrates that it was already checked by several others for these things. Rather than blanking my contributions, you easily could have added quotation marks around the sentence in question. Also please provide me the diff where you asked me to check that article. I do not ever recall being asked to do so. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 15:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've provided the diff earlier, it's pretty much a lost cause if you can not hear anything and continue in this manner, so I see nothing better than a full community ban here.—SpacemanSpiff 16:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You provided a diff for the article on Kashmir, not Qaisar Bagh, which received a DYK. I do not know why you are not being honest here. I am willing to help correct the Qaisar Bagh article and I admitted that I was wrong in the plagiarism issue several times throughout this thread. I stated that I was willing to work with a group of administrators and mentors on this issue. --Anupam^Talk 16:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn the meaning of honest and dishonest before bandying those words about. That diff had a message to you asking you to check and correct your past contributions, something you refuse to acknowledge or act on. Quite the contrary, you are showing this blatant copyvio as an example for a good contribution and instead trying to deflect the problem on others. If we can not get you to understand this, then no amount of mentoring is going to help and it's a waste of productive editors' time. —SpacemanSpiff 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support (second choice) - Primary support is for full community ban (see below), but support topic ban as alternative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I've long been concerned about Anupam's often bordering-on-tendentious editing style. This seems like a highly reasonable solution to that problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with extension. Would also be more than willing to act a statement to the effect of a community ban will occur if further copyright violations take place, here or elsewhere. While Anupam is largely civil in his interactions with others, his conduct in general in my eyes raises to the level of making this called for. We are here as per WP:PILLARS to build an NPOV encyclopedia, and the evidence above raises questions in my mind as to whether or not Anupam shares that principle. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with extensions as a minimum measure - for an indefinite duration (minimum of 1 year). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Anupam conduct does not merit a topic ban.Pectore^talk 00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per John Carter[175] and the other 25 supporting !votes above. We are here to build an encyclopedia based on the best sources available. Full stop. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I have had limited interaction with Anupam. I do have concerns with him POV pushing and IDHT, and moreso about a posse with other editors. But, I can only hope that the other commenters, here, are not trying to silence him because they disagree with him. The clash of ideas among editors is good for the project -- it produces a better product. I think Anupam needs to realize that combating opposite POV pushing is not a matter of winning, its a matter of properly weighting reliable sources in consensus with other editors. Sometimes, the consensus will be wrong but its how we operate and compromise is necessary. If the consensus is wrong, in time, it will be corrected, if we believe in the process that reasonable people can reason together, and in an open wiki all things change. I know the "in time" thing is hard but it hopefully gets you through the day to make the Project better, where you can. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support A lot of talk for a basic problem, if the user has continually plagiarized, that is not acceptable and was done without regard for any of the project's goals. The more perplexing issue is the constant POV-pushing that is overt and subtle, but nonetheless, just as damaging. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
• Oppose As already outlined clearly by a number of editors above, Topic ban is not a way to end content disputes or disagreements, and this case certainly does not deserve one.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support but as second option to total ban. Any topic ban would have to be very broadly construed, as his actions on Thanksgiving match the details of civil POV pushing listed above. DreamGuy (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The above editor has engaged in some obvious canvassing regarding this thread [176], and is proposing to create an ideologically driven editing bloc, since Anupam is "on the way out (and perhaps Lionel and others...)." In his canvass-note to editors hostile to Anupam he wrote: "we should renew activity to prevent religious bias from being entered into that article" and "we can get even more editors interested in a Thanksgiving article free of ultra-right wing religious talking points."

    We can't ignore the fact that many of Anupam's critics, not all, have had contentious interactions with him at about 5 RFCs. The closing admin must take into account the large number of non-neutral parties participating here. Is this a case where a substantiated case of plagiarism has degenerated into situation where the losing side of content disputes has shown up crying "civil-POV-pushing?" The above editor attempted to create a lynch mob to come here and take Anupam out. Non neutral !voters should be weighed against their past acrimonious exchanges with Anupam.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Lionelt, instead of accusing the other editors, why don't you try to explain/defend accusations raised against Anupam? I believe this thread is about discussing Anupam's editing/behavior. If you read this thread, there are many unanswered questions raised for you as well. Regards. -Abhishikt (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support permanent topic ban. Because this is not an attempt to shut someone you disagree with. This is an editor misbehaving in several manners, preventing improvements to a set of articles, or making them worse. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Anupam's behaviour is disrupting the writing activity. Anupam has refused to stop after being asked many times. Anupam has refused to acknowledge any problems with his edits, his use of sources, or the timing of his supporters. I have no idea how you can construct this to be a content dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Jess rightly pointed out that there are only 2 options on the table. The main issue here is plagiarism. The POV objections are in fact content issues and the complainants for the most part are the very editors who disagree with Anupam.

Therefore I propose that:

1. Anupam must acknowledge that plagiarism damages the encyclopedia
2. A special mentor be assigned to review his editing
3. Anupam shall review every edit going back 1 year and correct any plagiarism and close paraphrasing and give a full report to the special-mentor
4. Anupam will be placed on discretionary sanctions for 6 months where any admin may issue escalating blocks without warning in cases of plagiarism. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

2 options pointed out by Jess were - a community ban or a topic ban. As per that, I suppose you should change this proposal to community ban. -Abhishikt (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Addresses the real problem: plagiarism. Sidesteps the political vendetta. Overall, fair, and balanced. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I understand with clarity that I have broken the plagiarism policy at Wikipedia. For me, the problem should be to avoid close paraphrasing, even if I provide a reference. In line with the above proposal, User:Moreschi suggested the alternative of working with a group of administrators to monitor my work. Most of individuals who voted above in support of a topic ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC and differed from mine and many others' view there. As such, this is a content dispute and I feel I should not be blocked for holding different views than these editors. I have created countless articles (e.g. Works of Piety, Qaisar Bagh) and have contributed to many more since 2006, never having been blocked. In addition, I am the editor for the newspaper of WikiProject Christianity, Ichthus. Moreover, I have helped several new editors out with editing the encyclopedia. Whenever there are content disputes, I take the time to discuss the issue, and start an RfC to gain input from the community if the dispute is unresolved. I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well. I know that many users here do appreciate my work and I would miss editing my favorite topics, as well as the friends that I have made here too. I recognize the close paraphrasing/plagiarism issue now and hope that I can improve in this area by working with administrators. I also would look forward to being assigned a mentor to review my edits. I also sincerely apologize for these actions and to the editors that have been hurt by my actions. I hope that the community will have compassion on me and will give me the opportunity to improve. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The plagiarism is one of the the main issues, along with POV pushing, edit warring, cherry picking... This proposal fails to address issues other than plagiarism. I've never seen that a user whose topic ban is debated, comes to ANI and actually votes to oppose his own topic ban. This "vote" is just another proof of manipulative tactics he uses to obstruct consensus and impose its views. This is hilarious.

But, I'm willing to support both, topic ban and this proposal.--В и к и T 03:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; plagiarism is not the main problem. Plagiarism certainly is a Bad Thing, but it's just one of the tools used in anupam's crusade. The crusade as a whole should be stopped, rather than just blocking off one of the tools used and turning a blind eye to the rest. Did lionel look at the diffs before making this proposal? A topic ban would stop the plagiarism and all the other bad stuff too. bobrayner (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It's unfortunate that anupam still claims "I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well" when there is clear evidence of the opposite; and that anupam's comments here fail to address the main problem whilst pretending it's a mere content dispute. Nobody's proposing a topic ban for having a different POV; the topic ban is to stop deception, plagiarism, distortion, sockpuppetry, and so on. Would anupam like some more diffs? I realise the previous set of diffs was written off as a personal attack, but I think that evidence should always be given a second chance. bobrayner (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on two fronts: first, plagiarism is a serious issue and the fact that this has been going on so long unchecked despite repeated attempts to clarify this with Anupam leads me to believe that this would be completely ineffective, especially if that mentor where to have any relationship to the normally reasonable editors who can't seem to view Anupam uncritically. Second, plagiarism is not the only issue - there is a massive problem with misuse of sources that is pretty typical of the Conservapedia editing style - without a topic ban Anupam runs the danger of doing significant damage to the encyclopedia. eldamorie (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I do not think Anupam could cause further problems if this proposal is enacted. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose #2 as a timesink which is unlikely to address the more serious issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Fully support - addresses the real problem (close paraphrasing and plagiarism) without using it as a coatrack for "tyranny of the majority" or POV-pushing of another sort; remember what they say, "two wrongs maketh not a thing right". St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This would be huge waste of admin's efforts as Anupam exhibits WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT(which is proved again in this thread). -Abhishikt (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Honeypot

Out of interest, is there an easily enumerable list of editors who have an identifiable record of rote defense (particularly out of the blue) for Anupam? Given the abundance of evidence presented it stands to reason that the admin corps should be watching the lot of them for future incidents even after Anupam's well-deserved topic ban. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this not a recurrent problem with certain wikiprojects, which has been discussed on several occasions? Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Mathsci yes, it is. Regarding Chris' inquiry, I'd rather not list names at this time. If this behavior continues after sanctioning individual users, we may have to reopen the issue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

List your names and the violations related to the accounts or move along - this sort of opinionated blabber is nothing more than that - Youreallycan 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, do list your names. aprock (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

All of the users that have large contributions to the topic and associated articles - they are all involved and opinionated and conflicted - unlike the posts above I am not looking for any administrative action against these users just that uninvolved editors are aware that such a conflicted commentary is possible in this report.Youreallycan 21:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As I have pointed out before, most of the users who wish to ban me held the position I did not support in this RfC/content dispute. Bobrayner (talk · contribs), Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs), Mann jess (talk · contribs), ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs), Abhishikt (talk · contribs), Wikiwind (talk · contribs), and eldamorie (talk · contribs), among others, all participated in that content dispute, and voted to "support" the splitting of the article (which never occurred by the way; the article was simply deleted, redirected and none of the content was ever moved). Coincidentally (or not), the same group of editors, magically showed up at this RfC, where they all coincidentally (or not) voted for the same Draft (Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) IRWolfie- (talk · contribs), Mann jess (talk · contribs), Abhishikt (talk · contribs), et al.). These individuals consistently all edit the same series of articles, demonstrating a partisanship here. The refusal to acknowledge that many of the individuals here hold a POV in what is actually a content dispute is outrageous and will jeopardize the policy of WP:NPOV that this encyclopedia should uphold. --Anupam^Talk 21:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, resent the implication that ideology has anything to do with this. Consider that groups of people with similar issues are likely to edit the same articles on Wikipedia - it's not evidence of any kind of partisan conspiracy. I'm not sure why I'm being accused of advocacy - especially since I did not participate in the Big Bang RFC that the "same" group of editors took part in. These so-called disputes are grossly overstated as well - in each case, consensus was overwhelmingly in support of the non-Anupam version - yet more evidence that this editor is a thinly-disguised POV-warrior. eldamorie (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam seriously. Stop reporting things you know to be false. I already pointed out how I came to that RFC in this very ANI discussion. And I voted against removing all mentions of religious implications. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Toilet bowl

I would also like to see a list of anti-Anupam editors who follow him around, get their asses beat at RFCs, and then run to ANI to get him censured. For all the accusations against editors who support Anupam, the editors who regularly criticize him have appeared here in record speed.

This effort to try to chill OPPOSE votes in this discussion by threatening enhanced scrutiny and review of contribution history, and challenging editors who support Anupam and calling them meatpuppets is a violation of AGF and is despicable. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There's something that amuses me a little bit about "is a violation of AGF" followed immediately by "is despicable." Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"for every 1 pro-Anupam editor, there are 2 anti-Anupam editors following him around trying to destroy him" is not a violation of AGF? You are assuming that everyone supporting the topic ban are "following him around trying to destroy him". As far as I am aware I have had no previous interaction with Anupam. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, "Toilet bowl" as a header? Really? Perhaps you should back off for a moment before commenting further on this case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Kevin: as a card-carrying member of the Department of Fun it is my job to be amusing.

@Saddhiyama: in the edit sum I did not suggest that "everyone" supporting topic ban is trying to destroy him. "Back off"? Not when I'm on a roll... Not when I have so much to say and unlimited diskspace in which to say it... – Lionel ^(talk) 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you are on a roll; How about addressing some of the pretty damning diffs shown of Anupam's behaviour. None of your comments in this ANI threads have addressed that. How about clarify how editing "atheistic articles from a Christian perspective" is a positive thing? Edit: I see Lionel is otherwise occupied on the liberal bias which is Global warming [177] IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, IRWolfie, if you think my purpose here is to answer to your beck and call you are sadly mistaken. I edit what and where I want to edit. I check my watchlist when I damn well feel like checking my watchlist. And if I don't jump high enough or fast enough for you, well aint that a shame. When you start signing my paycheck, then you can write BS like the above. Until then, get off my back. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for assuming good faith, lionel! It would be nice if we could move away from tribal allegiances and actually make decisions based on evidence. I have no intention to destroy an editor with an opposing POV (I disagree with lots of other editors in lots of other areas); I merely wish to stop the pov-pushing crusade of deception, plagiarism, and cheating. Rather than making this a partisan thing, perhaps we could discuss the problematic diffs? It would be good to look at the evidence. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello Lionel...? Are you there? I was kinda hoping we could discuss the evidence of long-term deception, plagiarism, sockpuppetry, abuse of sources &c without it being reframed as a partisan battle. When you're "on a roll" and "have so much to say and unlimited diskspace in which to say it", perhaps you could take a little time off from kneejerk defence of anupam and spare a little time for the evidence? I can bring lots more diffs if you'd like. If this section is only here to sling insults and ignore the actual problem editing, maybe I should just hat it instead. Would you like to discuss some of the evidence, Lionel? bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • H_e_l_l_o B_o_b... Let me ask you something. Do I appear to be some kind of wikigeek? Is this the kind of vibe that I give off? You know, one of those guys who clicks "my watchlist" every 30 seconds, edits for days at a time sucking down cases of Pit Bulls to stay awake, eats nothing but Pringles and pees into an empty Pepsi liter bottle so they never have to leave the keyboard? Well I am not that guy. I edit when I feel like it. Questions????

But to your point. I am eager to discuss the so called evidence of alleged issues. Post what you think is the most egregious trangression and I'll help you to understand how ludicrous this whole thing is. Go ahead, give me your best shot... Bob... – Lionel ^(talk)

If you're eager to discuss it, then please do. Various editors have posted diffs which show a prolonged pattern of disruptive behavior. You are free to discuss any. You do not need anyone's permission to discuss them. If you're looking for a specific place to start, you could take another shot at discussing the edit warring over a span of 2 years described here: [178]. The last time you tried to discuss it, you changed the subject to blocks. aprock (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, if you say you're short of time, I sympathise - I completely understand that you made many lengthy posts defending an ideological ally, and trying to change the subject, and insulting opponents, but didn't have time to actually look at the evidence. This is just a convenient subset of diffs. There are other sets if you want them. Since there seems to have been some difficulty reading any of the many diffs presented above, I won't hat this list - don't want to create any further obstacles.

• 21:00, 27 June Turnsalso account is created at a time when anupam really needs support; somebody else has proposed splitting up anupam's essay.
• 21:37, 27 June Turnsalso turns their userpage link from red to blue.
• 22:05, 27 June Turnsalso !votes "Keep; oppose split", just as Anupam had. It's their first ever talkspace edit, but nonetheless Turnsalso has a precocious understanding of wikipedia markup and policy. and does so in an edit only 5 minutes from an anupam edit. I wish I'd known how to do piped links to policy pages the first time I used a talkpage!
• 22:14, 27 June After that single edit, Anupam swiftly finds the new user and turns their red talkpage link blue, though they have not extended that courtesy to any other users in the last year.
• In only an hour, Turnsalso has got bluelinks and looks like a bona fide editor! (When I was a newbie, it took far longer) The proposal was subsequently closed as "no consensus" by Fountainviewkid, whose pov-pushing on christian subjects earned a barnstar from lionel but warnings and blocks from the rest of the community.
• 01:35, 6 July Turnsalso starts their second talkpage session: Opposing reforms suggested by Dannyno / Liberal Classic. Anupam, coincidentally, holds the same opinion. This new editor confidently cites lots of policies - the same ones used by Anupam. It's not obvious because they don't edit in the same places, but anupam edits and turnsalso edits are typically about 2 minutes apart in this editing session.
• 05:32, 8 July Lionelt gives the sockpuppet a warm welcome; inviting them to join WikiProject Conservatism. Turnsalso hasn't actually edited any "conservative" articles, or written any content at all, but they *did* vote the right way in an RfC.
• 03:22, 13 July Anupam adds the Burkeman ref. JimWae makes some changes.
• 08:07, 13 July Apparently dissatisfied with JimWae's changes, Anupam adds the Burkeman ref back in a second time. (There are now two refs in close proximity using the same long quote)
• 08:29, 13 July Anupam reverts the distinctive double Burkeman ref back into the article.
• 18:07, 13 July Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did.
• 18:07, 13 July Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did.
• 18:49, 13 July Turnsalso returns to the talkpage making a similar argument to Anupam. One minute after that, Anupam edits the article, then a few minutes later Anupam adds a comment below Turnsalso.
• 19:40, 13 July Anupam makes a controversial revert; adding swathes of disputed text back into the article - and removing an NPOV tag amid a controversy over NPOV.
• 20:03, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert.
• 20:16, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert again, and is now on the 3RR threshold.
• 18:21, 14 July Anupam creates a separate section demanding that Man jess revert certain other edits.
• 18:29, 14 July Anupam's habit of reverting is causing some strife on the talkpage. With perfect timing, Turnsalso is here to help, saying that they will "revert until the issue is settled".
• 18:32 14 July Turnsalso comes to the rescue again! Their second edit to the article is a revert to anupam's preferred version - despite the fact that there have been several intervening edits.
• 18:36, 14 July Turnsalso now goes to the new separate section created by anupam, and seconds their proposal that man jess revert, a mere 15 minutes after it was made. Others are not so keen to support. Turnsalso's edit timestamps continue to coincide closely with anupam's.
• 14:14, 15 July Another editor raises concerns about sockpuppetry.
• 17:47, 15 July For turnsalso, reverting Mann Jess' edits is more important than dealing with sockpuppetry concerns.
• 18:01, 15 July Turnsalso opposes reforms proposed by Peter S Strempel.
• 20:19, 15 July Turnsalso turns up to support Anupam on the Man Jess thing. Apologises for being late to arrive - less than an hour after anupam's comment (though anupam has been editing elsewhere in that interval).
• 03:25, 20 July Turnsalso is back on the talkpage, supporting anupam. There's a slightly larger gap here, with an hour and a half between anupam's and turnsalso's edits, which is very high by their standards but would be rather low if you'd compared two random unrelated editors.
• Abhishikt and peaceloveharmony propose a new lede without all the usual stuff that anupam wants. Needless to say, anupam opposes. Turnsalso dutifully opposes a little later.
• 20:49, 26 July: Anupam makes an alternate proposal for the lede which is basically the same thing that anupam has kept in their lede all along. Just to make the votes clear, they add an extra support of their own beneath it. Unfortunately, the votes don't go how anupam would like; [179] 15 minutes after the fourth oppose, turnsalso arrives to support anupam.
• 23:43, 18 August Turnsalsos directly supports anupam's quest to add in multiple refs, as though many trivial mentions make a grand concept. Just as with anupam, WP:V is used repeatedly; who cares about NPOV or synth?
• Anupam cites a contrived "consensus" and, supposedly, administrative support for keeping anupam's preferred wording. All those people who disagree should keep quiet because anupam has The Consensus. A few minutes later, turnsalso arrives to provide unflinching support for the "consensus". As usual, anupam's and turnsalso's editing sessions overlap, and edits are separated by a few minutes.
• IRWolfie points out an obvious synth problem. An uninvolved editor agrees. Anupam defends their preferred wording. 16 minutes later, Turnsalso is there to support anupam.
• 19:33, 25 August After JimWae makes a series of suggestions, turnsalso disagrees with each point in turn, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution. Anupam then arrives, disagreeing with each of jimWae's points, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution.
• Anupam makes another proposal for the lede, and again adds their own support vote. When support from others starts to waver, Turnsalso is on hand to help! Only half an hour after the first oppose, turnsalso supports.
• 21:04 25 August Caught out, turnsalso concedes that there might actually be different flavours of militant atheism which do different things, but insists that they're conceptually related; anupam would be proud.
• 23:27, 12 September Turnsalso defends anupam's article against yet another person's concerns of pov-pushing and synth. Also refers to administrative declarations on content (but only when they favour the status quo; other admins in the discussion are not mentioned), which is a rather quirky interpretation of policy shared only by anupam.
• 16:06, 16 September Two minutes after anupam's last edit, turnsalso supports anupam against concerns raised by JimWae.
• 18:01, 17 September Turnsalso's third edit to the article; removing an unsourced word.
• 02:25, 20 September 190.92.44.9 makes exactly the same revert that Anupam has made. The revert is repeated at 02:47 and 02:53. This IP address has never edited any other article but nonetheless helps anupam escape 3RR.
• 05:46, 20 September: 190.53.90.122 makes exactly the same revert. Again, this IP has never edited any other article. Anupam is very lucky that anonymous editors have appeared from thin air to pretend anupam's preferred version of the article against the hordes of dissenters.
• Anupam repeatedly praises these editwarring IPs as two additional voices in anupam's support - always pretending that they are completely new people, rather than an existing editor who's logged out to avoid 3RR.
• 16:31, 20 September turnsalso supports Anupam's (and the IP address') reverts, for the same reason.
• 16:59, 20 September bobrayner creates a new section raising concerns about sockpuppetry.
• 40 minutes after turnsalso's last edit in their support, anupam appears to acknowledge the section about sockpuppetry, but then removes the heading, and bizarrely refactors other people's comments to bury the concerns in the middle of a busy thread on a different subject (although anupam's edit summary acknowledges it's a different subject) where the concerns would get much less attention. Needless to say, nobody else replies to this after it's been buried.
• 18:51, 20 September Turnsalso offers a "compromise" which is actually in line with anupam's previous position. Turnsalso's editing session coincides with that of anupam, who made an edit 1 minute earlier.
• 19:04, 20 September Anupam graciously accepts the compromise offered by turnsalso; it's only 5 minutes since turnsalso's last edit.
• 20:06, 21 September Turnsalso opposes the latest proposal, 18 minutes after anupam's lengthy opposition. As usual, editing sessions overlap.
• Finally, on 03 October, Lionelt offers more support on the sockpuppet's talkpage - because the sock has been through such a hard time, what with having to constantly support anupam's proposals and repeat anupam's reverts.

It must be painful to realise that one of your favourite editors is just a pov-pushing sock. Or did you know all along? bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lionel...? Are you there? I was kinda hoping we could discuss the evidence of long-term deception, plagiarism, sockpuppetry, abuse of sources &c without it being reframed as a partisan battle. When you're "on a roll" and "have so much to say and unlimited diskspace in which to say it", perhaps you could take a little time off from kneejerk defence of anupam and spare a little time for the evidence? I can bring lots more diffs if you'd like. If this section is only here to sling insults and ignore the actual problem editing, maybe I should just hat it instead. Would you like to discuss some of the evidence, Lionel? bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I would only advise Lionel that the "unlimited space" phrase around here refers to content for the encyclopedia. WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:TE apply to off-topic and gratuitously less-than-civil comments on noticeboards as well. About the only thing that I believe this subthred demonstrates is that Lionel is himself driven by POV in his edits here. If that is the case, then he should perhaps take a break from further off-topic, tendentious editing here, and perhaps limit his comments to those which actually deal with matters of substance regarding this discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Any opposition to community ban?

The only formal proposal above is a topic ban with a loosely worded extension. Yet, a large number of editors (including myself) have indicated either a preference or ambivalence to a community ban. I only recall seeing one editor whose preference was instead a TB. The thread has been open a while, so it may be best to simply discuss this concurrently instead of opening a new proposal. Does anyone have any opposition to a community ban at this time? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Totally excessive - hes a decent creator of articles - monitoring (as proposed above) is sufficient. Youreallycan 15:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support per my early comment in support of of the topic ban. I am sorry to say that I suspect a topic-ban will be wiki-lawyered and the wp:drama will continue. I would support an extended ban (as previously described) as my next recommendation, and a narrowly-defined topic ban as the least desirable option (but still better than no action). Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support: The situation is clearly hopeless. Anupam will never be able to be a constructive WP editor, as he has overiding conflicting priorities and a fundamentally dishonest personality. The fact that his disruptive editing has been allowed to continue so long is an embarrassment to the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that is an embarrassment to the project is partisan attacking comments like yours above (calling someones personality fundamentally dishonest - is a clear personal attack that you should be blocked for - you don't want to know what I think about your personality, and even if you did - WP:NPA would restrict me.) and threads like this one - attempting to blackball a contributory user rather than point them to assistance and refocus them to more beneficial area for contributing. - Youreallycan 16:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He's been here for 7 years... there have been numerous ANI reports, numerous warnings (from admins in many cases). There is clearly a problem, and he's clearly been given ample opportunities to improve. Above, he's still denying there's any issue at all, and instead insisting that this is an attempt to censor him due to his religion. If you think he can be "refocused" where these problems won't continue to arise, how would you propose we go about doing that?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a perfect explanation of the problem - every legitimate criticism about Anupam's editing get's reframed by his supporters as a partisan attack. This is not about ideology, this is largely about repeated failure to understand how to use sources, how to interpret sources, and how not to commit plagiarism, despite repeated attempts to instruct them in these issues, coupled with constant denial that there is even an issue until it looks like they will be blocked - but nothing ever changes. eldamorie (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I initially wavered, thinking a topic ban would be sufficient, but anupam's continued lies and continued refusal to accept the problems - instead trying to frame opposition as partisan - have made it clear to me that a community ban would be the better option. We need to stop the lies, the deception, the copyvio, and the distortion - and it's increasingly clear that only a community ban will achieve this. bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose any ban not specifically limited by an amount of time, I have explained my reasons in previous comments. In my opinion, having Anupam monitored (as proposed above) is enough to prevent further problems (since I do not see how he could edit in an unconstructive manner, while being constantly under the risk of blocking from those monitoring him). And since he has done useful contributions in the past, including new articles (such as Erasmus of Arcadia and Works of Piety), I believe he should be allowed to continue editing (at least at a specified date). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cody7777777 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

Strong oppose I agree with Cody7777777. Justice007 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: if we're going to community ban editors with clean block records who have bouts of plagiarism and been reported to 3RR a couple times the only editors who will be left are me, Cody and Jimbo. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC) And while I think the quality of the content would dramatically improve, the three of us would be hard pressed to serve the 365 million readers who come here looking for fair and balanced information.– Lionel ^(talk) 19:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Did you actually just use a FoxNews slogan as an argument? Oh, I get it -- you're trying to mock that version of oppose arguments. Well done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- really, as above, it's perfectly plain that we'll have continued disruption from this editor, so a stringent preventive action is necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I base this support purely on the behavior displayed in this ANI report. Anupam has repeatedly refused to accept community input on disruptive behavior, including repeated examples of WP:IDNHT in the sections above, and edit warring in this thread detailed below. There is little point in preferring a topic ban for Anupam when he feels that his only transgression is that he has occasionally plagiarized. aprock (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't like "voting" on these sorts of things, and I believe that Anupam means well on some level and that he's genuinely hurt by the prospect of sanctions. But to me, this is a classic case in which we should politely but clearly ask someone not to edit here.

  It's frankly maddening or impossible to deal with Anupam when it comes to disputed content. He edits (and reverts) at a very high volume; he doesn't listen to or engage others' arguments; much of his editing is transparently ideologically driven; and his use of sourcing is careless at best and outright dishonest at worst.

  In a best-case scenario, we would need to ensure that his edits undergo a careful and exhaustive outside review for plagiarism and misrepresentation of sources. But even when those behaviors are identified, it's a huge and exhausting uphill battle to get him to acknowledge them, much less correct them. We just don't have the excess of editorial time and effort to provide the oversight that Anupam has proven he needs.

  I know that view is distressing to Anupam, and I honestly regret causing him any anguish, but when it comes down it his editing really isn't a good fit for this project, in my opinion, and we're not doing him any favors by stringing him along further. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Biased and partisan contributions is the current standard position at en wikipedia - restricting any single user for such a claim is amusing to say the least. - Youreallycan 22:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to crack down a bit harder on partisan editing, but that's actually more of an afterthought in this particular case. I do think that Anupam's editing is profoundly ideological, but that's an aggravating factor, not the main basis for my view that he should be restricted. The main problems are 1) serial misuse of sources; and 2) the inability to engage others' arguments or concerns, which renders any serious effort at dispute resolution useless and leads me to believe that there is no real prospect for addressing issue #1. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Serial plagirism, NPOV editing, IDHT behavior, apologies without meaning because they're contradicted by subsequent behavior; what, exactly, are we giving up by banning this editor? Not much, I think. 22:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

You claim "Serial plagiarism, " but there are no blocks at all for that - you question "what, exactly, are we giving up by banning this editor?" - they have created many many articles. - Youreallycan 22:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can think of other editors who created many articles, yet also were disruptive in their editing. They, too, were ultimately banned, albeit after much consumption of other editors' time. Learning from the past is a good thing (and, sadly, the editor in question seems to not be able to do so. I also would note, again, that accusing those of !voting here of being biased against the editor or his supposed ideology is not a good thing. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Prefer TB + monitoring + possibly mentoring. SÆdon^talk 22:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support hitting Anupam and Lionelt with a frying pan, but more to the point, Anupam's lack of willingness to accept the issues, let alone change them, makes it seem that a ban would be the cleanest way out of this, especially considering how much time and effort has already been expended on the fellow, and how much more would be were other alternatives followed. What could the other editors be doing instead of dealing with all this drama? — Isarra ༆ 09:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Too much time IDHT on DR boards. An empty block log is not a validation of a user's long term pattern of contributions, rather it's a sign no individual edit has risen to the level of disruption required immediate preventative action. Nobody Ent 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A clear example where a Draconian solution is of no value. And of nugatory vslue to Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Anupam has made and continues to make valuable contributions to the Indian wikispace, a community ban would just make this space even more of a cesspool of single-purpose accounts. I also believe this discussion will likely spawn a change in behaviour and I would be happy to help any admins in offering Anupam constructive criticism in dealing with issues.Pectore^talk 13:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support as first choice His attitude towards copyright violation is perplexing to say the least and we can not expect him to clean the mess he's set up here, so I don't think there's much point in anything further now, all good faith with regards to his being cooperative etc have been eliminated. —SpacemanSpiff 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support repeated plagiarism, and misuse of sources to push a POV, combined with a complete inability to actually recognise the seriousness of the issues, suggest to me that Anupam is simply unsuitable as a Wikipedia contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of sources to push a POV? Or do you mean that by banning me, you can violate WP:NPOV by making unchecked edits such as this one? I suggest you re-evaluate your position and acknowledge your biases. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the continuous attempts to reframe everything as an adversarial POV battle where both sides are at fault, rather than face up to the serious and long-term policy violations by one editor, reflects more badly on you than on His Grumpiness. bobrayner (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose of community ban as per my above comments. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support I prefer topic ban, so that Anupam can continue contributing to the articles where his non-NPOV won't be an issue. But I won't object to community ban. -Abhishikt (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support reluctantly per Mastcell. Other editors who contribute positively without engaging in tendentious-style of editing end up leaving the article space due to sheer exhaustion. That is not helpful to the project, particularly when the source of the issue is what needs to be addressed. The project resources dedicated towards monitoring/mentoring would be seriously disproportionate to the amount and standard of work that needs to be done in the article space, and even after all of that, it seems like we are prolonging what is (likely to be) essentially inevitable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It's obvious that the answer to the question that people are responding to here is "Yes". HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support The conclusion is sad but inescapable: Anupam is here to push an agenda, with his grab-bag of polemical tricks. Wikipedia rules are just for getting around. Appeals and admonitions are for burying in thick creamy dollops of elaborate civility. Going back to the discussion on the suicide article above: "In light of these events, I will be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while." In other words: it's getting hot in here let's shut this down now. Presumably to return the with the same-old: plagarism, POV-pushing, source-mangling. Just in time, though, Lionel and co turn up to play nope-nothing-wrong-here tag, morale is restored and Anupam decides to tough it out with yet another round of La-La-La-Can't-hear-you-kind-sirs because all he's going to get is some absurdly unworkable topic ban to appeal/stretch/evade. I too, am aware that there are editors-for-hire operating here and that some unaccredited institutions give academic credits to students to contribute the house viewpoint to certain sites and blogs on religious and associated topics. But whatever it is that drives Anupam's dauntless devotion to his editing, it is such a shame that he will not, cannot, convert his zeal and abilities towards constructive contributions here. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support There is no excuse for plagiarism - especially not after the issues associated with it have been repeatedly explained. Lack of prior blocks is largely irrelevant as Anupam has gamed the system with their politesse - which should make it even more clear why a community ban is necessary. Far too much time has been wasted repairing the damage this editor has done. If we don't community ban editors who are so transparent about their purpose as editors - to advocate for a specific point of view to the expense of any sort of honest presentation of sources - then why do we even have the procedure? eldamorie (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support No sign that there will be any change. The editor already has a forum, that being Conservapedia. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
• Strong support. I initially opened this discussion to gauge opinions on the matter, not as a separate proposal. However, since then, Anupam's behavior on this very thread has worsened. His only recent contributions have been edit warring, accusing others of bad faith and bias, and IDHT denials of wrongdoing. If he can't keep his act together even during an ANI thread discussing sanctions, I don't see any hope of his behavior ever improving. I also see no hope of short-term resolution to these problems in light of the fact that he continually professes he's been right all along. Furthermore, his commitment to pleading for a definite time frame on any sanctions leads me to believe that he hopes to "wait it out", without his behavior improving. A topic ban of any duration will not resolve any of these problems, which only strengthens my support for an indefinite (not necessarily infinite) community ban. If Anupam can ever demonstrate that he understands the issues presented here, he may be allowed back at that time. Until then, he is simply unfit for our collaborative, academic setting, and allowing him to continue here will only serve to damage the encyclopedia and drive away productive editors.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As a note, I would like to point out that the behavior User:Mann jess refers to was done correctly. In fact, the reviewing administrator pointed out that User:Bobrayner was wrong in adding a false notice in every location where User:Cody7777777 commented; it surprises me that User:Mann jess does not speak out against this behavior. Or does it? User:Mann jess, like most of the users who showed up here within minutes, possibly due to off site canvassing by User:Bobrayer, took part in a content dispute/RfC in which he held the opposite position as mine. Like many other users have stated (e.g. Exhibit One, Exhibit Two, Exhibit Three), this is an attempt to get rid of a constructive editor in order that WP:NPOV might not be upheld. To the reviewing administrator, thank you for reading this comment. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, stop this. Seriously. You know full well how I got here. It's absolutely transparent that you're lying about others canvassing only to mask your actual canvassing. It's also funny that you are happy to revert the removal of entirely off-topic religious attacks with an edit summary like "don't delete the comments of others", but when it comes to people you disagree with, you'll delete their comments from ANI and revert repeatedly to keep them out, breaking 3rr in the process. These things are egregious alone, even without the other major issues, but I'm only describing the last 2 things you've done, inside this ANI thread alone! If you're going to blatantly lie to me and about me, then frankly I'm done responding to you. This behavior is deplorable. Honesty is not optional.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I understand with clarity that I have broken the plagiarism policy at Wikipedia. For me, the problem should be to avoid close paraphrasing, even if I provide a reference. User:Moreschi suggested the alternative of working with a group of administrators to monitor my work. Most of individuals who wish to ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC and differed from mine and many others' view there. As such, this is a content dispute and I feel I should not be blocked for holding different views than these editors. I have created countless articles (e.g. Works of Piety) and have contributed to many more since 2006, never having been blocked. In addition, I am the editor for Ichthus. Moreover, I have helped several new editors out with editing the encyclopedia. Whenever there are content disputes, I take the time to discuss the issue, and start an RfC to gain input from the community if the dispute is unresolved. I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well. I know that many users here do appreciate my work and I would miss editing my favorite topics, as well as the friends that I have made here too. I recognize the close paraphrasing/plagiarism issue now and hope that I can improve in this area by working with administrators, rather than being topic banned. I also sincerely apologize for these actions and to the editors that have been hurt by my actions. I hope that the community will have compassion on me and will give me the opportunity to improve. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• By "countless articles", I think you actually mean 47, of which 3 are currently at AfD, 1 is blanked as copyright violation, a number of others were just created as coatracks. Those numbers may change as other editors pay closer attention to your edits. Just for information, my count is 197, 0, 0, and 0 respectively. However, article creation is an irrelevance; it does not excuse the wide range of policy violations documented in this thread. bobrayner (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, in the light of the new evidence and the events at this thread itself, I'd support this too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Mastcell, Aprock and others. I did not support the community ban until now, but after all events here and especially Anupam's own comments, a support ban.--В и к и T 07:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I was initially only in favour of a topic ban, but this ANI thread has demonstrated a complete inability for Anupam to accept any problem with his editing and has instead tried to mis-characterize the whole thing as a content dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support The longer this thread goes on, the worse Anupam's behavior. Let's get this over with, already. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm right there with Akhilleus. a13ean (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support community ban. This editor has - in the service of a political agenda - acted with disregard of this site's core policies for years. His behavior in this trainwreck of a thread is an exponent of this disregard. Despite multiple instances of feedback and criticism he has not deviated from a battleground attitude. Skinwalker (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Anupam does not edit with Wikipedia's readers' best interest in mind. Rather, he edits to push an activist agenda. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Enough is enough: it is abundantly clear that nothing will change while this editor is able to use Wikipedia for POV promotion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support and long overdue. This editor is not here to work on an encyclopedia, this editor is here to push an agenda, clear and simple. And the people who magically show up to support him ought to be next up for discussion, as they exhibit the same behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This editor may be here to settle an old score. See [180]. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Anupam's plagiarism and abuse of sourcing is the issue here and so far the only defense has been egregious personal attacks and hyperbole. It's not a content dispute if you're not willing to discuss the actual content. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Two month ban

As Anupam has never been blocked or otherwise sanctioned before we shouldn't assume that a time limited block wouldn't work. 60 days is probably long enough to get his attention. Except in extreme cases indefinite bans should be reserved for cases when lesser measures have proven ineffective. At the expiry of his block Anupam should be informed that if he messes up again the next block will be for two years. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support If the community agrees that I have been disruptive, I will accept a ban for sixty days. I acknowledge that I have been wrong in some areas and will use the time off to reflect, and after the period has expired, I will be a productive editor. If I mess up again, I will be banned for two years. Thank you for giving me another opportunity. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: I am willing to extend a ban for more than two months if that is the desire of the community as long as a time period is specified, granted that I will be allowed to return as a full editor when that time is expired. Moreover, I am willing to have an administrator(s) or mentor(s) monitor me. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Regretfully, as too little, too late. I am reminded of other disruptive editors who, when cornered by an upcoming block or ban, agree to a short-term block followed by a promise of a longer-term (but not indefinite) block if they misbehave. Enforcing such "agreements" is no less time-consuming and angst-filled later than it is now. Finally, per Wikipedia:BAN#Duration_of_bans, "Bans are not intended as a short-term measure. Sometimes a ban may be for a fixed period of some months. More often no period is specified, because the ban is a decision that the editor may not edit or participate in the specified matters on this site". Respectfully, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:JoeSperrazza, what length would be acceptable for you? One year? Two years? Five years? I am willing to compromise on this issue if it is the community's decision that I should be either topic or community banned I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe an indefinite Community Ban is appropriate. Per Wikipedia:BAN#Appeals_and_discussions, an editor who has been Community banned can always appeal to the Arbitration Committee or to their talk page (assuming the latter is still available and has not been abused - I would think a repetition of the incivility and personal attacks shown by the editor and his/her supporters here in this discussion would lead to loss of talk page privileges, too). My concern with a time-limited ban is the likelihood it would lead to more bad behavior followed by yet another time consuming community discussion muddied by the kinds of discussions that have occurred here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Far too little. Indefinite or community are the only acceptable options, especially since it's clear from his responses on this page that he has no intention whatsever to cease his disruptive behavior. Sorry, but his apologies and promises to improve are insincere and empty. He clearly has an overiding POV mission that includes disruptive behavior like plagarism and sockpuppetry, and that is never going to change. It precludes him from being a productive editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a long-term problem which has defied previous attempts at resolution. A 60 day ban means that in 61 days the lies, distortion, and vote-stacking will ramp up again. Anupam has avoided sanctions before, because they have unquestioning support from certain editors, and anupam hasn't been blocked for editwarring because anupam knows exactly where the 3RR threshold is - and when they reach it, an IP address or SPA takes the reins and performs exactly the same reverts. That is not a reason for leniency. I'd rather not repeat drama-threads (like this thread); even if we charitably assume that the next batch of pov-pushing content gets fixed after another protracted RfC, it wastes the time of good editors and burns them out. bobrayner (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your concern of "and when they reach it, an IP address or SPA takes the reins and performs exactly the same reverts" can be conveniently dealt with through the current sockpuppet identification process. If he uses socks during this ban, then he likely does not have the requisite good faith to use Wikipedia and can be banned then.Pectore^talk 13:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

When I first presented evidence of sockpuppetry, it was repeatedly removed by anupam's favourite administrator; and supporters could appear like magic. In future, assuming anupam remained at large - well, even if an SPI doesn't get shut down prematurely by somebody who got an urgent email, an SPI only adds one thing beyond the already-visible diffs - a checkuser. I'm sure anupam has sufficient wit to use a different IP and user-agent string, in which case a checkuser result is likely to be a technical negative, and anupam gains another defensive asset (ie. "I was exonerated so all those diffs are a baseless personal attack"). bobrayner (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - A long wikibreak should give him enough time to digest the material presented here in a constructive manner.Pectore^talk 13:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Although, as I said before, I believe monitoring Anupam is enough, a temporary ban is more reasonable than an indefinite ban. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - simply getting his attention (which you already have) doesn't really address the problem. It's merely a start, and frankly, that's insufficient at this point in time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban on the basis of anything but copyvio. I have not only contempt for Conservapedia and its standards, but a feeling of utter disgust at the trends in American life that have brought it into being and that are expressed there (unless, of course, it is, as some have suggested, a parody site). Since my view on most subjects with which he is concerned is entirely opposite to his, I can not possibly support banning him based on his POV editing in these issues, either as a topic ban or a community ban. I think the only people who can !vote to do so without being affected by bias are those who have at least some minimal sympathy with his views. Plagiarism is another matter, and it would clarify things to have it discussed separately. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This appears to be merely coincidental with Anupam's wish to take a break from wikipedia: [181]. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for User:Lionelt

Hat-ing the section, as it is not the right place for this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Looking at the uncivil behavior of User:Lionelt, evidently seen in this thread, his POV push (rather a strong fight) to save User:Anupam without any real data and failure to acknowledge the issues and get to the point, basically strongly exhibiting WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Plus past history of partisanship with Anupam in supporting his conservapedia type editing evident from Anupam↔Lionelt. Also his contribution doesn't look done in WP:NPOV to me. He has history of disruptive editing and a topic ban on him has been discussed before. A quick search in WP:AN shows: incident1, incident2, incident3, incident4. Thus I propose topic ban for User:Lionelt for religion/atheism/any controversial topics. -Abhishikt (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Support as proposer. -Abhishikt (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose This is mixing apples and oranges. If there is an issue with the editing of Lionelt it should be dealt with separately. aprock (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Comment: I take these charges seriously, for a change, perhaps. I'll let my record speak for itself: Over 17,000 edits. Never been blocked. Created a portal and took it to Featured. A list that I created is close to Featured List. Also a GA and numerous DYKs. Serve as a mentor. Created a Wikiproject currently with over 4000 pages & almost 80 members. Created a newsletter and co-created another. Hundreds of template & project space enhancements. Dozens of files uploaded--many audio and video files. If the community has tired of my presence, please, let me know... – Lionel (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Not relevant here, per Aprock. Let's keep on subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose = Not here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose pile-on per Aprock. Nobody Ent 12:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Blizzard Oppose Not remotely in order. Collect (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose - This proposal smacks of bad faith. People are allowed to advocate or criticize whatever users they want for legitimate reasons. Lionel has done so within the purview of Wikipedia policies, and a tangential look at his contributions shows he is an asset to the project.Pectoretalk 13:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose Not related with the issue, and sure and pure bad faith.Justice007 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Aprock. I'm sure we will have serious discussion about his editing in the future, but not now.--В и к и T 15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose. This proposal actually looks to me more like some sort of joke. But in case it was serious, as others have also said, it's based on bad faith assumptions (it could even be considered an example of WP:WITCHHUNT), and it's also not the place to discuss it. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC) What the Hell is this about? I'll add my standard, diplomatic most strongly oppose to the blizzard oppose of above. This proposal makes me scratch my head. If this is serious, it is indeed a witch-hunt. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note, however, that, as has happened on previous occasions and as noted below, Lionelt has yet again used wikiproject noticeboards to "dial a tag-team". [182] Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that myself. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly the first time there have been concerns about lionelt canvassing - or enabling other disruptive editors who just happen to push the right POV. However, this thread is already a hydra. We could, perhaps, revisit this later. Lionel may be busy at the moment, anyway; I was hoping that they could discuss some diffs of anupam's sockpuppeting but they've suddenly gone quiet. bobrayner (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Addition of 1RR

Since a number editors have expressed the opinion that a topic ban doesn't go far enough while a community ban may go too far, I propose that, in addition to any other sanctions, a 1RR restriction be applied to Anupam in order to address the 3RR boundary pushing and civil edit-warring.

• Support As proposer. Mojoworker (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  Support, as an alternative to the community ban, and in addition to topic ban.--В и к и T 15:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)(After new evidence, I now support community ban.--В и к и T 07:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

• Comment If a topic ban is what the community decides, I would accept a 1RR restriction granted that both the topic ban and the 1RR restriction are set to a specified time period (6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc.). I also think that 1RR without the topic ban would be a better idea. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Possibly in replacement of the topic ban, certainly in replacement of a community ban.Pectore^talk 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support May help to curb problems before they start. This is in addition to a topic ban, not as an alternative proposal. SÆdon^talk 21:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As a solution fr a non-problem. The issue is not reverts - hence 1RR is inane. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm curious. You say the "The issue is not reverts" but there is evidence of regular edit-warring (anupam surely knows where the threshold of WP:3RR is - they go there often - then sometimes an associate performs the next few reverts). Could you clarify your comment? bobrayner (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• The stated issue ab initio was plagiarism - I read all of the above discussion, and it is clear that this was what some editors appeared upset about. I trust the actual discussion is clear thereon. IIRC, your stated concerns were "pov-pushing" and "canvassing" which are also unrelated to EW assertions. "Sock-puppetry" is a matter for SPI, and not a strong issue here. And your liberal assertion of WP:TAGTEAM also does not belong here. And makes it apparent that the issue is not EW but a matter now of animus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sadly, I must disagree with you again; The stated issue ab initio was that viriditas was being mean to anupam. Then anupam got hit by the boomerang, and a variety of other problematic editing was pointed out; that's how AN/I works. Now, I'd be happy to provide more diffs of anupam hammering the revert button, if the diffs above are not sufficient to persuade you; I could even forward a spreadsheet (it's not hard to export 15000 contribs into Excel and then run a little VBA looking for clusters of reverts). Editwarring and tagteaming was mentioned previously; [183] if you wish to give carte blanche for editwarring because you didn't notice the last time editwarring was pointed out, I think it's unlikely that we can have a productive discussion. bobrayner (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I stick to my understanding of the issue. And if if wish to assert socking -- SPI is THATAWAY-->. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Saedon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 17:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I, too, don't see reverts as being part of the problem. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Here's the latest example; 5RR at AN/I, removing somebody else's (valid) warnings of canvassing. I'm sure some !voters will still say that edit-warring isn't an issue... [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] &c. bobrayner (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It does not address the issue of POV pushing which Anupam has engaged in on the talk page i.e frivolous RfCs and constant misrepresentations etc; it's occurred numerous times even just in this ANI thread. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator

Please bear in mind Lionel's canvassing here. "The wolves are circling", indeed. One of anupam's defenders has admitted coming here following that canvassing. Also, I do not know how many emails were sent, but that seems the most likely trigger for an admin to hide some embarrassing evidence on conservapedia. bobrayner (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please bear in mind User:Bobrayner, the proposer of the ban, has made partisan statements, holding what can be characterized as a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. In this example, User:Bobrayner states: "I thought that incessant lying and manipulation and cheating were considered bad things in christianity? Speaking as an atheist, I hate that shit; but they seem to be standard tools in your crusade." In this example, he states: "If you are unable to voluntarily end your crusade, the community will end it for you." User:Bobrayner, in a comment to User:Lionelt, who opposed the topic ban, stated: "Perhaps you forgot to respond over at WP:AN/I; I realise that you're quite busy writing about Ronald Reagan." User:Bobrayner also intentionally worded the proposal with his own bias, rather than neutrally, thus predisposing voters to his viewpoint and therefore biasing the outcome. I had kindly requested him to change the wording but he ignored the message, stating "Considering the long-term dishonesty, I don't think that adult supervision is sufficient." Coincidentally, User:Bobrayner, like many of the individuals who voted in support of a ban, participated in this RfC/content dispute, holding the view opposite to mine, among others, some of whom have commented above. I would encourage the closing administrator to keep in mind comments such as this one from experienced editors. Yes, I admit that I have violated the plagiarism/paraphrasing policy, albeit unintentionally and am willing to work on that. I also admit that some of the community has found my editing, especially on controversial articles, to be disruptive, which I did not intend either. However, I am willing to work with administrators and other users in my work for the future. I appreciate the closing administrator taking the time to read this message. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If any editor is tempted to take those quotes at face value, I would invite them to have a look at my talkpage and see the discussion in context. If any other editor thinks that any comment there is false, just point it out and I'll cheerfully back it up with diffs. Now, anupam, could you please stop the walls of text? This section was for pointing out the canvassing, not for repeating the same old arguments. bobrayner (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In case topic ban is chosen, let me list topics, which I feel needs to be included in the ban. People supporting the topic ban, feel free to add/modify the list. -Abhishikt (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Religion topics
2. Atheism topics
3. Creationism/Intelligent Design related topics
4. Science topics (e.g. Big Bang, Evolution)
5. Social and policitally controversial topics (e.g. Creation-Evolution controversy)

I might add that while many of the editors here have criticized Conservapedia, users on this thread (namely User:Dominus Vobisdu and User:IRWolfie-) have added external links on Wikipedia to an editable encyclopedia aimed at criticizing Christianity, RationalWiki, despite the fact that WP:ELNO states that "links to open wikis" are not permitted. According to the Wikipedia article on Rational Wiki, 'According to an article published in the Los Angeles Times in 2007, "From there, RationalWiki members monitor Conservapedia, particularly on the page "Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?", and—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism".' Both User:Bobrayner and User:Abhishikt have defamed Conservapedia on the List of online encyclopedias article as well. Not surprisingly, these are the very individuals who would like to see me banned from editing. Thanks for taking the time to read this comment. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop WP:WALLSOFTEXT. Just use common sense about Conservapedia. A look at Conservapedia articles about Wikipedia, Evolution, Atheism,Abortion or Obama would prove my point. -Abhishikt (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add the links; I restored them because the reasoning for your removal was incorrect. There is no requirement that external links be reliable sources. After you removed the material for the third time you cited WP:ELNO but it says to avoid links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. I also note that although you tried to remove the link 3 times (2 reverts), you never took the issue to the talk page. Rationalwiki is not aimed at criticizing Christianity as is clear from their main page: [189]. The article linked to for "Secular Religion" is not even about Christianity and makes no criticism of Christianity, but lists what some believe are secular religions. You were asked to take the issue to the talk page, you did not. As an aside, I think most people with common sense would agree that conservapedia is the antithesis of a good encyclopedia but that has absolutely no bearing here. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Final Proposal

The various comments above by many users support some kind of sanction on Anupam. Anupam is to take a two year Wikibreak to reflect on WP:NPOV and understanding the meaning of paraphrasing/plagiarism. In addition, he is to acknowledge that the community has recognized his editing as being disruptive. After two years, Anupam is invited to return again as an editor and work in a constructive manner. At this time, administrators will monitor his edits to ensure that he adheres to Wikipedia policy. 21:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't know who proposes this (you might want to fix your signature), but they seem not to recognise most of the problems. Plagiarism is just one aspect. An unconditional return in 2 years - without recognising the wide range of problems - merely means that the distorting, cheating, lying, and pov-pushing will be postponed for 2 years. I don't want them postponed; I want them stopped. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, it sounds like you're proposing a 2 year ban on yourself. Why? Chances are that you'll be topic banned but not community banned so why all of a sudden propose a much more extreme measure? SÆdon^talk 22:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Saedon, thank you for your concern. I would not mind the topic ban personally, and it seems like consensus supports the topic ban at the moment, even though there are individuals who oppose that, even. The problem with the topic ban is that it does not specify a length of time. I would like to improve and work on the encyclopedia but I am doubtful that if I ask for the topic ban to be revoked after some time, that it will ever be. Furthermore, I feel that I have been very misrepresented above. The thread of the topic ban states "long-term pov-pushing problem - including plagiarism, misuse of sources, deception, sockpuppetry, and so on." I never intentionally tried to deceive anyone - that's why I always tried to talk through problems. Furthermore, I am not User:Turnsalso, or any of the other IP addresses that the proposing user stated I was. I kindly asked him to reword his topic ban proposal so that it was more neutral but he did not listen. I do acknowledge that I have violated the plagiarism policy, and that many editors have found me to be disruptive, though I did not intend any of those things. I am frustrated right now because I feel attacked and very misrepresented and the attack-like wording of the proposal does not give participating users an opportunity to make a neutral decision. I have worked hard here since 2006 and have tried to be congenial with everyone, including those I disagreed with. Now, many of those individuals want me gone completely, without having a chance to improve, even with some guidance. What do you think? If some kind of ban is to be implemented, I would prefer the topic ban, although I would want an administrator to give a definite time. I am willing to improve and work with others; I have created nice articles, like Works of Piety, about Methodism, which I would like to improve in the future. I would rather be forced to take a two year leave than to never be able to edit on some of these interesting topics on Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Saedon, on second thought, I do see what you're saying. There is no consensus for a community ban at this point. I do agree with my previous post however, that I have transgressed against the plagiarism policy and that some of the editors here find my editing to be problematic. It looks like consensus is favoring a topic ban against me at this point, although there are a significant amount of users who did oppose this as well. I would accept a topic ban of a limited time period (one year, etc.) in good faith. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest six months. Nobody Ent 22:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Nobody Ent, thanks for the suggestion, which I do like and prefer. However, above, User:Alessandra Napolitano, suggested two months and that received some opposes, as being too short of a time period. Since some individuals think that the leave should be longer, I extended the time period to two years. If many users here find that to be too long, and wish to be more gracious, I would gladly take one year or six months. Thanks again for your concern. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Whoa No semblance of consensus for any such Draconian solution is evident above, hence this "final proposal" is of no value here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus for anything here - and all the options have been suggested - this thread should be closed - its abuse to keep a thread open about a user on this attack board for any length of time - Anapam seems like a decent chap and appears to have taken the good faith advice you have all given him on board and so lets give him a chance to improve his contributing a bit.Youreallycan 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

agreed. Close this, but open a new thread limited only to questions of copyvio and plagiarism on material introduced into Wikipedia Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@Youreallycan: Actually, it is not the case that there is no consensus for any of the proposals here. Just on the basis of !votes, the topic ban proposal has 28 supports and 9 opposes, which is 76%. That's certainly in the range where an admin could impose the topic ban, if the strength of the support arguments hold up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't and haven't actually counted the votes - I just felt from the whole discussion here that if you remove the partisans/users that are editing from a diametrically opposed real life belief to Anupam that there is/was no consensus amongst the uninvolved commenters - Youreallycan 13:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I really have very little idea of the "real life beliefs" of the participants here, and I think it would be a mistake for a closing admin to try to take that into account -- too many assumptions to make which could well be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC, could I ask you a question? If you set aside notions of tribal membership for a moment and just look at the diffs presented so far, what do you see? Just the facts. After looking at the evidence, what do you see? I could present more diffs if you're not convinced. bobrayner (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC, You have made numerous comments in support of Anupam but do not appear to have addressed any of the diffs showing POV pushing etc. I am also aware that Anupam views you as a friend [190] when she asked you to comment here. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anupam

Statement by User:Anupam: Dear Administrator User:DGG, User:Youreallycan, and User:Collect, thank your for your kind comments. I acknowledge that I have transgressed against the plagiarism/paraphrasing policy at Wikipedia, although unintentionally, and am committed to working with administrators who are welcome to monitor my work so that I might not do so anymore. Although I always add citations to my work, that is not enough and I should put quotations in direct quotes. In addition, I acknowledge that some editors have found my editing to be problematic and I am willing to improve in this area as well, with the generous help of administrators, as well as users on Wikipedia. While some users have suggested a topic ban, other experienced editors have opposed such a ban, on the basis of the issue amounting to a content dispute. However, if it is the desire of the closing administrator that I should be topic banned, in light of looking through the situation, I would accept a topic ban in good faith for a specified time period, even for one or two years, to one day generate more articles, such as Works of Piety, which I created. I am also open to the suggestion of taking a long WikiBreak, during which I can reflect on Wikipedia's core policies and mission, which will help me grow as a person and as an editor. I have been an editor since 2006 and enjoy creating articles, editing them, and helping other users; many individuals, including administrators, have appreciated my efforts here and I am glad that I can make a positive difference. For the things that I have done wrong, I ask you to please forgive me; I mean that will all my heart. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I am grateful for all the comments here to help better myself and Wikipedia as a whole. Your fellow editor and friend, Anupam^Talk 02:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Anupam, could you please stop the cherrypicking and the walls of text? We all realise that you are capable of being superficially civil, but "some people support me" is a deeply inaccurate summary of what's above, we've heard all the excuses several times - and the politeness is the only reason you've got away with the lying, distorting, plagiarising, and cheating for so long. Please stop. Let the closing administrator make their own decision. bobrayner (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

New evidence

The deeper you dig, the more problems you find. For instance, today I discovered that:

• Unaffiliated was created as a coatrack for the claims about atheism & suicide which anupam had previously tried to insert into other articles;
• Patrick Greene (activist) paints a very different picture to [191];
• Half of the original Centre for Intelligent Design was a direct copy & paste from [192] and that text is still, unmodified, in the article today.

And so on. What else will be found if we dig deeper? It might be worth returning to the Militant Atheism article history, and looking at the background of a couple of other accounts which supported Anupam in one of the many RfCs; although, alas, the existing collection of diffs seems to have been totally ignored by anupam and by those who were canvassed from the Christianity noticeboard. bobrayner (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This demonstrates a content dispute and a desire for User:Bobrayner to suppress a point of view different from his. Notice how he values a personal blog he wrote for a pressure group more than MSNBC, MSN, The Houston Chronicle, among other mainstream sources. The article on the Centre for Intelligent Design also is not a copvio as User:Bobrayner falsely claims; in fact, as demonstrated in the talk page of the article, a dispute resolution was enacted to help write the article. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 17:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, please stop lying. Half of the text of this is directly copied from here. Other editors are welcome to search for the text about charitable status and Guernsey.

This is not a content dispute - a point which has been explained repeatedly above - I couldn't care a jot about the charitable status of the CID. I am merely presenting further evidence of lying, copying, distorting, and cheating. If any other editors haven't made up their mind yet, I can go look for some more diffs.

Curiously, your response doesn't actually mention this - you really ought to stop the cherrypicking. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner's comments above reflect his POV here, presenting a conflict of interest, due to his personal POV position (which is an acceptable position, just one that may present a COI on articles related to atheism and religion); while he removes information from the The American Journal of Psychiatry with the edit summary "removing more WP:COATRACK," he retains the section here and does not remove it as a WP:COATRACK; User:Bobrayner also continues to let the WP:POVTITLEd section "Dangers of Religion" maintain itself in the article, not applying the same logic here. I would request that the filibustering please kindly end and instead, let the reviewing administrators look at the situation. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, what on earth are you talking about? If you don't like the "Dangers of Religion", try discussing it on the article talkpage - don't blame me for a section that I never touched, in an article that I last edited in July 2010 - well before that heading was created. Finding an unrelated flaw in a random article is not a Get Out of Jail Free card for a well-evidenced campaign of cheating, lying, copying, and distorting.

I realise that anupam's defenders would like to frame this as an A versus B POV problem (hence the filibustering), but the evidence presented here shows one editor pov-pushing, sockpuppeting, plagiarising, and misusing sources. Not one side; not both sides; just anupam. If anybody digs up evidence of other editors playing the same dirty tricks, feel free to create a new thread on AN/I or some other appropriate venue. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding bobraynor's claim of new evidence - I am not seeing it at all in his diffs - Closure is needed here - clearly there are a few issues with Anupam's contributions, and the user has accepted that themselves - what about a IRR and a topic ban for two months - 1RR is a beneficial learning for all users and he might enjoy editing in less controversial area - the user has some/many beneficial contributions including NPOV article creation to the project can contribute for a couple of months in a less involved area and work on/learn more avoiding plagiarism ? - not as a punishment but as a relazing wiki break from a highly conflicted partisan area and an opportunity to read policy regarding plagiarism so as to avoid repeated issues in future. Youreallycan 18:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree closure is needed, but believe that a temporary topic ban is woefully insufficient:

• "Good contributions" does not provide a pass for bad behavior.
• "Lack of blocks" seems attributable more to success at gaming the system than a real respect for the WP community
• The battlefield behavior shown is atrocious.

This entire situation, including the chorus of "Good contributor!" and "Other POV pushers", coupled with really incivil behavior by many in this discussion (and some obvious canvassing) reminds me of the User:Grundle2600 mess. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Postscript:

• If others want to give credit to contributions of an editor, award a Barnstar. Don't use them to provide cover for bad behavior.
• Want to support the editor, or defend yourself? Great! But constantly lamenting that "those here are on the other side of the POV, so everything they say is biased" is offensive.
• Similarly, if others are concerned about "other POV" pushers, (1) find the diffs to support your position and have those editors sanctioned and (2) get the collection of articles covered under editing restrictions, to address bad behavior as soon as possible. The idea that this POV-pushing editor should be excused because he balances out "other" POV-pushers is absurd. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:Grundle2600, I can the deja vu is strong with this one: "Given that my request was completely polite, and non-political, I think any block is unjustified". aprock (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is from my experience of such reports a reflection of the minor infractions that no action has been taken after many days, when violations are presented Admins act fast - yes there are partisan involved contributors shouting loudly and often - but about minor complaints that can be addressed without extended severe punishments. - Is a two month topic ban and 1RR restriction not severe enough for you? Youreallycan 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What you say is generally true of egregious and and uncivil editors. The circumstances and issues with WP:Civil POV pushing are characteristically different. aprock (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC)"Is a two month topic ban and 1RR restriction not severe enough for you?" Respectfully, no. From my experience, in 2+ months, this issue will be back again, at this or some other venue, wasting the time of the community again, and contributing to yet more disharmony. As a reminder, I came to this issue only by perusing WP:ANI, and then reading the diffs and talk pages and article history pages associated with the dispute. To me, as a complete outsider, the issue is not a well-meaning but misguided editor that just needs time and some oversight to mend his accidentally erroneous ways. Rather, I see a concerted effort to game the system, and all that means. A limited or indefinite topic ban will just mean more things to wikilawyer, and more envelopes to push. The editor can always appeal a Community ban in 6 months (and, earlier in this discussion, seemed ready for a 1 or 2 year topic ban!). Appeal to the community (or ArbCom) in 6 months, and, assuming good behavior in the interim, he can resume with his many good contributions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring at ANI considered harmful

May I humbly suggest that edit-warring at ANI may not be such a great idea? [193][194][195][196][197][198] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite. In a thread which discusses Anupam's history of edit warring, he's at 5RR in the last 24 hours, and 8RR overall:

1. 03:45, 8 May 2012
2. 03:20, 8 May 2012
3. 03:13, 8 May 2012
4. 19:15, 7 May 2012
5. 17:12, 7 May 2012
6. 01:51, 7 May 2012
7. 19:55, 4 May 2012
8. 05:29, 2 May 2012

aprock (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I informed an administrator, User:DGG, that I would be reverting User:Bobrayner, who added an unproven canvassing notice underneath every single post by veteran editor, User:Cody7777777. I find that ironic that User:Bobrayner has added such a false notice because he emailed several users offsite in order to ban me in the first place; most of these users participated in this RfC/content dispute, along with User:Bobrayner. Nevertheless, adding such a notice underneath every post by a respected user is disruptive and tendentious. Like many other users have stated (e.g. Exhibit One, Exhibit Two, Exhibit Three), User:Bobrayner started a Topic Ban discussion, also with non-neutral wording, in order to support his POV; this user, despite being politely asked to stop, insists on calling this a crusade, implying that this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and has made derogatory remarks about Christianity in general (e.g. Exhibit One, Exhibit Two, among many others). Thanks for taking the time to read this comment. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There are exemptions to WP:3RR that allow reverts of certain kinds. Are you asserting your reverts met those exemptions? If they do not, are you prepared to be blocked for edit warring, as you earlier noted you were prepared to be banned for 1 or 2 years? JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Anupam violated WP:3RR. I guess it doesn't need to be brought to WP:ANI :-) -Abhishikt (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be brought to WP:AN3 - a bright-line was crossed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: The reviewing adminitrator, User:DGG, stated that the addition and restoration of the canvassing note by User:Bobrayner under every post of User:Cody7777777 was inappropriate. I hope you understand now. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 05:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note2: Please read the entire response of the admin for yet another example of cherry picking and twisting of meaning tactics used by Anupam. -Abhishikt (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please read the entire response! As a side note, User:Abhishikt restored the false notices placed by User:Bobrayner. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 05:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Similarly flaunting policy, earlier today User:Anupam refactored other's comments here at AN/I [199] claiming NPOV' after User:Youreallycan did the same thing and was reverted. Here User:Anupam defends User:Youreallycan after he was warned regarding his refactoring [200]. Ib think these episodes, right in the middle of this AN/I discussion period, are sad but clear examples of User:Anupam and his supporters gaming the system. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan was attempting to make the section title neutral per WP:POVTITLE. It is not appropriate to call a section "evidence" when it is only speculation. Furthermore, did you read the topic ban proposal? Do you think that is neutral? The only thing I see here is a tag team revert war in order to have the objective reader led to a certain conclusion, which is very unfrair. To the reviewing administrator, thank you for taking the time to read this comment. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 04:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy that supports your refactoring other's comments. Your assertion of tag-teaming is ironic, as you followed User:Youreallycan's edit immediately after it was reverted. Is that not tag-teaming? Who exactly are you accusing of tag-teaming? Your own actions are leading people to conclusions, and, in terms of my own conclusions, those conclusions are strengthened by your incredible bad conduct here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Anupam, You were informed at User_talk:Anupam#NPOV that NPOV does not apply to project-space just earlier today. So why are you still holding on the same argument? I guess it just further shows Anupam's unwillingness to learn and deflectionary tactics of arguing same thing over and over again. -Abhishikt (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect sir, how would you like if I added a notice under each and every one of your comments that you were canvassed here? Is that fair? Is that neutral? This is exactly what User:Bobrayner did to all the comments of User:Cody7777777, even though this is not true. These users in total, have formed a tag team in order to bias the reader, when individuals try to neutralize the section headers and proposals and this is not right. The amount of users on User:Bobrayner's tag team far exceeds the reverts I performed here and you sadly turn a blind eye to it. I am listing the reverts by this team below:

• Revert One
• Revert Two
• Revert Three
• Revert Four
• Revert Five
• Revert Six
• Revert Seven
• Revert Eight
• Revert Nine
• Revert Ten
• Revert Eleven
• Revert Twelve

To the reviewing administrator, I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated: Anupam, what makes User:DGG reviewing administrator of this thread? There are multiple admins involved in this thread, of which probably only User:DGG looks sympathetic towards you, it seems to me that that's why you pleading at User_talk:DGG#Concern requesting him to close this thread, which seems to be a dishonest way to game the system to get out of the bans. From your comments there, it is clear that previously User:Master of Puppets used to get you out or get your way in disputes/RfCs. Probably that's how to you survived any bans till now. -Abhishikt (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside: I'm not entirely certain about this, but I don't think DGG was sympathetic to Anupam so much as he is trying to raise the bar on the evidence needed to ban editors with minority POVs. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Lies

It's quite unfortunate that anupam waited until a time of day when I wouldn't be around and then edit-warred to remove valid comments that I made, and then tried blaming some wholly fictitious tag-team. Thanks to Abhishikt for notifying me; anupam didn't. Edit-warring to remove evidence that other !voters were canvassed to defend anupam, no less. Anupam is happy to break any rule in order to continue their crusade; how much longer must we put up with this? bobrayner (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And the lies persist; "I would be reverting User:Bobrayner, who added an unproven canvassing notice underneath every single post by veteran editor, User:Cody7777777". Cody7777777 openly admitted that they came here from the thread where lionelt canvassed - and the comment was not under every single post by Cody7777777. There are reasons to believe that other anupam supporters were canvassed; for instance, Kuaichic hasn't edited anything other than their userpage since 2009 but they still found this thread and !voted in anupam's defense. I only used the template on the clear-cut one. bobrayner (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have seen Lionelt's post there (which actually took me first to Anupam's talk page, not directly here), however in my opinion this doesn't really represent a case of canvassing, since it was not posted on my user talk page. But since I have admitted to seeing it (and you had also posted your concerns in a section above), I do not think it was necessary for you to post those mentions under my comments. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an outrageous lie, but sadly no less than we expect from anupam now: "He emailed several users offsite in order to ban me in the first place". If wikipedia has any technical record of emails sent, I invite any admin to have a look; I sent no emails, my record is clean, I have not canvassed. Why do we keep tolerating the lies and the distortion and the pov-pushing? There is real evidence of canvassing in support of anupam but strangely that hasn't attracted comment. bobrayner (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody want more diffs? I realise that practically everybody will have made up their mind now, one way or another; but if anybody is still on the fence I would be happy to offer more diffs covering any of the various flavours of problematic editing mentioned above. Taking anupam's baiting at face value is not helping my blood pressure and not helping the discussion; I'd be happy to bring this discussion back to the evidence. bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, I think Anupam just trolled you. My experience here is that the community tolerates liars and does nothing to block or ban them. I've been in discussions where an editor isn't just lying on the talk page, but making the most outrageous claims you can think of that have no basis in reality. In my experience, admins will do nothing. Best to just focus on being the better person and let karma (simply the law of cause and effect, nothing mystical about it) have the final say. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I'm taking a break. I don't need this all this stress. If anybody else would like additional diffs of any particular aspect of anupam's deceit and pov-pushing, try my talkpage. Otherwise, wake me up when this thread is closed. In the meantime, anupam may have the last word. bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner has been using an offsite email list in order to coordinate individuals at this report, in addition to various content disputes, such as this RfC, where User:Bobrayner was a leading voice among a partisan group, also including User:Mann jess, User:IRWolfie-, User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:ArtifexMayhem, User:Abhishikt, and User:Virditas, the latter of whom appeared later on the article. Coincidentally, these very same individuals particiapted in this RfC, on a totally unrelated topic, where I was involved. Coincidentally (or not?), these are the same individuals that are trying to push a ban on me here. User:Bobrayner ironically attempts to tag all of User:Cody7777777's posts as canvassing, which I correctly reverted; the reviewing administrator, User:DGG, stated, in regards to User:Bobrayner's action: "the addition of that note multiple times was not appropriate." User:Bobrayner makes no mention here that he committed an error, but instead, says "sorry" to User:DGG and then attempts to mischaracterize me here further, which is unnaceptable. Reviewing administrator, thank you for taking the time to read this mesasage. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this demonstrates Anupam insistence on pasting text which he knows to be false, and a really severe case of I didn't hear that. In this discussion I have already pointed out at least 3 times that Anupam's comment about my attendance of RfCs was incorrect: [201][202][203]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You've now officially jumped the shark, Anupam. I have no connection with those people you've listed. Bobrayner appears to be correct about your propensity for tall tales and playing fast and loose with the facts. Let me be clear: if you can't provide evidence that "Bobrayner has been using an offsite email list in order to coordinate individuals at this report in addition to various content disputes" including myself and the others listed above, then I must request that an administrator block your account for deliberately making a false statement for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. I'm not entirely sure what you are thinking by making crazy statements like this, but I suspect we're starting to see the real Anupam, behind the mask of artificial civility for the first time. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long, but it had to come off at some point. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I remember having this issue with you before, Anupam. Whenever anyone would accuse you of doing anything, you'd turn around and start accusing them of the same thing, evidence or not. I assume your tactic is to make the claims so difficult to follow that passerbys will have to take everything at face value without investigation, and then it'll seem like you're not doing anything different than anyone else. I can't imagine any way in which that's not willfully dishonest, and it's the biggest reason my AGF has long since gone out the door. You have no evidence, whatsoever, that anyone was emailed to come here. In fact, you have evidence to the contrary; many of these users, myself included, were approached on our talk page only after our names were included in the discussion. You know exactly how I found out about this discussion because it's a part of WP record. You need to stop saying I was emailed as a canvassing effort. Now. You have brought nothing to the table but bald assertions that others are out to get you. Your behavior, on the other hand, includes finding users that have previously supported you in ANI cases and requesting they do so again, (like YouReallyCan and History2007), or Lionelt posting an emotional message on a noticeboard frequented by your friends saying the evil overlords are going to ban you unless they say something. Stop attacking others without evidence just to make yourself look better. It doesn't, and it's grossly out of line.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Anupan, I have blocked you for 24 hours for trying to escalate this by WP:Forum shopping and spreading the quarrel. This is just to stop this temporarily. I leave the question of how to deal with the plagiarism and a possible topic ban to other editors.
  However, Viriditas and Bobraynor and everybody else, using the word "lies" always makes everything worse, despite any provocation, and I am warn you all to stop using it and find some more civilized equivalent. Bobraynor, your multiple positing was not calculated to help things, and I warn you accordingly.
  

I suggest not attacking Anupan further when he isn't able to be here, but finding a solution. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• DGG, I respect you greatly as an editor, but what else am I supposed to do? I and others have presented extensive evidence of a variety of different policy violations, and they just get brushed off. I offer to present more diffs but nobody's interested. Then anupam replies with lies very negative comments about me which are not true and which are calculated to discredit me. Over and over again. And the community just stands there and watches. I took a break from this page hoping it would lower the temperature, but all that happened was that anupam used the opportunity to post an even worse collection of lies claims which are either impossible to reconcile with the evidence, or an extreme distortion of reality, which are deliberately chosen to make other editors look bad. If posting more evidence of problematic editing does nothing, and if it's not permitted to label canvassed editors (without which anupam's support looks shockingly sparse), and if all I get in return is lies but I'm not allowed to call them lies, and if keeping quiet makes the lies worse, and if anupam spreads the lies to other people's talkpages, what else would you have me do? Despite a remarkable range of policy violations - malicious lies, editwarring (including 5RR today on AN/I in a desperate move to hide more evidence of canvassing), vote-stacking, sockpuppetry, canvassing, and a long-term campaign to misuse sources, pov-push and coatrack - the community stands by and does nothing.
• Well, I leave it up to the rest of you. I felt able to return here because anupam was shut up for 24 hours, but that's temporary. I'll avoid this page again. Maybe the appalling behaviour will be stopped, maybe not. Maybe we would have been better off if this thread were shut down quickly like the last one. Presumably there has been some pressure, including a politely-worded email, for anupam's previous favourite administrator to close this thread; I would counsel them against that as it could look quite unseemly and we don't want more drama. (Needless to say, I have more diffs). bobrayner (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Normally I & most admins block both sides to a dispute in this sort of situation to prevent this sort of continuation. I held off this time, lest you should feel even more injured. I see I was wrong. I have blocked you for 12 hours. Do not resume it, or call someone a liar. You have already refuted what was said enough times, and you will not convince anybody the more by repeating it. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that Anupam is making very serious allegations of offwiki coordination User_talk:Anupam#Arbcom_case. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Arbcom case is going on here - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Anupam_.26_Bobrayner.-Abhishikt (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this has gone too long and it's further wasting wiki communities' time and efforts. Can an uninvolved admin go through the huge thread and bring it to conclusion. -Abhishikt (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion of closure

• "I believe this is at the light end of what consensus supports"? That's rather an understatement, considering the strong - and growing - support - for a full community ban, or at least a topic ban. Instead, the result of this closure is that anupam might get a short topic ban after the next bout of pov-pushing. How much more do we have to put up with? I think this closure has done the community a great disservice. However, I don't want to risk another block by DGG so I will not act further. bobrayner (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is strong support for an immediate ban, but there is also significant dissent from people I have no reason to disregard. I believe the closure leaves minimal wiggle room. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• This "close" is ridiculous. Despite the clear consensus for at least topic ban (even if we discount all involved users on both sides), he is not topic banned, but may be topic banned one day. The overall conclusion is that Anupam is attempting to push Wikipedia content in the direction of sympathy with his POV, and is supported in this by others who share that POV. - so why he is not topic banned (at least)?????--В и к и T 11:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• What just happened? This close is entirely contrary to consensus. We have complete consensus for a topic ban, consensus for a full community ban (though I could imagine someone disagreeing due to a small margin), and no consensus (or consensus against) a 1RR sanction. Further, every single proposal which involved a definite time period on sanctions or involved keeping Anupam under scrutiny and blocking him later was met with harsh opposition. Yet, this was closed with a 6 month 1RR sanction with a warning of future blocks? This doesn't address any of the issues presented here, and is contrary to the express wishes of the community. Can we have another uninvolved party look this over? I don't imagine this is going to go over well with the large swath of editors who commented here, but were disregarded in this decision. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• I believed WP works based on WP:Consensus and not what closing admin thinks. I agree with User:Bobrayner, User:Wikiwind and User:Mann_jess. Can the closing admin please provide explaination. -Abhishikt (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy's closure is a strong result. It authorizes individual admins to take swift action when they perceive further problems without them having to wait for 10,000 more words at ANI. Since there was obviously a difference of opinion in this thread, it would be hard to fine-tune a more precise closure without an extended process like an WP:RFC/U. Few of us would be willing to go through that much suffering. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

While perhaps a strong result, however, it is not the proposal supported by consensus. Had Guy's decision been posted as a proposal, it may (or may not) have been supported, but for him to decide on an entirely novel sanction contrary to the discussion above contravenes consensus and the opinions of the vast number of editors who commented. There is clear consensus above that sanctions are needed now, not at some point in the future, and that a definite time period on sanctions is a bad idea. This decision outright rejects that consensus in favor of the singular opinion of the closing admin.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say there's probably something like 80-90% support for a topic ban, and what we've got is effectively 80-90% of a topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Anupam is currently not topic banned from anything, despite support for a very broad range of topics above. I also don't know anywhere else consensus works that way, by weighing support and then watering down the proposal based on a percentage of votes to a novel decision that no party agreed to. We have consensus for a topic ban as an absolute minimum measure above, and what we got was less than that, by your and the closing admins own admission. I don't see how that's at all in line with consensus. I could see these new terms added to the topic ban supported above if the closing admin felt there wasn't sufficient consensus for a community ban as some kind of middle ground. Instead, we got less than anyone supported.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I believe Guy's closure is a good one, and is perhaps cleverer than people might think. While an actual topic ban has not been enacted now, the restrictions placed on Anupam are almost as tight as a topic ban would be anyway - one edit out of line on any related article, and a blocking admin can impose the ban at that point. I think this recognizes the level of support for a topic ban, while at the same time allowing for the opinions of the dissenters, some of whom are very experienced here. I think this result is effectively weighted something like 90% supporting the ban !votes and 10% supporting the no-ban !votes, which sounds good to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• I disagree there is consensus for any of the proposals above and that this closure might allow the real issue to be addressed, which is the plagarism claims. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Agree this was a good closure. The intent is not to punish, but to put forward a framework for positive contributions from all parties. Good faith is required to assume A will abide by these terms, and good faith is required by all parties that editing these articles will go forward in an atmosphere of improving collaboration. As a start, everyone should not go looking for the next bad move by the "other side". I recommend everyone take a breather from ANI and get back to editing. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Putting it forward as a proposal would have resulted in nothing other than more verbiage and circular discussion. I would remind people that consensus does not mean a majority vote, and by the measure of consensus there was no consensus to enact any immediate draconian sanctions, because there were credible objections from people whose opinion I had no good reason to discount. Anupam appears to accept that this is a just result, which means that we are markedly less likely to have to reach for the banninator in the short term - but if we do, we do. I think the amount of future disruption from Anupam is likely to be very small, as either there will be reform or a swiftly escalating series of topic bans and blocks. As noted above, Anupam has 7 years block-free, which is no small thing, so I think we should offer the courtesy of a chance to straighten out. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think Guy's close is fine for similar reasons as given by Boing! said Zebedee. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm a bit surprised by the closure (I would have read consensus a bit differently) but I don't disagree with his reasoning and I think it addresses the issues presented with the minimum necessary to deal with the problem. Anupam is on maybe the tightest leash I've seen imposed, and said leash will essentially prohibit him from doing anything he was found to be wrongfully doing in the above thread. Whether it's POV pushing, edit warring or plagiarism, the adminship here is now well aware of the background to this dispute and I imagine no one will be conservative in blocking or imposing a ban for even a slight transgression. SÆdon^talk 21:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about the nonsense created by some banned editors (some of whom seem to have devoted most of their spare time for five years or more to trying to undermine Wikipedia). I am increasingly convinced that hasty bans offer detractors (including the bannee) ammunition and an excuse for lasting animosity. After all, Anupam has been here for a long time and has some justification in feeling vested in the project as a contributor. The two things I believe may help to alleviate this problem are the use of unambiguous final warnings with clear guidance for improvement, and giving people a graceful exit (e.g. by renaming blocked accounts linked to real world identity, a low bar to courtesy blanking and so on). Maybe I am wrong, but undoubtedly being heavy handed has not always worked well in the past so I think it's worth a try. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned this morning at User talk:Anupam#Notice of restrictions, I think you were lenient with Anupam, but that I was OK with your close. I think your rationale for it is sound. Mojoworker (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Guy, I liked your line of thinking. Now, I'm convinced that this is a right resolution. Cheers. -Abhishikt (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse close - I was in favor of a community ban, but I have no problem with Guy's close, which imposes restrictions which, if Anupam continues his previous behavior, should lead to immediate action against him. Please see WP:ROPE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User Emerson7 and "I didn't hear that"

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

---

Editors at WP:SHIPs have been dealing with an ongoing problem with Emerson7 (talk · contribs). The editor continually moves references within the ship infobox to the |notes= section of the infobox despite being repeatedly asked not to. There have been four conversations about this matter; some of them are here, here and here. Yet Emerson7 continually ignores this consensus; does not engage in discussion; wholesale reverts any reverts made and reverts warnings made to his/her talk page. As of May 6th the moving of references continues. The edits are not easily reverted because they're usually part of and overall edit that contains productive editing. Brad (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Looking through the last 1000 of his edits, I don't see that he has used the talk page ever except to put up a template. Looking at the last 500 edits on his talk page, which takes us back to late 2008, there have only been a couple of times he has bothered to reply. He isn't one to talk to people. What I can tell from his edits, most are good wikignome type edits, and he seems quite good at it. Of course, if there is a reason he shouldn't be making the edits and he won't talk, that is a problem. You might try a personal message on his talk page, which is usually a better starting place than ANI. I don't see any evidence that he has ever intentionally done anything disruptive, excepting one block in 2007 [204] for, ahem, "persistent disruption & refusal to repond to requests and warnings". Still, in the spirit of good faith, do you feel comfortable politely putting a personal note on his talk page first, explaining the concern? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't these earlier "personal notes" on his talk page, removed by the user and thus acknowledged, qualify?  --Lambiam 12:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes they do, I stand corrected. Now I will try and see what happens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, he has replied to my message on this talk page. Some people are not very communicative by nature, yet are great contributors. In this instance, I don't know whose edits are right or wrong, and like I told him, I just want you two to figure it out. I suggest a slow, patient approach on his talk page, and continuing to exercise patience. I think it is obvious he is one to avoid confrontation, hence the suggestion to take it slow. And you already have been, I'm not complaining at all. I'm just focused on getting the end result and sometimes that means meeting more than half way to engage. He is a good contributor with a long history, after all, you guys just need to figure out this one element. If you need someone to mediate, just ask, but I'm guessing you won't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated. The issue of citations placement has strong consensus by the ships project which has been reinforced each time the edits occur. We've invited Emerson7 to conversation several times and leaving another note after the one he reverted on May 1 seemed to be useless. Brad (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know him personally (and likely no one here does) but I know that some people avoid conversations and confrontation like they are the plague, and he may simply be one of those persons, hence the suggestion to keep it simple and polite. Again, he is a good contributor so I know that if he IS doing anything wrong, it wasn't from not caring, it was from not knowing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What? How could the editor "not know" he was going against a consensus after all of the notifications they received and blanked? If Emerson7's only response was to stop making the edits on the first or second notice this wouldn't be an issue. Despite multiple requests to stop the edits there is no response and the edits continue. This is the reason why I've brought things here. "persistent disruption & refusal to respond to requests and warnings" is exactly the problem. Brad (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't phrase that properly. He deletes a lot of messages and I'm not convinced he reads them at all. He should have known, and should have read, and was dismissing it for whatever reason. Perhaps I'm extending too much faith here but I am admittedly more focused on a peaceful resolution so you both can resume editing, regardless of the blame. What matters is that now he is speaking, and how you move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep alive. Brad (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

... why? Are you asking for further admin intervention? To what end? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

based on the last time i participated in (or visited) the wikiproject ships page, it was my understanding that the way i have been editing those pages was not contrary to consensus. having stated that, however, i am decidedly remiss for failing to keep up with the current consensus there, and in the spirit of community, i will of course not move references within the ship infobox to the notes section. --emerson7 02:52, 10 May 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.