Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to archive?

Is the discussion (for now) at WP:V over with? It's hard to parse it at the moment. Alexandria (chew out) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not over... just temporarily on hold as we wait for a triumvirate of admins to officialy close the the RfC. Their determination this will determine the direction further discussions will take (for example, will we be using the current text as a base line for further discussions and edits, or will we using the proposed text as a base line?) Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Wisdomtenacityfocus making mass changes to Wikiproject status levels

Regarding this edit: we have a user who is making mass changes to status levels of Wikiprojects without going through an evaluation process at each group. He doesn't even appear to belong to any of these groups. My initial warning has been ignored. Can you give me some guidance on how to proceed? There does not seem to be a warning template for this kind of behavior. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reassessing two articles (Talk:The Tempest (album) and Talk:Twiztid) in three weeks hardly seems extreme. In the past, I've assessed many articles whose Wikiprojects I have no affiliation with. Perhaps I'm missing something? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 16:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In this edit you not only mischaracterise a change you don't like as "vandalism", but you remove another user's comment from the page. Perhaps you should take a breather from using automatic tools and actually communicate with other Wikipedians as if they, and you, were human beings. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Easy, please. No need to be bitey. m.o.p 17:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bitey implies the bitten person is a newbie, and newbies should not be using automatic tools in the first place. I haven't checked which situation this is, but either way it isn't good. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anyone was new - I use bitey as a synonym for antagonistic. m.o.p 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Then please don't: on ANI it's almost certainly going to be taken as implying BITE. As for Finlay McWalter's comment, he's right on the money. This was wholly inappropriate, even if WTF (yes, he abbreviates his user name that way) is uncommunicative. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are not a formal coalition with express, binding authority over an article in their scope - there's nothing stopping other users from assessing an article. If you think the user is doing it with destructive intent, that's different - but behaviour like this doesn't seem malicious. m.o.p 17:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no warning template for this kind of behaviour because we normally thank people for it, not yell at them about it!

While most projects have an assessment subpage, it's merely a place to flag up pages for which a rating is requested; no project I'm aware of has a formalised review process for B level or below assessments. Most assessment pages are moribund (it's easy to find cases where a request has been sitting for several years) and while some imply that they want "members" to rerate articles, this seems to be boilerplate text, and I've never seen it treated as binding. (Even if it were, "membership" in a project is so nebulous as to be meaningless.)

In short, Wisdomtenacityfocus has done nothing wrong; reassessing articles as they change in quality is a good thing, and should be encouraged when done competently and intelligently - which it seems to be. Shimgray | talk | 22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case a change was made to 5 different project ratings. Given the guidance found here that "different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area" how can this kind of cross-the-board upgrade (made by someone not even a workgroup member) possibly be legitimate?

Absolutely mind blowing. With all the problems Wikipedia has with credibility, with readers who rightly ask "how can I trust what I read?", and with me (for one) naively telling them something to the effect of: "one of the ways is to check the talk page. There are Wikiproject workgroups who have special interests in particular articles, who use a rating scale to judge quality, &etc." It turns out these ratings are just shams, that anyone can come along and jack them around for whatever reason they deem fit? Without even (in this case) the courtesy of an edit summary explaining their thinking? How can this be anything other than out-and-out misrepresentation?

Does anyone think this might be a problem? Judging from the comments above it seems not. Quite the contrary, this a "good thing" and thank you very much. Holy happy horseshit people if these "ratings" are not credible, are not what they are advertised to be, are misleading unsuspecting readers, what the hell is there raison d'etre? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we need a list of users approved to make ratings changes per Wikiproject? How does that fit with the WP:PILLARS?--v/r - TP 21:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What we certainly do need is a clear expectation that people shouldn't make, or modify, project ratings without giving at least some basic explanation for their choice. It doesn't matter if you're a member of some club, but explaining what you're doing is a basic demand both of simple politeness towards the article authors, and of accountability towards other raters and readers. Any rating between "C" and "Start" should come with a statement clearly pointing out what the weaknesses are, and any upgrading above that should come with a statement of how those weaknesses have been fixed. I have often found project ratings extremely erratic, utterly unhelpful, and in some cases downright insulting towards the authors, when they come without such explanations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, ratings are mostly "erratic and unhelpful" because they're massively outdated. We have so few people routinely updating article ratings that perhaps 25% are hilariously out-of-date - listing a rating from 2008, since which time the article has quadrupled in size and been entirely rewritten twice over. If more people updated ratings as they browsed (and I include myself in this), a substantial portion of the problem would resolve itself...

In terms of "showing the working" as to why articles are rated the way they are, one approach would be to encourage more projects to use the MILHIST system of tagging by B-class criteria; the talkpage template allows a more nuanced "yes on points 1 and 3, no on 2, 4 and 5" approach. It's configured in such a way that all need to be explicitly "ticked" before it's rated B - otherwise, the rating devolves to C or Start - and so editors can easily tell that "this needs more work on referencing and grammar, but structure and coverage are okay". It should be relatively easy to roll this out to other projects - if you know ones which would be interested, please let me know! Shimgray | talk | 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Alcmaeonid: Did you feel any of these articles were incorrectly rated? You're calling them "shams", "misrepresentations", and so on, but your original complaint was focused entirely on the lack of process rather than the results. The two reratings that I looked at seemed fairly reasonable, edit summaries or no.

As to discrepancies... while it is true that some projects may have slightly different thresholds, this usually means "disagrees on what C is"; B should be more or less universal, and start is universal inasmuch as it's "not a stub". Outside of the Start/C threshold, I've rarely seen strongly held disagreement between two project ratings. In the case of Twiztid, the article you originally complained about, the five projects involved have identical boilerplate text describing what they feel a B-class article should be - three of them even list the same example article! Shimgray | talk | 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• My understanding is that STUB/START/C/B are all any-user-assignable grades, and that A/GA/FA are assignable only through a bureaucratic assessment process. Am I missing something? It's pretty god damned easy to differentiate the first four, pardon my french, and the latter three I'm happy to leave to bureaucratic types who actually care. Carrite (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User:DimitrisLoveIvi not here to build an encyclopedia

DimitrisLoveIvi (talk · contribs) has been here since September, and has never edited anything other than their User page. They are using their User page to keep track of an imaginary game which they are running on other websites. I asked them on their Talk page what their purpose of being on Wikipedia was for, but they have yet to respond, even though they have edited since I asked. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have blanked the page under WP:NOTWEBHOST. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm tired of running into these editors. Usually, we blank, sometimes we delete after an MfD. It's nice to see this here, as a kind of a test case. Let's go with a proposal: I say we indef-block editors who use WP as a WEBHOST and who don't communicate any intent to contribute positively when asked. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • DL has made a grand total of five edits to mainspace: to Triunfo del Amor (telenovela), Soy tu dueña (3), and Ivi Adamou. The user page should definitely be suject to an MfD. Merely blanking it doesn't keep him from coming back to it. LadyofShalott 05:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • My blanking was simply a preliminary move. I'd support MfDing it as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks Lady--I guess I didn't look carefully enough and thought that they had only edited their user page. But an MfD is, practically speaking, only formal; the page can be recreated. Of course next time the admin has a tool in hands: previously deleted and not significantly different, but that only works if an admin (or another editor) runs into it. Any discussion on the editor rather than just the user page? Drmies (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I think it's a matter of order. Get rid of of the user page and warn the user about its inappropriateness. Then they either (a) actually contribute to the encyclopedia - yay! (b) go back to the non-useful behavior, (c) do some mix of a and b, or (d) disappear. If (a), then great, problem solved. If (d), then not-so-great, but problem solved. If (b), then indefinite block is in order. Scenario (c) is the most complicated, but maybe least likely. LadyofShalott 05:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Lady, your smile makes the world go round. Lead, and I will follow. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Rather than indef people, we could just make a new CSD covering WP:WEBHOST violations in-userspace. causa sui (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• That would be a lot quicker than MfD, yes. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, but it sounds like a rather vague definition — I seriously doubt that it would be specific enough to pass muster. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I see Excirial went ahead and deleted it before the MfD had time to run. I also see that DL has yet to respond at all to the discussions. LadyofShalott 02:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• So, we have precedent for administrative deletion? Drmies (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have seen these type of pages deleted before under WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTWEBHOST, and i am yet to see a MFD where this type of page survives (in cases where the page is not related to the 'pedia whatsoever). If there was some kind of value for the encyclopedia in the page i would have waited out the MFD, but in this case i felt that a snowball would do precisely the same thing as waiting. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the editor returns, he can make a case for the pages' usefulness at DR; doubt it'll fly, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Strontium-9000

He says he's been "fighting censorship on Wikipedia since 2001". As I think a previous editor has been banned for adding his anti-circumcision rants, I thought I'd check here to see whether he should just be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

QUACK--v/r - TP 19:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Should also be blocked for uploading that image to commons and spamming talkpage links to it. Clearly does not intend to be a constructive editor even if they aren't a sock. Monty₈₄₅ 19:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gone.--v/r - TP 19:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It might make a difference if the previous user was blocked or banned. If banned, all his edits should be reverted. If blocked, all his edits may be reverted, but, potentially, they should be looked at individually. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I blocked this editor on the disruption in his own edits. I sense serious quacking with the "since 2001" and the creation of a user page as the first edit but I don't know who the master is so I couldn't tell you whether they are blocked or banned. As far as this editor goes, using Wikipedia to promote your cause and disruptively posting it to several talk pages with blinking images is disruptive enough for me to block without a warning. This is a single purpose account as far as I am concerned.--v/r - TP 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: It's a  Confirmed sock of User:Joe Circus, and I also found a sleeper that I shan't bother giving the light of day here. WilliamH (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Fighting censorship since 2001"? That also means he's been getting blocked since 2001. Is there some sort of 10-year award we could give that guy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Golden Whale? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. The prince of whales.

The Fighting Irish are going to adopt him as a mascot. He'll be the Humpback of Notre Dame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

HEAR HEAR! I sei! Blackmane (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio or not?

I made this revert the other day; I believe that the guideline that User:SilkTork is invoking does not apply, that WP:ELNO does, and that the link is a true copyvio. I got this message on my talk page today trying to convince me that WP:ELYES#2 actually encourages links such as this. I will let the current edit stand while this discussion takes place. We've had a spate of dubious links to sites in music articles from users in Eastern Europe lately. Radiopathy •talk• 23:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, here's the thing. The page they link to seems to indicate that it's OK to link to; I'll take Elen's word for it (though I'd love to hear what Moonriddengirl has to say). On the other hand, just because we legally can doesn't mean we should, of course, or that it's OK per our policy.

  I'll tell you something else: the Euro-pop-shit I'm listening to now is NOT Live at Leeds. The website is in Romanian, and after randomly clicking around I finally got the actual album--there it is. The sound quality is awful--"Can't Explain" sounds better through the speaker of my iPod than it does here. So no, I don't think we should link to this site. As far as I'm concerned, it's a spam link. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tend to agree with removal. It would be fine if it was The Who's own site. I don't believe the practice of linking to sites which are only available to certain jurisdictions (and not others) is at all encouraged. We have enough linking to dubious content on YouTube, this is just bad form. The audio quality argument would swing it for me even if the arguments were finely balanced. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• As a collector of most The Who vinyls, CDs, and DVD live gigs, that is Live at Leeds, only the lack of bottom end makes me feel like it's a 64 Kbps rip. Either that, or John was taking the day off. Sounds awful without his bass resonating through the songs. As for the general low-quality of the recording. Come on.. 1970 was still tape recording, and I don't think this is off the Deluxe Remastered Edition, either. Maybe the first standard CD release. Personally, I prefer vinyl. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• From my talk page, and Radiopathy's: "WP:ELYES#2 encourages a link to a copy of the work in question, provided such a link leads to a responsible and legal site". SilkTork hasn't come here yet to comment, but let me point out then that this point in the EL guidelines suggests the following: "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the Links normally to be avoided criteria apply." Now, I don't have to look at this long list of Links normally to be avoided, since it is clear to me that a musical score is simply not the same as a recording. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worth clarifying if it is of encyclopaedic value linking to an external site that legally hosts a recording that is topic of an article, so I have raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_that_ELYES.232_includes_recordings. I have already checked that the site is not a copyvio - see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/September#Radio3net. I'm aware from discussions elsewhere that the radio station pays a streaming licence and appropriate royalties, though it's worth me getting in touch with them directly on behalf of Wikipedia to get an OTRS ticket, and I'll do that today. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty severe personal attacks

Enciclopediaenlinea (talk · contribs)

On Talk:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, this user said to me: "..you are an ignorant, a liar...because you are a sick moroccan...go to the school to learning" diff. Tachfin (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Warned. If it happens again, I will block. 28bytes (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think that's a little light and I would have blocked and revdeled the edit but since you have already acted I'll just leave the comment up here to see if there is a consensus to go further than you have. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My thought was that since the account was new, he might not be familiar with the norms here, and a warning might be just as effective as a block. That said, I have no objections if anyone feels stronger action is warranted and acts accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same things, both of them. It occurred to me that such namecalling is much more accepted in some parts of the world than in others (like this part). That doesn't make it alright, but it means that 28bytes's decision is fine with me. We'll see soon enough if we gave them rope or a second chance. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I think this part is hilarious: "go to the school to learning".--v/r - TP 15:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a whole lot worse than what comes out of the school system here. Mind you, I'm getting ready to grade final papers; stay tuned for whoppers. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a perfect opportunity to use my good old User:Bwilkins/welcomecivil template (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

NESARA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rather than continuing to revert a new editor's replacement of the article with an HTML rant about the fictional NESARA, and violating 3RR, I've decided to semi-protect the article. If anyone objects, they can reverse it, but be sure to watch the article and block Sirianet‎ (talk · contribs) when he violates WP:3RR, as he's sure to do, eventually. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin Arthur Rubin is clearly WP:INVOLVED. First, AR reverted, calling it vandalism using Twinkle (in violation of Twinkle rules). Then AR reverted again without explanation and again and then semi-protected the article to his preferred version. I can begin to list the policies, guidelines and ArbCom rulings that this violates. Very poor judgement on the part of AR, calling into question his fitness as an admin. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's involved, but the crap that he is keeping from the article serves the larger purpose of protecting the encyclopedia from kooks. The fact that he is involved is why he brought the issue here to tell people about it. I think Sirianet should be trouted at least and blocked if the HTML-based diatribe shows up again. Wack-job screeds we don't need. Binksternet (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom has been extremely clear (see Administrators involved in disputes, 2009 ArbCom ruling) that administrators must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Admins must not engage in administrative action while in a content dispute or otherwise WP:INVOLVED. There are several thousand administrators available, nearly all of whom are not-involved. It is likely that this needs to be escalated to ArbCom and Arthur Rubin's administrative bit needs to be removed. He clearly cannot be trusted with it. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were several thousand admins available. Also I don't believe that replacing the content of the entire article counts as a content dispute. Vandalism is the more likely description. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Nah, by listing the matter here for oversight by other admins Arthur has ensured that there is no prospect of his gaining an editorial advantage though his action which was designed to protect an article against vandalism. If it would make you happy I can always remove his semi and replace it with my own but that would be process for process sake and rather dull. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't care who reverted it – the article most certainly was not going to stay in this state. Moreover, I would like to know (Teh Truth aside) who we is. –MuZemike 07:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that if any admin were to revert this or semi-protect the article, they would be accused of being involved because they are part of a grand Judaeo-Masonic New World Order conspiracy trying to suppress the truth! As Time Cube shows, many thousands of kilobytes of copy-and-pasted HTML is a guarantee that the person is telling vital truths about the world. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cf. The Paranoid Style in American Politics --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh my ... that was one of the most interesting screed's I've read in a while. Comparing it to garbage in the same area, it makes the redemption movement look almost sane. Wow. And they had the balls to complain about the page being protected. Ravensfire (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I believe you just used a greengrocers' apostrophe (screed's). You naughty boy. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But, I really like(?) using, punctuation! Ravensfire (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin Arthur Rubin has been blocked numerous times for edit-warring. Now he uses his admin abilities while in an edit-war. When will this be addressed? Observing the Admins (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone's sock get lost in the laundry? Who's sock is this? Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that the entire article that Arthur Rubin reverted out was a copyvio (see [1] for evidence of the multiple incarnations of this delusional screed), he could have reverted it three times, or thirty, or three hundred, and still complied with policy. Garbage like this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, end of story, and any attempt to make this look like some sort of edit-warring by Arthur Rubin is facile. I suggest that someone closes this thread as requiring no action beyond thanking Arthur Rubin for his actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I *think* this is vandalism, but it's systemic....

I happened to be looking at the current UEFA Champions League season, and FC Otelul Galati was listed in 4th place in Group F, but it looked strange to me. It displays as O%C8%9Belul Gala%C8%9Bi (it's a capital T with a comma under it, in case it doesn't render). In the body of the Galati article, however, Galati is spelled with a small t with the same mark, and in the FC article both instances of capital T are small. Therefore, I would assume that something is not right, but the change seems to have been made across the board in every instance where "Otelul" or "Galati" is part of an article title. If it's fine, it's fine, but otherwise it's systemic vandalism that I cannot figure out just from looking at history. MSJapan (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may interfere. This is all part of a convoluted and obnoxious battle, popping up all over the place, in which neither side is entirely right. For technical reasons (as you noted, not all diacritics display right with most displays) and because it was simply a non issue until two years ago (when the Romanian Academy issued a couple of half-assed pronouncements on which diacritics it prefers), wikipedia, like most of the online community, has opted for the simpler version: Ţ, ţ, Ş, ş. This as opposed to Ț, ț, Ș, ș (subtle difference).

Romanian wikipedia has decided it was switching to the now official version as of last year, but the change it performed is non-systematic and created many articles which still used both spellings in the same body of text. Just like that, but they still proclaim it to be a 100% move to a better version. Let me be clear about it: necessary it may have become, but better it is not. I have heard several Romanian users argue against the move on various, quite solid, grounds.

The main disadvantage is that the task of moving articles around is accessible to even the barely literate, and various wikipedia sections, including the English one, have had a surge of article moves which only reflect the apparent consensus on Romanian wikipedia. So far, since no system was conceived to approach the issue globally (as much as I dislike the new diacritics, I would endorse a global, complete and actually thought-of change), and since, again, anybody can do it, this is exceptionally random. At least one user I know of who did this was blocked for what was admittedly a disruptive activity - said users don't realize that just doing this were they feel like it loses internal links, messes up the format, punctures holes through recognized content etc.

I for one have repeatedly tried to get a centralized discussion going as to what we should do next, but I'm aware that this comes out at the worst possible time, with all the debate surging about whether we even should have diacritics in article titles (let me restate my position on that one: yes, we should). The result was nil: no computer literate user was ever capable of conceiving of a tool to automate the changes; the argument was restate that we should not be changing things at all, but simply revert those comparatively fewer recent changes; the possibility of confusion with the entirely opposite diacritics used in Turkish or Azerbaijani was brought up, as a major argument against mass changes. See for instance my latest attempt at determining consensus.

In my own editing work, I am left with the following compromise: I write articles with the "old" diacritics, and staunchly revert moves to the new ones in the body of text, because they create huge format problems until such time as a global solution is applied. I do not however revert moves of titles: Viața Basarabiei, Pitești, Alexandru Tzigara-Samurcaș use "new" ones in the titles, "old" ones in the body of text, simply because it's the only option that works so far. Dahn (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out another aspect, that may become relevant in the future: although I'm a Romanian editor editing from Romania, I generally do not use the standard Romanian keyboard, and therefore did not install the default Romanian keys. I find it impractical, and in other programs I tend to set my own character keys. This means that, when I write wikipedia articles, I use the character icons listed at the bottom of the editing window - most users may not be aware of this, but there is a character map hidden somewhere in the menu over the "Please note" part, in the same set as "Insert" and "Wiki markup", but under "Latin". Ironically, the "new" Romanian diacritics are not listed there at all, meaning that, even if the changes were applied or I were to want to apply them, I would be starting off with a huge handicap. Someone please fix this anomaly, regardless of the desired outcome. Dahn (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not vandalism. Everything displays essentially correctly for me with both Firefox and Internet Explorer. However, the letter ț (looks like a t with a comma or short ascending stroke below it) is a bit fatter than the others, suggesting that it comes from a different font. Hans Adler 10:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's probably because the font you are using to view Wikipedia articles doesn't have that glyph in it, so your browser is falling back to use a different font which does contain that glyph. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As a user who heavily lobbied for the new diacritics (comma-below) on ro.wp and also as the one who implemented the change, I feel obligated to make a few clarifications:

1. The change MSJapan noticed is certainly not vandalism. The truth is the large majority of people do not care about this subject, even in Romania. They just write with the characters provided by their operating system: cedilla-below for Windows XP and previous, comma-below for Vista, 7 and Linux (and I believe, also OSX)
2. Dahn has made above a series of untrue remarks that need to be corrected:
   1. Romanian Academy issued a couple of half-assed pronouncements on which diacritics it prefers - the Academy has made it very clear that the correct spelling is and has always been with comma-below; in the same period, some of its representatives, together with people from IBM, Microsoft and other big IT companies, as well as some FLOSS translators had a series of meetings that lead to the change of the characters in Windows systems, as well as better support from other vendors. So this was not just a declaration, it was followed by action.
   2. wikipedia, like most of the online community, has opted for the simpler version - there is no simpler version; the simple version is the one supported by the user's software (see my remarks in the first paragraph); Wikipedia needs to adapt to the best of its capabilities to the user's requirements
   3. Romanian wikipedia has decided it was switching to the now official version as of last year, but the change it performed is non-systematic and created many articles which still used both spellings in the same body of text - that is simply false. At no time were there articles with both spellings. We had some articles with the old version and some with the new during the transition period (a few months last year). In 2011, the only articles containing cedilla-below diacritics are doing this because it is needed (either for illustration purposes or because the name comes from the Turkish alphabet, which has the letter Ş ). We mark these with a special tag. If you find what seems to be a mistake, we would appreciate some feedback at the Embassy or Village Pump there.
   4. I have heard several Romanian users argue against the move on various, quite solid, grounds. - that is correct; but contrary to what Dahn seems to be implying here, these complains have not been ignored. We implemented a JavaScript system that allows the user to write with the characters it prefers and then converts the cedilla-below letters to comma-below unless the word has been marked with the special tag. Also, if the user's system is unable to show the correct diacritics, we convert them to cedilla-below. So where you see squares on en.wp, you will see comma-below characters on ro.wp
   5. said users don't realize that just doing this were they feel like it loses internal links, messes up the format, punctures holes through recognized content etc. - not entirely true; in june 2010 i asked for redirects to be created from comma-below to cedilla-below titles; this created over 9000 redirects that can be safely used in articles in either form. If needed, this process can be repeated.
   6. no computer literate user was ever capable of conceiving of a tool to automate the changes - totally false. At ro.wp there is a working system that empowers the user to use the diacritics supported by his system. The difficulty of applying it to en.wp is how to distinguish Romania-related articles. A perfect algorithm for this might be impossible to find, but I can imagine a few solutions that would cover most cases without any risk of false positives.

I apologize for the pretty long message, but I felt the need to clarify some points. If at any time you need help with adapting the content to work with both kinds of diacritics, feel free to leave a message on my userpage.--Strainu (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Strainu, I could carry on replying to your contentions about my "untrue remarks", but, really, is how I relate to these issues really the relevant topic here, or is it the issues themselves? For instance, under your point 6, how is it "totally false" that a real bot for the task has not really been created? It is very much true that the one working on Romanian wikipedia, despite all the self-congratulatory language, is anomalous and inconsistent: User:Anonimu (praise be to him) mentioned the magnificent case of Hadin Süleyman Pașa, a Turkish name Romanianized in ro:Ștefan cel Mare. So far, as in many other instances, Romanian wikipedia does not solve the problem as much as it ignores the problem, with Potemkin village results. And it is even more obviously true that no such bot was conceived for the English wikipedia, for the reasons you yourself acknowledged as true; if you click on the discussion page I linked above, you will perhaps note that a(nother) user, User:Kotniski, had been attempting to do it over here, but that it came to nothing. (I do believe it would be in the best interest of wikipedia if you and Kotniski, together with User:RashersTierney, should have yourselves a powwow, as you're clearly the most qualified ones, and the only ones still regularly active, to have taken an interest in this matter.)
Also, you don't seem to realize that the bulk of my comments is about half-assed manual moves on the English wikipedia, not about whatever happened to Romanian wikipedia: those comments I made that were not explicitly about Romanian wikipedia, including those about broken links etc., refer strictly to the problem as noticed by MSJapan, which is that of inconsistencies on the English wikipedia. That is the purpose of this conversation, and not the various issues on Romanian wikipedia, where I'm sure you did a good and honest, if incomplete, job. I also do not have any objection to your redirect creation, but it has not yet answered to the issue of article space diacritics, nor has it prevented some Romanian users, some of whom can hardly speak English (one of them blocked as a result), from making parallel manual moves that leave the articles a) inconsistent; b) incomplete. Do you realize what it means when a guy will change twenty out of forty instances of ş in one article, and then leave it for dead? Because that's what some have been doing, and not only do we all have better things to do than cleaning up that mess, but we need to send a message that this should not happen, and then make some sort of centralized effort to see if we're actually intending on performing the move at some point in time. Dahn (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, let's keep the ro.wp discussion on our userpages.

Going back to en.wp, I don't see the issue in having mixed diacritics for a while, as Romania-related articles are only a tiny fraction of the encyclopedia. For most people, the difference between comma-below and cedilla-below is almost invisible. The poll that we had last year showed that less than 10% of the users saw squares (mostly IE6 and mobile browsers). For the rest, the font substitution worked more or less. I expect that in the last year and a half the situation has improved, with many desktop users switching to Win 7 and mobile users switching to Android.

If some links are broken, the simple solution is to create redirects in either direction. If templates depend on the diacritics to display correctly, the fix should be made within the template. Of course you will have people with an attitude (Baican was also banned on ro.wp for disruptive editing), but that will happen regardless of the solution chosen.

The ideal solution for en.wp IMO would be to convert the page titles to the new letters and then gradually convert the articles with a human-supervised robot (i.e. the person running the robot should check each change and repair the damage, if any). Doing this on a wisely-chosen subset of pages would go fairly quickly.--Strainu (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, were here's more of the problem that I'm facing: I'm all for creating redirects, but which one will we eventually prioritize, and are we even considering it? And consider a redlink: how do I create a redirect to that, short of actually creating the article and adding enough sourced content just so it doesn't get deleted as unsourced (do you picture how exhausting that is?); and how do I anticipate the redlink at the moment: do I go for the new diacritics, from a text that uses old ones everywhere else, or do I just hope that the theoretical person who will jump ahead and fill the redlink will also have read your post, and has the same vague concept as me of what needs to be done? Your suggestion about templates is not simple at all, not in practice: in the absence of a bot, one would have to manually recheck and/or move every article included in any one template, just for the sake of decorum; many do not care about this problem at all, but those who do will have a gargantuan task to complete, without ever being sure that it is the desired outcome, and risking countless clashes with users who have not been informed about the issue and may regard mass article moves as insidious vandalism.

I am all for your bot solution (notice above where I mention me not changing new-diacritic titles, or where I venture to suggest a supervised bot), but it's seems like every time we approach this subject somewhere everything gets submerged in eerie silence or we get absorbed into off-topic threads. Considering I'm, for all practical purposes, computer illiterate, I can't be expected to follow up on the few attempts at creating a bot; I am, as I have said, willing to help in whatever way I can, even against my conservative instincts, but for Chrissake, let's see something happening one way or another. Dahn (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And, yes, it is an issue when en:wikipedia has mixed diacritics, as indicated by this discussion here. And this is not just for aesthetic reasons. This is especially the case with a random mix of diacritics within one article, where incomplete changes to the new form would be insidious and hard to revisit by either a bot or a human being who wants to preserve his sanity by the end of it all. Dahn (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Clear breach of WP:LEGAL

Resolved

 – Blocked per NLT Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In this edit. While it is very clear that the user should be blocked pending a resolution, and the initial edit reverted, I would nonetheless appreciate if a third party would evaluate the merits of the edit to see whether any reliably sourced, positive information can be salvaged. —WFC— 06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't see the threat there. The claim is that the sources were libelous, but no legal action was threatened. I have reverted the edit and left an explanation on the talk page, with an injunction to the editor to choose their words more carefully. Drmies (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• You know what, I'm blind: I totally missed the first half of their summary. Someone please look over my shoulder and take (more) appropriate action, if need be. I need sleep, apparently. Drmies (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• This is clear implicit legal threat so I have blocked with some advice [2] about withdrawing the threat or working with OTRS if they are not prepared to do so... Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. —WFC— 07:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Those Green Bay Lions, I'm telling ya. If only there were a way to beat Jim McCarthy, Andrew Rodgers, Ndamukong Hawk, Donald Davis and company... –MuZemike 07:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're going to end up on IR for a hyperextended joke ligament. :) MSJapan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there is still a significant difference in the article now vs. just before Green Bay Tigers starting screwing around with it.[3] I don't know enough about it to determine which is the "right" version. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to be too picky, but the GB Lions are the Great Britain national rugby league team. There are other meanings of the initials GB y'all know... --Jayron32 20:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That was understood. We were just funnin'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well its obvious there are issues with the article. If someone who knows about whatever sport this is could look at it, it would be great. Otherwise I did advise the poster how to approach OTRS... Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all. Sleep was good. Better if cats don't start caterwauling at 1:30, but who's complaining. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the overall balance of the article is still not right, but all potentially objectionable statements are backed up by solid sources, and it's far more balanced than when I first touched it. GBLions could well be a good person to help with the rebalancing. Although even if the comment that prompted this thread were retracted, I think OTRS would be the best route, as GBLions appears to have a direct connection to the subject. —WFC— 15:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeated wikihounding by User:174.99.127.20

This editor has been Wikihounding me for some time. He had stopped for a while but has started again, butting into two conversations with the clear intent to confront me and inhibit my work with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. As they are an IP editor and do not have a watchlist, they must be repeatedly checking my contributions, which to me is very stalkerish.

• User talk:Rodneyorpheus#Religious categories
• User talk:Creatcher#Personal attacks

I cannot notify the IP because they have a notice on their talk page asking me not to post there. Could someone else do it please? Yworo (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding? I left simple messages on two editors' talk pages. I even agreed with Yworo on one of them. And speaking of "hounding", or "stalking", or whatever Yworo calls it, he has a vendetta against me and has a history of false reports and accusations. A few days ago he was following me around editing every article I did almost immediately after I made my edit. It got so bad, I selected several articles at random and made minor edits, which he faithfully edited right after I did. Here are the diffs:

[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
174.99.127.20 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

First, none of that is current. Your actions are current. Second, those were all vaiid improvements to the articles. None of those involve bad edits or deliberate confrontation on talk pages, like you are currently doing. Put down the weapon and back away slowly from your computer. Yworo (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Current has nothing to do with it. Yworo seems to think rules and policies apply to everyone except him. Whether you followed me today or a week or a month ago is irrelevant. You deliberately followed me to articles selected at random. If that's not evidence of trying to send a user a message that I am following you, I don't know what is. And none of my edits are bad edits. "Put down the weapon and back away slowly from your computer"??? What in the hell are you talking about Yworo? Please get over this obsession of going after me and other IPs and new editors. Yworo, all of us who are trying to improve Wikipedia have enough to deal with without someone carrying on a vendetta against us over some minor disagreement from many months ago. Please just go about your business here and let the rest of us do the same. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to leave you alone, but you won't let me. Stop interfering in my conversations. And yes AN/I is only for current issues. Any admin will confirm that. Yworo (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And stop making false accusations and false reports (such as this one) against me. And stop trying to discourage IPs and new users from editing. I think I've made my point here. I'm not indulging Yworo in this nonsense any further. If any admin or other editor besides Yworo wishes to discuss this further with me, please feel free to message me on my talk page. I will not be following this discussion any further on this page. Thanks. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Every time you butt into my conversation, I will file another report. Grow up. Yworo (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• First, why don't you both just agree not to interact with each other at all? Seriously, this is starting to sound like an episode of Judge Judy. Second, Yworo, why have you placed a sock puppet banner on the IPs user page stating a concern that he may be a sock puppet of an "unknown banned user"? Such a statement seems absurd, unless there's some part of SPI policy which states that a user you have a disagreement with may be a sock puppet based solely on the fact that you disagree with them. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did really suspect them of being a sock of a banned user and had opened an SPI, but simply forgot to remove the notice when it was closed inconclusively. My bad. Yworo (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to let Yworo know that because the behaviour is current, the past history of reasonably recent events is therefore completely within the scope of this report. In other words, diffs from a couple of weeks ago are evidence that led us to where we are today ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am happy to agree not to interact with this user if they will do the same. I have been voluntarily avoiding interaction with them since November 27. And even before that my edits to the same articles have generally not had anything to do with their edits, not reverts, not changes to their wording, but fixing completely different issues that needed to be fixed. Yworo (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough about the SPI banner. Try to be careful when throwing sock allegations around though! I've let the IP know on his talk page that you're willing to avoid him if he's willing to return the favour Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, this guy has been avoiding scrutiny for years by editing only from dynamic IPs. Usually there is a reason for that. There have been multiple AN/I reports in the past from other parties. For example:

• Anonymous disruptive user: Shows continuity of disruption from 65.41.234.70 (talk · contribs) to 71.77.21.198 (talk · contribs)
• User:71.77.21.198: includes observation that "You're exploiting the fact that IP-hoppers can't be watched as such"
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive607#User:71.77.21.198_Part_-2: adds another IP, 71.77.20.26 (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps somewhat to help understand the issue I have with them. Yworo (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to respond here. But first, I need to point out that Yworo presents one side of the story in his links above, and (as usual) conveniently leaves out his problem behaviors. Yworo has a long history of going after IPs and new editors, frequently discouraging them from editing. In response to Yworo's telling a new user (not me) to "stop making stupid arguments", the user filed a complaint about incivility here and notified Yworo here. Yworo failed to respond to the complaint, except to remove the notice from his talk page with comment "remove pointless drama-queen posts. Yworo appears to have been successful in driving away that new editor, who has not edited since.
Yworo is fond of creating his own policies to intimidate IPs and new users. He falsely told me that I had been ordered by admin Kim Dent-Brown not to post warnings about policy violations on his talk page [12]. He repeatedly told me that I had been forbidden to make such legitimate warnings, until of course Kim told him otherwise [13]. Regarding the inappropriate sockpuppet notices mentioned above, Yworo selectively quoted a policy to tell me that I was forbidden to remove any sockpuppet notice, conveniently leaving out the word "confirmed" sockpuppet notices [14]. When I called him on his deceptiveness, he issued me a personal attack warning [15]. Yworo also told me I was required to register in order to edit, but as we all know, a long-term principle of Wikipedia is that no one is required to register. And when Yworo gets mad at an editor, he feels that he has a right strike that editors comments from a talk page, again making up a policy to try to justify such behavior. That got so bad that other editors were pointing out that he is not entitled to do so, such has here. The list could go on, but that would be a waste of everyone's time. If you need more confirmation, just search "Yworo" on complaint boards and you'll find Yworo's pattern of going after IPs and new editors.
Now, to the question at hand. I will agree, as Yworo has, "not to interact with" Yworo. But I will not agree to sit passively if Yworo again begins making false warnings, false accusations, and false reports about me. I am entitled to defend myself. I also am entitled to encourage IPs and new users to continue editing if Yworo continues to target them unreasonably. Now, I again will not indulge Yworo's behavior on this page by responding to him. If anyone else wishes to message me, I welcome it. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for pointing out my many faults. Sometimes I'm grumpy. Frequently because you have been hounding me. I've been trying to be less abrasive, but you just won't let it go. It's over. Go chill. Yworo (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask anyone else besides Yworo, doesn't it seem he has already violated his agreement to not interact with me? 174.99.127.20 (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please close this thread. Obviously, I meant outside this AN/I thread. Asking someone not to respond on AN/I after they have just posted multiple paragraphs of accusations as part of their "agreement not to interact" is ridiculous. One could just as well say 174 violated his agreement in the very process of making it. And I'm not talking to him now, I'm talking to the other respondents to this thread, who have been very helpful. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask anyone who wishes to close this discussion to wait a while to see if there are other comments. I would accept any admin's decision to close, of course, but I don't think it should be closed in response to a request by one of the parties being discussed. Thanks. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DR is around the corner, first door on the left. There's WP:RfC/U down the hall from there if that doesn't work. Doc talk 01:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Dahn

There's a heated discussion here. In this section User:Dahn launched a series of personal attacks against me, and apparently he is unwilling to put a stop to it. A chronological and not exhaustive list:

• [16]: a very poor editing practice. It basically says: "I have peeked through fragments of these two books and exclusively used them to shut up those who disagree with me on the talk page."
• [17]: You see, here is the behavioral issue I was talking about: why would you even think it's necessary to (yet again) harangue me
• [18]: Do you see the point I'm making, or is this the part of the post you never actually read
• [19]: Yes, Daizus, you fail to see a lot of things
• [20]: I can only reasonably assume you don't actually read them
• [21]: The rest is really your unexpected and unlikely tribute to Romanian paranoia, according to which everyone opposing an idiotic rationale that was stated by a Romanian do so because they follow a secret agenda; you don't know and can't rationally explain what that agenda would be, but there must be one.
• [22]: regardless of your immature attempts to bully me
• [23]: if you can't deal with arguments about why you're not always right, then perhaps you might reconsider whether you're even doing yourself service by stating your opinions here. It's not like we're all waiting on you to enlighten us. Really, it isn't
• [24]: since you again cite (willy-nilly) WP:COMPETENCE, I would like to point out two relevant part of that essay. You will find them under "Social incompetence" and "Grudges". Those are the only two reasons I can picture why you, Daizus, would continue to misrepresent and rant against my arguments which suck cockamamie travesties, manipulative rhetoric and (so very) self-important slogans. Really, these might (still) work on the WikiProject Dacia jungle, but I hoped you would instinctively adhere to a more sanitary system of reference in the out-of-universe world. Now I know for sure that is too much to expect.
• [25]: I will repeat openly the claim that your rationale above justifies esoteric and paranoid claims
• [26]: Most of your posts is a string of childish insinuations
• [27]: not necessarily because I intended, but because the alternative is disgusting. Much like your solipsistic machismo above
• [28]: the very fact that your argument relies on that taunt is part of the behavioral problem I referred
• [29]: problem with understanding my previous must be elsewhere, somewhere deeper in your ego, and beyond my powers to address
• [30]: you're embarrassing yourself with anyone but the WikiProject Dacia mob, and their approval is not something to look forward to
• [31]: your invoking of how I "assault" Saturnian for having debunked that claim of his is purely rhetorical and inflammatory hogwash
• [32]: that I rushed in here to "shut you up" is also hogwash, and comes from the same solitary dungeon of your imagination
• [33]: At long last, do you even take yourself seriously anymore?

I know I was also uncivil and employed a variety of similar insults and rhetoric techniques ranging from "inane digressions" to "attention whore" and "it hurts your ego?" and even "this buffoonery of yours reflects lack of good faith, as the alternative is not at all flattering". I know there's no excuse to use personal attacks to reply to other personal attacks and if sanctions are to be applied, they should or may be applied to my user account, as well.

However I also pointed out repeatedly that Dahn used ad hominem arguments and he attacked (Dahn was particularly sensitive on the word "assault") me and other editors, I tried to dodge or ignore several of his acid remarks (by not replying to them, however once I also said "you can insult me all the way you want - it says more about you than it says about me "), I pointed out that personal attacks have no excuse ("even if you believe you're justified in doing so, you have no excuse to make gross personal attacks ") and I also warned him of a report ("just be warned I'm one inch away of reporting this burst of invectives to an appropriate forum") - none of these had any effect. At some point Dahn said "Au revoir" only to come back with more insults. He also openly refused to admit his behavior ("There is not one a hominem to be found in any of my replies to you"). Please also note some of his attacks speculate on group membership: WikiProject Dacia members, Romanians, males

But there's more to it. From the same page, here are some of Dahn's replies to other users (or about them):

• If our entire readership is dead stupid, yes, that is a likely outcome
• Incidentally, it's Romanian users who tend to get confused about the names of people they supposedly know better - I can show you examples of Romanian users
• given the embarrassing nature of your rationale for changing the article title
• I certainly don't need your bogus, bombastic, poisoning-the-well, self-referencing, pidgin warnings in the meantime
• Do you understand this when I mention it the third time around, or is the English I'm using still too complicated and I need to literally draw you a picture?
• I know appeals to emotion work on the average overheated Romanian troll, but you're already embarrassing yourself and everyone else here with the "punishment", "dignity" etc. demagoguery.
• I have not answered your question because it is childish and inflammatory, like most of the things you have posted on this here page
• Saturnian was being absurd, Codrinb was being manipulative

Daizus (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I can only urge readers of this post to actually focus on what I have said on this page, to what, and in what context, and to also reflect on what Daizus has been repeatedly stating over there. One of the reasons why this guy won't fully quote diffs to back up his ludicrous claims is that, in his renditions, he has cut down my phrases in half, which most often alters their meaning - and not even then are these actually personal attacks. To even have to deal with his sickening half-truths and outright lies about my behavior on yet another thread he opens just to troll is frankly not in the books for me at this junction. Dahn (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• his sickening half-truths and outright lies
• another thread he opens just to troll

I rest my case. Daizus (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In my initial report I did not provide diffs, since it's only about several consecutive replies. Added per request. Daizus (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the bitterness on that debate arise mostly from your own side, Daizus. You definitely need to take a deep breath, and a few steps back from the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dahn's comments on the "average overheated Romanian troll" or "Romanian users who tend to get confused" arose also "mostly from my side"? Even if I'm bitter, does that justify comments about "my tribute to Romanian paranoia" and other similar remarks? And the last reply there is Dahn's (still launching insults) not mine. Daizus (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a disgusting attempt to label me as anti-Romanian. I strongly urge admins who assess this case to look closely at what parts of the quotes are missing in Daizus' account. They will perhaps note that I am not aiming my comments at Romanian people (I am in fact a Romanian guy), but referring to the usual behavior of some Romanian editors - notoriously so in the context where the very discussion to move the article was initiated (though not necessarily continued) by a particularly obnoxious brand of Romanian nationalism - in the linked discussion, you will note that several Romanian and non-Romanian users make the same statement, particularly in regard to Saturnian's behavior (at the moment, Saturnian is the subject of another AN/I thread, initiated by an editor whom even Daizus will cite as an outside voice of reason). I don't intend to waste a lifetime on debunking this spiteful nonsense. Dahn (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And whatever this person claims at this point I did to him, and however he may tailor my posts, let me also note: I am not the one to have tarnished him with epithets such as "attention whore" and the like. If anything, I am sorry I ever did try to engage this person in serious conversation, he's just not accustomed to that by the looks of it (Minor note: "which suck" in one of those posts is actually intended as "with such"). Dahn (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How and where have I labeled you "anti-Romanian" (it's not about being anti-Romanian, but about employing stereotypes to discredit users: "Romanian trolls", "WikiDacia Project mob", etc. )? On what grounds do you assess the "usual behavior of some Romanian editors"? After all, you judged my arguments based on your experience with Saturnian, you even have accused me of defending his claims ("you implicitly defend the stupefying claims that the anglicization hurts Cuza's dignity (Saturnian)"). And since this thread is about personal attacks, let's note again your wording:

• this is a disgusting attempt
• this spiteful nonsense

Daizus (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough. This thread is not going to benefit anybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Joseph (father of moses) - vandalism/article renamed

Billybobjengs has moved the Saint Joseph article to Joseph father of Moses. I'm not sure how to fix the problem without doing more damage to the article. It also looks as though Billybobjengs has received a couple of warnings for vandalism. Thanks. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the page move mess. Will be blocking presently. --Jayron32 19:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Everything is back where it belongs. I have indef blocked the account, as they haven't done anything constructive at Wikipedia since they registerred. --Jayron32 19:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - should I have placed this notice somewhere other than here? If there's a system in place I'll happily use it. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Here works. WP:AIV may have been good too, but this may have been complex enough vandalism that this board is more suited to it. But if this had come up at WP:AIV it probably would have been dealt with as well. --Jayron32 19:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox riddle

• User:Miduong/sandbox
• User:Nathompson890/sandbox
• User:Milangberg/sandbox
• User:Sedickinson/sandbox
• User:Mekrystelwhittemore/sandbox
• User:Ohscott9/sandbox

Not sure what's going on here - six new accounts have created the same sandbox item within one minute of each other. Hmm… (note - I've only notified one of the accounts, I have a feeling more would be redundant) The Interior (Talk) 20:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just a copy of Aldol. Not entirely sure what is going on, but this smells like a school project. Drop one of them a friendly, personal, handwritten note which asks if they are part of a school project, and if so, what the name of the teacher/professor's account at Wikipedia is. --Jayron32 20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've left a note with Miduong. The Interior (Talk) 20:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That user's userpage does say "My username is miduong and I am working on a chemistry article for an Advanced Organic Chemistry class at Vassar College." Just sayin'. --Jayron32 21:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

They all have identical statements on their userpages, differing only in username and capitalization. Looks like the instructor was coaching them in class on exactly what to do. LadyofShalott 03:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Kolins and footballer nationality categories

I'll be as quick yet concise as I can, as I'm preparing to go away for a few days with work - basically Kolins (talk · contribs) has been brought to ANI before for his removal of nationality categories from articles on footballers. At the last ANI report, I linked to what I saw as consensus from WP:FOOTY members, but which wasn't deemed enough. So I started another discussion, at which I feel a stronger consensus has been established - basically that you do not 'lose' a nationality by changing your international representative nation. Born + raised in England but eligible to play for Wales due to your grandmother being from Cwmbran, and you make an international appearance for your adopted nation? Hey, you're considered English and Welsh! Kolins continues to ignore this, and won't respond to ANI, his talk page, or any of the multiple threads about him over at WP:FOOTY. So why am I here? For admins to inform Kolins that his removal of valid categories is not supported by the community, and to take any appropriate action if he still refuses to listen/discuss. Now as I am going away for a few days - won't be back properly until Sunday afternoon UK time - I obviously won't be add anything futher, but I think I've said everything I can in the numerous discussions linked above. I'm sure this will just get ignored again, but whatever the result, could some kind soul please let me know the result on my talk page, as it will be archived by my return no doubt...cheers, GiantSnowman 21:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are sure this will be ignored, then why did you post here? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To log my issues somewhere, and hopefully encourage a response. GiantSnowman 09:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous. The guy just does not want to engage and continues to edit against a clear consensus. I'd support a final warning and, then if he continues to remove these categories against consensus, a series of escalating blocks. Jenks24 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

certainly needs warned has no interest in discussion and continually does it against consensus. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that when things are taken to WT:FOOTY there is far too much random chatter over the subject matter and far too little in the way of practical action. To take three random examples, none of those threads include any solid consensus that Kolins is wrong or that we have a consensus for the proposal GiantSnowman has made here. So it's little wonder that no sanctions have been put in place. If people really want to move forward with this then there needs to be a clear consensus, probably on WT:FOOTY, that a) nationality categories should be deployed in a certain manner (i.e. as broadly as required) and b) that Kolins is wrong to remove categories. Until that's done, admin action would be wrong. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong, Chris, but the section Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_61#Nationality_categories does seem pretty consensual. Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Personal attack by User:Malleus Fatuorum after I requested him to revert a disruptive edit on Ernest Shackleton

Complaint is without merit. AGK [•] 13:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I made a request for them to revert their edit, I was polite and civil, and I kindly explained to the editor about the article and the misconception of the use of Anglo-Irish, this was his reply [[34]], also look at the edit summary. Also, an admin User: Ruhrfisch who was on the opposite side of the edit-war protected Ernest Shackleton [[35]] and blocked me after he did multiple reverts, much to the disbelief of other editors. I was unblocked shortly after, but was still punished and the admin Ruhrfisch got off without even a slap on the wrist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruhrfisch/Archive_35#Sheodred. Now the he started canvassing on this page [[36]]......... Sheodred (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC) The edit wasn't disruptive, simply factual A personal attack isn't just someone disgreeing with you Malleus Fatuorum 06:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC) @Sheodred: Is there anything more? I cannot see anything to get upset about there (while the redacted "I suggest that you grow up" is not a model for CIVIL, it is not a big deal and was self-redacted within five minutes). If there is nothing more, please do not use ANI for trivial reports of differences of opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Trivial? THERE IS NOTHING TRIVIAL ABOUT AN ADMIN THAT ABUSES THEIR PRIVILEGES. Sheodred (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not an admin. Malleus Fatuorum 06:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) How observant of you, did you read the second paragraph or do I literally have to spell it out for you? Sheodred (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC) What you have to do is to calm down. Malleus Fatuorum 06:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Calm down? Whats wrong did the caps upset you? Sheodred (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Not at all, but you're clearly confused about who you're accusing of what. Malleus Fatuorum 07:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Shame Malleus wasn't around when Anglo-Irish was shamefully striped from Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington article after weeks of trouble, and despite the fact that most historians refer to him as such. Though not before someone who pushed and pushed against the use of the term was indef blocked. I'm sick of the number of seemingly anti-English contributors who go about rejecting the term "Anglo-Irish" on historical biogs. What about "Anglo-Saxon", is that wrong too? The editors who voice these "misconceptions" usually have no real justification for it and usually instigate these "edit wars" but appearing more prejudiced than constructive with their revert demands. Personally, I think there needs to be a shake up of the use of such terms, in the form of sanctioned policy or guidelines, to help remove contention in such articles and create a WP:HERITAGE link that cannot be countered with racial rhetoric. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 07:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Ok MarcusBritish, show me one modern figure that is described as "Anglo-Saxon" in the lede. Sheodred (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Here's some breaking news for you. Anglo-Saxon England was conquered by the Normans in 1066. I think we have an article on it somewhere, although probably not a very good one, as usual. Malleus Fatuorum 11:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC) False premis. You stated that the term Anglo-Irish is a misconception, so it doesn't matter if the term is used in the lead, or main body, it would still be "a misconception". That being the case, it wouldn't matter if the person was modern or not, misconceptions don't have "times when they were right" and "times they were wrong". That the Earth was flat, even by law, once, it was still a misconception as much then as now. Nothing says anyone who has misconceptions is aware of it. That being the case, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, Anglo-Indian, or even Scotch-Irish, should each also be "a misconception", then or now, you can't modernise heritage. The "misconception", therefore, is yours and yours alone to explain, as most anti-"Anglo-Irish" arguments I have come across are based on racial intolerances (of the English, with a pro-Irish POV) with no regards for heritage, and no respect for the socio-economic relevance of such terms when applied to people of certain classes even when a dozen historians use the term and the editor does not agree, normally under a guise of pre-tenses. Perhaps next time you demand that someone revert "a misconception, you explain why, rather than impose yourself on their talkpage and not get an unwelcome response. The only place you have actually attempted to garner support for this "misconception" as here at WikiProject Ireland, and with a distinctly pro-Irish opening sentence: "The term Anglo-Irish is incorrectly and sometimes deliberately bandied about instead of Irish as a nationality." IMO, getting a WikiProject on Ireland to agree to change Anglo-Irish to Irish, is as bad as canvassing. Such discussions should be taken to the wider community, sanctioned by a greater consensus and then be added somewhere that gives everyone clear details, eg MOS:BIO. WikiProject England could equally decide to want to "fix" all Irish to Anglo-Irish where is sees fit. The consensus does not take into account that many historians, in reliable sources use the term Anglo-Irish, and that your reversion could in fact be considered original research, making the entire consensus moot. You closed your consensus with, "I propose that Anglo-Irish not be used in the lede as a replacement for Irish, because it is a term for a privileged social class that existed/exists within Ireland, it is not a nationality, it should be used only when we are discussing the individual after the lede, or the first line of the lede", but failed to cite any sources, official or otherwise, to support the proposal, at any point, which invalidates your reasoning as many of the articles you aim to revert are backed by reliable sources that use the term you oppose. Go figure. I note Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Anglo-Irish has been opened, but not concluded,yet editors are reverting Malleus, using MOS as cover [37]. Disruptive or COI issues? I'm not sure. Probably POV-pushing at the very least. The consensus you seek is scattered all over Wiki, started by different WikiProject Ireland editors, but creating a sense of "forum shopping". Allows editors to refer to a debate where the consensus is currently strongly in favour of their changes, and ignore the rest, to support their edits to articles. This should be avoided as it could be considered inappropriate. I think, all things considered, admins need to keep an eye on this project's agenda, approach so seeking consensus and pre-emptive edits as this AN/I thread really seems to relate to, rather than "civility" matter. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 12:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, so the subject of this ANI has been dealt with; the OP seems to have a second issue that's unrelated to the subject, but is speaking mere vague references. This one can be closed, and if the OP wishes to further the other issue, that's separate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC) User:Malleus Fatuorum's comment was not a personal attack, and User: Ruhrfisch clearly recognised the mistake and reverted their own protection of the article pretty soon after protecting it - 7 days ago! I don't see any action needed in either case -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Carl Jung

Looking through the revision history of Carl Jung, it seems obvious that this article has been the victim of persistent sockpuppetry and vandalism. See for instance edits by Guitarani (talk · contribs) like this and edits by Guitarani2 (talk · contribs) like this. (I shall notify both users in a moment, as required). This has been going on probably for months now, and those rather obvious sock accounts are probably only two of a swarm; I suspect the same user has been editing Sigmund Freud and Abraham Maslow as well, again using a series of different accounts. Some of edits made by the person behind those accounts actually seem helpful, but many more are just random dymb vandalism. I understand that there is a standard procedure for reporting sock puppets and suspected socks, but I'm not familiar with it, so I thought I'd comment here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Both the above named accounts have vandalized Torero in addition to Carl Jung, so this is really, really blatant stuff. See also Guitaristani (talk · contribs), which follows the same pattern of vandalism to Torero and Jung, and has a rather similar username too... Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed just those three accounts. Keegan (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack quack - all three blocked and tagged, Guitaristani the presumptive master. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone file an SPI for posterity for this? Should this resurface in future it'll be much easier to revisit an SPI case instead of ANI archives. WilliamH (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider it done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Хорошинда

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

After creation this attack page he has continued to make personal attacks in next diff. Alex Spade (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The attacking commentary on their Talk page was removed weeks ago and has not been restored as far as I can see, and I don't quite understand how "Hello, pider!" is a personal attack - is "pider" an offensive term in some language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

It's Russian for "faggot". --NellieBly (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the Russian for "Commie Rooskie"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate has failed me again! GiantSnowman 11:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

But the Urban Dictionary didn't! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP's name translates as "Horoshinda". A Japanese pretending to be Russian, perhaps? (Despite the proximity of Pearl Harbor Day, I'll leave out the obvious retort.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User notified... GiantSnowman 11:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bell Pottinger

As you may be aware, the PR firm Bell Pottinger have been caught editing articles on behalf of their clients. Following an investigation led by Jimmy Wales, and with assistance from WilliamH (talk · contribs), Keegan (talk · contribs), Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) and Panyd (talk · contribs), we have identified at least 10 accounts belonging to Bell Pottinger, only two of which are particularly active (100+ edits). At no time were any of them considered respected community members, nor did they skew any votes or gain any rights beyond autoconfirmed. Most of their edits were reverted. A report will be coming later in the week detailing things a bit better.

In the meantime, these articles were edited by Bell Pottinger accounts, and will need checking for factual accuracy and neutrality. It is not necessarily a list of clients of the company, and there may be false positives mixed in, as well as articles which have had undue negative (as opposed to positive) weight put on them - please pick something you’re knowledgeable in and give it a good scrub down. Most articles only have an errant commercial paragraph, but some will need more work. Mark the articles with  Done on this list when you’re finished.

[Note from Jimbo: As a part of this process, we should self-evaluate how we dealt with this systematic attack on our integrity. Outcomes can be classified in a few ways such as “community responded to POV pushing appropriately, ending in no overall impact” or “Bell Pottinger got away with something bad” or “Bell Pottinger successfully changed the entry, but in an innocuous way”. We should be most interested in exploring whether and when we failed, so that we can think about how to improve things. So if you work through the history of an article and mark them with {{done}}, please also add a note reporting on the outcome.]

On behalf of Jimmy, Keegan, WilliamH, Chase and Panyd, The Cavalry (Message me) 12:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this here? Seems like fact checker and editing are editor, not administrator, functions. Seems like one of those banners that appear above watchlists (e.g. like the ArbCom elections) would be more appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's headline news in two European countries, is causing a major political scandal in the UK, and involves sock/meatpuppetry from 10+ accounts. See the article in The Independent at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-founder-attacks-bell-pottinger-for-ethical-blindness-6273836.html. We need somewhere to discuss it, and this is an incident which administrators will be interested in, and which administrators can help with. I honestly think that this is the best place to have a preliminary discussion, and to get as many 'eyes on' the issue as we can. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A list of the accounts involved can be found here. WilliamH (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this an incident which editors will be interested in, and which editors can help with? As there are far more editors than administrators, getting as many eyes on implies targeting all editors (which naturally includes administrators). Gerardw (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)