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)

Recent events as of 8 December

Unfortunately, of the three uninvolved admins who volunteered to close this big RfC (HJ Mitchell, Black Kite and Newyorkbrad), one is known to have been unavailable and one has not made a single edit in almost a week. That leaves only HJ Mitchell. In discussions that spread over WT:V#It doesn't take this long to determine consensus, User talk:Newyorkbrad#WP:V, User talk:Cla68#WP:V RfC, User talk:HJ Mitchell#WP:V and possibly further locations, it appears that HJ Mitchell got the impression that it is OK for him to co-opt Cla68, resulting in a committee of 4 edits with 2 actually available. Cla68 accordingly created a "deliberation page" in his user space.

In my opinion this is highly inappropriate, even though the initial reactions were agreement by two editors (Nuujinn, Blueboar) and no protest. Cla68 is not an admin (not really necessary, but his failed RfA sheds some light on whether this is the right kind of person for the job), is not completely uninvolved as he voted in an earlier RfC about the same policy sentence (again not completely necessary), and whether he is in good standing depends on whether someone under an active Arbcom sanction qualifies for that. More importantly, the ARBCC topic ban was for, among other things:

• battlefield conduct – disqualifies him from determining consensus in a way that will contribute to a peaceful and lasting resolution
• inappropriate use of sources – disqualifies him from determining consensus on the first sentence of WP:V.

In order to give the immediate negative feedback that people need if they are to learn anything from their mistakes, I nominated the "deliberation page" for deletion. See WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation page. Hans Adler 13:40, 8 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)

It might be helpful to take a case in point. Recently an editor came to my talk page to request a reassessment of an article he was working on. I advised him to list it at the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome which he did. (This was a request for upgrade from C to B btw.) The result was no upgrade (it was deemed not ready for B level) but instead editors at the project went over to the page and did substantial work and added extensive evaluations via discussions on the talk page. The article was featured in a collaboration box at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome page. Presto! As a result the article has been expanded in both quality and quantity. This IMO is the way the rating system is supposed to work. Yet it seems from the tenor of the replies above that this whole process was unnecessary. So I ask the admins here: are you suggesting that this editor should have just gone over to the page and jacked up the rating on his own? Grands dieux non! Either the system should work as advertised or readers and editors should be unambiguously alerted to the fact that the only ratings worth taking into consideration are the FA/GA/A. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has said editors should assign ratings to their own articles (though in practice, "destubbing" ratings is uncontroversial). In the case you mention, it would have been quite reasonable - and appropriate, and valid, and so forth - for you to say "yes, that's a B" or "no, sorry, it needs more work" and assign a rating accordingly, if you felt it was a clear-cut case. Note that the lower ratings (up to B) are explicitly intended and permitted to be applied by one person. ("In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating ... Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified.")

In many ways, the request-review approach is the best system - especially when, as in this case, it drives attention to the article. I use it for articles I've written, for just this reason. But it's not universally workable - not every nominal project is active enough to have a working review process; not every editor who makes major changes requests a review; many editors don't even know ratings exist. There are a lot of articles out there with inappropriate quality ratings, which need corrected, and an author-request method just won't reach them. Extensive discussion about quality is great, when it happens - but it often doesn't, in part because we have vastly more pages than active editors.

One key part of having meaningful ratings that we can quote to readers is that the ratings reflect the current version of the article. Requiring an active multi-participant review process before ratings can be changed means that many of them will languish unchanged for a long time - several years - regardless of the state of the article; the result is that they will be of little or no use to readers.

Yes, WTF could have seen the page, thought "it's incorrectly rated", filed a request on five different project pages asking someone to look at them and rerate it, and left it there waiting for someone to get around to it. None of them seem to be very active at producing reviews, so it might have waited a few weeks (or indefinitely!) and then caused someone else to read through it, think about the quality, and rate it. The net result is the same, it just takes twice as many editor-hours and leaves the incorrect assessment up for a few thousand more readers. I'm not sure anyone really benefits from this approach! Shimgray | talk | 19:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Review Request is slow, non-functional for many projects, and needlessly sucks up time and scarce editorial resources. It seems perfectly fine to me for any editor of good faith to fix what needs to be fixed in the STUB/START/C/B spectrum. Obviously, people may differ about the C and B line, but then again I've seen some pretty weak "Good Articles" and I doubt 1 editor in 100 (or 1 Wikipedia user in 100,000) could tell you the difference between an A and a GA (the former designation is applied to something around 1% of all WP articles, I saw recently and should be eliminated altogether, in my opinion). Seriously, it's about a 10 second process to see that something listed as a "Stub" should actually be a "C"... There's no need to shut down WP:BOLD in favor of WP:BUREAUCRATIZATION. If Military History wants to be all fussy about B level ratings, that's for them to decide, I'm indifferent. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll also add in response to Shimgray that there's nothing wrong with a content creator assigning an appropriate class rating to their own starts. By way of example, my most recent start is Paul Grottkau, which I started last night. That's a C the way it sits and if I'm able to flesh out the latter years and maybe add one more graphic, then it becomes a B. I know the state of the literature, it's more or less as good as any bio out there already, although I haven't visited a book edited by John Commons yet. It belongs in at least 4 projects. Wouldn't it be nonsensical for me to tag this as a "stub" or a "start" and then to have it sit around for weeks or forever in that state waiting for Approved Article Raters to get around to "assessing" it. It's a C. Some people might call it a "B" (but they'd be overrating the current state). There you have my position, in concrete form. Carrite (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Now it's a B. Carrite (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit disturbing when articles are assessed for a project without respect to the standards of the project. :/ The Tempest (album) was assessed as a "C" and then a "B" when it is neither; it is a "Start." It is missing essential information. The template says the rating is assigned "according to the Project's quality scale", which is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment#Quality_scale. The project's quality scale requires information about performers and technical personnel. But I'm not sure this is an administrative matter? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a strong C. Carrite (talk) 21:35, 8 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)

• Guys you destroyed my contest! http://www.youtube.com/user/DimitrisLoveIvi?feature=mhee find a way to fetch it back now! Please :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitrisLoveIvi (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've undeleted it. You appear to be online right now, so you have one hour to get it before I re-delete. --Golbez (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• What i should do? DimitrisLoveIvi (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• You go to User:DimitrisLoveIvi. You copy the information to your own computer. That's all. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why its bad to keep them here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitrisLoveIvi (talk • contribs) 17:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Because as you have already been told several times, Wikipedia is not your own personal WP:WEBHOST--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• But I can't keep them somewhere else :( Let me keep them here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bernhardinamusic/sandbox this user has a same contest as me and he keeps them here<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitrisLoveIvi (talk • contribs) 18:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Tough, thats not what Wikipedia is for. WP:OTHERSTUFF--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Restore them so I can move them on my sandbox :p

No, because it's not what your sandbox is for either. And I have nominated the Bernhardinamusic page for deletion too. If all you're here for is your contest, then I suggest you look elsewhere, because Wikipedia is not for you--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

DimitrisLoveIvi reposted the deleted material as User:DimitrisLoveIvi/sandbox, so I deleted it per G4. I have also closed the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bernhardinamusic/sandbox as "delete". I have left a final warning at User talk:DimitrisLoveIvi. I have left a "first and final" warning at user talk:Bernhardinamusic. Bencherlite^Talk 18:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

...and Jac16888 has blocked DimitrisLoveIvi in between me leaving a message for him and leaving the message here. Can't say I'll shed too many tears; it was something I considered doing myself. Bencherlite^Talk 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They reposted the content 2 minutes after your warning, So I have blocked the account indef--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good call. And I have declined the unblock request because the reasons given ("Why blocked me? Its not fair -.- Wikipedia is free to make edits. I didnt make anything bad." and "I didnt make anything bad im just building my contest") hardly demonstrated an understanding of the problem. Bencherlite^Talk 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I was not aware of these rules. I use this account to make real edits at Swedish language Wikipedia. I did not see why it would be harmful and for me it was a great tool to create tables. It will not happen again. Sorry for taking your time. Bernhardinamusic (talk) 19:11, 8 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)

<pin dropping>Kablam!</pin dropping> And there's that eerie silence I mentioned... Dahn (talk) 16:10, 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)

Hopefully someone can take action here. I have a much longer list of unwarranted offensive language and attitudes from user Dahn. But I am not going to waste my time and list it until someone is ready to look at the case. However I can say that user Dahn manages to create a very poisonous environment around the Romania-related articles. A lot of people have been blocked through his machinations and a lot of people are turned off and giving up editing after dealing with Dahn. As you know from recent surveys, many editors are leaving Wikipedia and the novice ones are meeting a lot of hostility: User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_distressing_trend_of_editors_leaving_Wikipedia, Editor Trends Study. I understand that user Dahn has been around for a while and has created a large number of articles (some of them I really like!), but his attitude is 100% contrary to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers behavioral guidelines and to the clearly defined strategies to enhance everyone's experience: March 2011 Update on strategy. I notice that his constant personal attacks, ironies and insults are ignored constantly, although the Romania-related article talk pages are full of them. But his constant and massive presence in almost all conflicts on Romania-related articles and well as in the incidents board (as both accused and accuser), not only denotes a very active contributor (which is positive!) but also someone who thrives from conflict and can't collaborate, simply believing he is too superior and always right. Someone needs to look deeper at the case from this perspective. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

An RFC/U may be an avenue if action is not taken here. As you've seen above, administrators are loathe to act on AN/I reports that don't create the appearance of seeking a resolution. Having completed an RFC/U would give us something more to work with. causa sui (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I'm made to waste even more of my time and nerves on such threads, I would like to advise administrators not to take these new allegations at face value, but rather have a look over these diffs, which I think amply show Codrinb's serious hounding, racial epithets and stalking directed at yours truly, and his long-standing, hardly bearable, attacks on my dignity: [34]; [35]. Whatever this individual claims I ever did to him or said about him (no diffs, of course!), I have never, ever, resorted or even felt a slight need to resort to such language, such vicious misrepresentation, or such grotesque conspiracy theories; the only thing that's left for him to say is that I eat kittens. For his previous attempt at gaming the system by depicting me as a harasser, see this thread - I think it is telling that the other users commenting there have been quick to identify his claims as nonsense. His only tactic is proof by verbosity: the hope that empty allegations, if circulated enough on this page, will help him score points with the impatient. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think an interaction ban would help you both return to productive editing? causa sui (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there is little mainspace editing interaction between me and either of those users, it would hardly affect me; were it not for Codrinb's stalking and his being canvassed to participate in discussions where I happen to be a party, it would only formalize my personal resolution never to have to engage this character in conversation. Note however that he is still the one chasing me around and opening up venue after venue to bring up the same "facts" about me and how I bathe in the blood of his various verbally incontinent friends. As for Daizus: I simply engaged him in a topical debate, because I believed him to be a reasonable, if easily irritable, user; as mentioned, now I know better than to ever attempt that again. But whatever else comes out of this thread, I hope that Codrinb will at least also receive some form of mentoring, because it is frankly terribly stressful for me, and for anyone, to have to deal with this aggravation and unrelenting mobbing in several places over more than two days on end. I frankly regret not having taken this guy to AN/I when he first produced those horrible and highly disturbing attacks I linked to in those diffs above, I'm sure he needed some cooling off right then and there.

But whatever decision you adopt, please don't make me participate in yet another discussion on this topic. I'm frankly exhausted from just having to confront myself, a fourth or fifth time, with the same obnoxious string of accusations these gentlemen have concocted between them. Dahn (talk) 23:13, 8 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 [[36]], also look at the edit summary. Also, an admin User: Ruhrfisch who was on the opposite side of the edit-war protected Ernest Shackleton [[37]] 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 [[38]]......... 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 [39]. 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)

Good tires, yes? (Хоро шин да) ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 14:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Khorosho in russian means good so I'm guessing this is some kind of personal dimunutive to make it a nickname about a child. (Its too, er sweet to be seriously intended for any Russian adult.) Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Excuse me! What is going on? I wanted to write "Hello spider"! May be, the one letter was not written? I am sorry for my bad English! I have learning English intensively now!--Хорошинда (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to write hello spider on the talk page of someone you have never interacted with before? Do you have any plans whatsoever to do anything constructive here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I know this user from Russian Wikipedia! I should like to welcome and remind about myself to him! I took name Хорошинда from Simlish! I gonna contribute in the articles of Astrakhan--Хорошинда (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now, Alex indeffed you on the Russian wikipedia [40] so you decided to come here and insult him. Looking at the totality of your contributions you have nothing you wish to offer us here and you have wasted quite enough of our time by importing a dispute from RU on to EN. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User indef blocked now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, for non-russian speakers the referenced reason for the block was destructive behavior which presumably means disruption. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Take pity on our little Commie friend. He suffers from hammer-and-sickle cell anemia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does Russian = commie? My 10 year old was born in Moscow, does that make him a commie too? If you haven't got anything useful to add except to sterotype 220 million people with a tired old saw that died 20 years ago then you need to get a life. Bedfore youy answer I'm well aware that I need one too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Check out his user page before you go griping at me. P.S. Correction: That "tired old saw" died thirty years ago - around the same time Communism itself died. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really 30 years ago now? It only seems like yesterday I was watching the wall come down on the news but damn its 15 years since I was posted to Moscow. Blimey, I think I must be getting old. Anyway Bugs, can't you see how cruel it is to mock a user at the same time an admin is in the process of blocking them off the 'pedia. Dammit, you have been around long enough to know the signs and it wasn't a good time to make a funny - yeah even when it was funny. It wasn't the right time or place. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was assuming good faith and teasing him at the same time. Yes, it is cruel to kick a user when he's down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

man, you really need to work on your timing.... I know you meant no harm but cummon, its clearly a child we are dealing with here (he says he is 17 in his block appeal) but it was starkly obvious and irrespective of how badly behaved he is we should do our best to manage the ejection process with kindness and respect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC and drive-by comment:) Maybe Baseball Bugs is making too much of this, but Хорошинда does have several "Ima commie" userboxes, doesn't he? As for all Russians being commie as a stereotype, I think that's misrepresenting the Solzhenitsyns of this world, but come on! :D Dahn (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia is populated by millions of good people, many of whom have a sense of humor. :) For example, the very first edit by Good Tires Yes is pretty funny:[41] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 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)

Yes, this sort of thing could go on WP:VPM (although we do seem to use this place as a general noticeboard..) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is also the most watched noticeboard, as far as I'm aware. Regardless, it looks like several editors have found it already ;-) The Cavalry (Message me) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am confident that this is a pervasive problem because of how we traditionally (and procedurally) treat PR editors; good work all round in tracking down the accounts and articles in this case :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I daresay this will be cross-posted in several places, but bearing in mind that over 5000 accounts alone have this page on their watch list, and that this is a significant incident requiring admin intervention, this is definitely a good place to get eyes on this. And thank you. WilliamH (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with those who think this was the wrong venue. It took me the longest time to figure out the difference between AN and ANI, but I eventually realized that ANI is for Incidents that Require Immediate Admin attention. AN is more an announcements board – items there may be extremely important, but they do not necessarily require immediate action by admins. Technically we don't have the right kind of board to cover "extremely Important Announcements of interest to all editors". Absent the ideal board, AN is the best option as a high traffic notice board, but not ANI. It creates a bad precedent, for anyone thinking something is very important and it ought to get a lot of eyes on it. --SPhilbrickT 14:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was rather hoping we could focus on the issue at hand as a priority - I will look into moving this all to WP:AN instead if people prefer that venue. The key issue here is not which noticeboard this is posted on, but instead that we have a list of articles that need fixing and a rapidly evolving news story. Let's not get bogged down in Parkinson's Law of Triviality! The Cavalry (Message me) 14:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Though the investigation may lead to actions by administrators and so this noticeboard is okay, I would support closing this thread and moving the discussion to AN as a stable space to consider general impact and a consistent set of actions, across what might be a wide group of accounts, for administrators with an eye to future policy improvement. Flagging it here was a good move to quickly attract interest by experienced folks, but this is more than an incident that might be resolved in 24 hours. Fæ (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "nor did they skew any votes".. see this AfD. Gobonobo ^{T C} 15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, well spotted. Fixed now. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Only in our bureaucratic nightmares did I dream we'd be discussing whether or not this is the appropriate noticeboard for the notice and not discussing the contents of the notice. Keegan (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that an editor requested page protection and reversion deletion of User:Biggleswiki at RFPP. I am just going to refer this back to you because it's too complicated for someone to handle at RFPP without any background knowledge. Please make the appropriate judgment on page protection/oversight. Malinaccier (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created this (temporary) template which should be added to the suspected articles. The template should be deleted when things get sorted out. PaoloNapolitano 18:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, no that's not a great idea - way overkill. This is best handled on the one page - no need to slap templates about. No need to revdel or protect the user pages either. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw this on the news and immediately went to ANI to find the relevant discussion, its the obvious place for it. That being said, the accounts are blocked so is there anything left to do? Have the relevant articles been POV-checked? ThemFromSpace 18:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See status list for POV checking updates. Gerardw (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky

Boris Berezovsky (businessman) is a client of Bell Pottinger and there is an admitted COI editor on the article (User:Kolokol1) - Kolokol is the URL for International Foundation for Civil Liberties (as well as being a chemical agent used in warfare, from which the foundation obviously takes their URL - the foundation being used in "warfare" against its opponents). The foundation is run by Alex Goldfarb, a close Berezovsky associate, who came to public recognition during the Litvinenko affair when he headed the Berezovsky PR campaign. The foundation itself is funded by Berezovsky. Berezovsky is a client of BP, and Goldfarb too has used BP for PR exercises, as per this and this. A legal case in the UK recently began in which Berezovsky is suing Roman Abramovich for billions of dollars, and in the lead up to the beginning of the case, the article has seen a whitewashing of the Berezovsky biographical article by Kolokol.

• Here Kolokol1 is asked to declare whether they have a COI
• Kolokol1 refuses to respond directly to the question
• After again being asked, Kolokol1 states he has "an interest in Mr. Berezovsky being treated fairly and objectively"
• Here Kolokol1 confirms "For the record, I am associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care."
• Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)/Archive 3 and Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman) is full of instances where the editor has used cited policies and the like, which once reading this, put some things into perspective. There are many instances of Kolokol1 stating for the record that it was his intent to remove negative information from the article, regardless of what it was, using WP:BLP reasoning for doing so, regardless of the use of only highly respectable and reliable scholarly sources, yet engaged in original research and falsification of information as per this and this, and argued for this to be kept in the article.
• The editor's edits to the article have been mainly subtle changes, which when looked at individually do not raise alarm bells to those who are not well-informed on the subject. When looked at overall, the edits to the informed editor look like a PR hatchet job in the leadup to Berezovsky's lawsuit, and I made note of this on the talk page only a few days ago.
• This subject is a little unusual, in that one would need to make use of both English and Russian language sources to paint the picture that was desired, so I probably wouldn't expect BP IPs to be utilised, unless they have fluent Russian speakers on staff, but the hatchet job on the article is obvious to editors who are familiar with the subject. But obviously it is unacceptable that an admitted COI editor was given free reign by the community to perform the hatchet job on the article in the runup to the beginning of a highly public court case involving Berezovsky. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Crikey, didn't we have some indef blocks due to this topic not all that long ago? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we did. Deepdish7 (talk · contribs) was indef blocked after he expanded the article, which did have some problems but which weren't fixable, and which was reverted wholesale by Kolokol1. DD7 was eventually blocked for disruptive editing, after he kept inserting the information which was being reverted by Kolokol1, and other editors (who were obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter). It is wrong that an admitted COI editor was allowed to continue to edit the article, especially after they all but declared they were going to perform a hatchet job on it. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Davis1000

The recently banned Davis100 has returned as Davis1000 and has continued to add false information on several articles. Please reinstate the ban on this user as I am tired of dealing with his vandalism. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done--v/r - TP 15:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Tolea93

Not sure this is the right place for this, because I'm unsure if this user is a vandal -- or a machine. I am concerned about the editing of User:Tolea93, who has been blocked twice in the last couple of weeks. He makes hundreds of changes to statistical data, primarily in USA-related articles, but also in articles about various other countries. See user contributions here [[42]]. None of the edits appear constructive, none are supported by sources, and they are so widespread across unrelated articles that I would only describe the account as being set up solely for vandalism. His editing is almost robot-like, but there are a few edits where the human factor seems to be present, such as here [[43]], here [[44]] or here [[45]]. He seems to be particularly focused on USA-related articles, and Moldova. He started out in June 2011 with a series of edits to Moldova-related articles, and then suddenly this little offensive tidbit appears in an article about Nebraska, USA: [[46]]. Not sure how to go about checking the accuracy of all his edits or reversing them all, or how to flag this account as set up only for vandalism. Can someone please look into it, or advise? Eastcote (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There's one Tolea93 born every minute: he appears long overdue for a block/ban. Consider that the first article he created is on the imagined place Cacatii Vechi, which, in Romanian (the language of Moldova), means "Old Shits". Nothing this guy writes can and should be trusted. Dahn (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mulitple IP address creating disruptive edits

Forgive me if I am not quite doing this correctly, first time: The user currently using at least four IP addresses (98.92.249.28, 74.232.63.35, 184.37.2.116, and 98.92.244.252 see concrete proof here for two of them and here for an admission of multiple IP's: quote "As far as the IP address, I, like most people have a static IP address, that means that every time I turn the computer off, then on again, I am assigned a new IP address by my ISP. This is not within my span of control and is actually a safety measure put in place by ISP's to minimize hacking. So unless you're a hacker, it should be a good thing") has been continually editing the Chronology of the Bible page in a way that is disruptive, and has been reverted by several different editors, including myself, Lisa, Jeffro77, and ArthurRubin. His/her latest edit is without a doubt disruptive here (the "Warning" at the top of the page, since reverted). User refuses to use secondary sources and continously attempts to insert OR (by his own admission quote: "If you had said your objection to that particular part of the revision was that it was OR, I might have had to agree with you, or that it was without a legitimate source and mere speculation, which it was presented as, thus the term "likely", as that particular section came as a result of my own personal research into the matter of just who the ruler of Egypt was at the time of the exodus. It was presented as speculation, just as is done in many encyclopedias"). Vyselink (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They aren't too technical. A static IP means that when they reboot they would always get the same IP address :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the multiple IP addresses that I'm really talking about. It's more the disruptive edits (see again here where he reverted back to his "Warning"). Vyselink (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC) And now that you mention it, I totally missed the "static" mistake on my original reading. :-) Vyselink (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, It's a Dynamic IP address, not a static one, but still beyond my span of control.Also three of the four usersUser:Vyselink, Lisa, Jeffro77, plus one known as Blackcab have formed a little social group so they can circumvent the rules regarding reverting the page,I am not familiar with the other user, the information they are posting, never mind, look at the pages talk section and read it for yourself rather than me re-stating everything. Also look at the talk pages of the respective persons involved( Blackcab, Jeffro77, and Vyselink), as they appear to have collaborated on several disruptive endeavors before this one regarding pages where Jehovah's Witnesses are involved. They've created a situation where "the Fox is watching the hen house". I added a Warning to the top of the page "Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs" because the page is so inherently false that it calls for one, and as of this point I have formally requested the deletion of that page because I feel it is beyond hope of repair. If Wikipedia is simply looking for the views and assertions of these few extremists, let there reversions stand, However if accuracy is in any way involved in what Wikipedia is seeking, they need to be stopped from continuing there disruptive course. They refuse to discuss the material at hand, and simply revert the page, while making claims of a "fringe" and NPOV, while reverting to their own "fringe" sources and violating NPOV themselves What they are doing is in essence vandalism of the page because they are erasing the properly source material of others because they personally don't like the source material which I think is in violation of Wikipedia's own rules regarding source material. I have stated that I am willing to discuss the dates in the chart I submitted, they apparently are not willing to discuss, only revert to material that is not supported by other than a fictitious source. Which is another point entirely, the source they use does not contain the information they present, only a small portion of it and it is not properly referenced as to page number where the information is located on the source. I can only assume this is to conceal the fact that the material is not really provided by the source the present. The rest is OR. And yet they would challenge, two or three sentences that I presented as being theory, not as fact, on a subject on which ONLY theory exists, because the facts are uncertain.72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, you haven't formally requested the deletion of the page -- that's a different process. You just posted on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, which means pretty much nothing. That said, though, I do have some concerns about this page -- it's mostly cited to primary JW sources, rather than to analyses of JW doctrine, which is what we should be using. All the analysis is on the WP side, which is an WP:OR violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My initial complaint was about disruptive edits, mainly on the Chronology of the Bible section. As far as the JW Beliefs page, I have attempted to talk with the IP user about what, specifically, he wants to change. I found it interesting that a user that wants to use JW sources for everything he does complains about an article that (as SarekOfVulcan just pointed out, and as I pointed out on that talk page) uses OVERWHELMINGLY JW official sources. Vyselink (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I am confused as to how to go about requesting its deletion, perhaps you could help me through the process. Secondly I looked up the other user mentioned and here is an excerpt from his talk page addressing another person I also don't know

NESARA Page

The edits are well sourced and verifiable, the truth and many agree and we will change the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirianet (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the (improperly formatted) sources you've added are reliable. Truth is not that important to Wikipedia, but the fact that none of your statements have a reliable source is adequate to remove it. Furthermore, the real (albeit not actually introduced) NESARA deserves some space in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My question is this, why is this person allowed to make edits when the truth matters little to him by his own admission? He states "the truth is not that important to Wikipedia" If that is the case, then perhaps, Wikipedia should be shut down....We will see if this guy is right or not with this instance, as he appears to be another friend of the social group and had made the latest revert on "chronology of the Bible"72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia's admission: Verifiability and not truth. As soon as you learn what WP:CONSENSUS means, the easier your life will be (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently anyone who disagrees with the IP user is part of the "group" (watch out Sarek, you're next). Until I searched the Chronology of the Bible pages edit history, I did not know of the existence of Arthur Rubin or Lisa. This is getting off track however. I was, and still am, seeking a possible solution to this IP users disruptive edits. His nomination for deletion of an entire page that he has yet to argue any changes for should be proof of that. Vyselink (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My sole appearance at the Chronology of the Bible page was to warn the anon user that he/she is about to breach 3RR. For that, he/she called me an apostate[47] and immediately declared I was part of a club and editing with my "friends" at Wikipedia. This person has now urged me to read a passage from the Bible, which apparently will explain everything.[48] BlackCab (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor claims that a 'social group' exists among those who have pointed out his edits are inappropriate. No such 'social group' exists. I have never met any of the other people (as far as I am aware, none are in my country). I have disagreed at times with each of the other editors.

The fact of the matter is that the anonymous editor is pushing the views of a minor religious group and trying to present them as if they are broadly accepted.

The anonymous editor claims his edits are well sourced and based on the Bible. However, his edits are sourced from JW publications that calculate their chronology based on the dogmatic selection of 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem, for which all secular sources assign within a year of 587 BCE. There is therefore not any secular consensus for the promotion of their fringe chronology.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Virginia Tech

We may need eyes on the Virginia Tech pages (and pages related to the 2007 shooting) as there has been another shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevant news story. Deor (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:AnnaBennett making allegations that I am being 'bought' via a ' secret government contract'.

Resolved

 – Looney Serious journalistic investigator has been indef'd.--v/r - TP 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See this diff [49]. AB has already strayed into tinfoil-hat territory previosly in her talk-page comments (see also [50], though there are earlier examples), but this seems beyond the pale. Given that she is to all intents a SPA, and has shown no willingess to conform to normal policies (endless speculation, OR, etc being the major problems), I can see no way in which she can usefully contribute to Wikipedia. A person that thinks that contributors are part of some sort of wild government conspiracy, and attacks them as such, has no place as a contributor in my opinion, and should be permanantly blocked from contributing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've indef blocked as that diff, along with the user's history as regards dispute resolution, does not suggest that a time-limited block will have an effect. That said, coming here with an expected punishment is a little full-on; it's enough to flag the issue and see what resolution is suggested, and less likely to result in the blocked user assuming that the admin corps is, well, obeying the orders of shadowy gummit operatives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples of AndyTheGrump's edit style:

• [51] What fucking part of 'not WP:RS don't you halfwits understand?)
• [52] fuck off, scumbag
• [53] moron
• [54] go fuck yourself
• [55] what has your crackpot conspiracy theory got to do with the article?
• etc etc

I've never complained about this but AndyTheGrump writes:

• [56] If you persist with your violations of WP:CIVIL, I shall raise this at the appropriate noticeboard.

If those are your standards Andy, you should at least live up to them yourself.

Here andy deletes the mention of a patent:[57] [58] (there are more instances of this edit war)

There is no doubt he wants the "excess heat" patent deleted.

Then Anna created a section about the patent.[59]

Then Andy created a notice board entry[60] that says: "Should the article discuss and cite a patent relating to the Patterson Power Cell?"

The request for comments confirmed that we do mention the existence of patents (if they are relevant) but we don't use them as sources.

I spend some time looking over the patents and listed the relevant documents. The patents are then deleted again:[61]

Important to note is that Anna, Povbrigand and I are doing all the work while Andy deletes everything, calling us names in the process. He was even blocked for this recently. The users User:Binksternet and User:IRWolfie- while equally unreasonable in their endless deletions don't insult other editors the way Andy does.

I think the correct action to take here is to ignore his soap boxing and go back to working on articles.

While the joke was just as inappropriate as Andy's usual edit summary there was no real damage done.

Regards, 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have a little different view. I think that both AnnaBennet and the IP 84.106.26.81 are both a bit inexperienced. In defence of Anna I can say that she seems to have done a good job on California State Student Association. I am pretty sure she will understand that baseless conspiracy theories are the last thing we need on wikipedia. But for the rest Anna seems to have potential to become a good editor. At least see doesn't become uncivil all the time like AndyTheGrump does. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The irony here being that now that she's blocked, it will only strengthen her conviction that WP is a government shill heh. Too much damn dopamine in some people. N^oformation ^Talk 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I truly think that Anna will be able to understand what got her into this and will distance herself from those conspiracy theories. I thought she was just joking. Together with her solid work in other topics she will be a good candidate for a second chance --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. I have less confidence. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

AB has made no edits unrelated to 'cold fusion' topics since the beginning of October, as far as I can see. If there is any possibility of her ever becoming a useful contributor (which I doubt, given her problematic attitude to sourcing, weight, reliability of sources etc), it might be appropriate to unblock her with a ban on any edits or other interactions regarding any 'cold fusion/LENR'-related articles, broadly construed, with a proviso that should she show evidence of understanding and conforming to policy, the ban might be removed after a reasonable probation period (say 6 months?). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not just 10 hours, like your latest block for outrages personal attacks lasted ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, so, about that... were those diffs handled somewhere else? Because I don't know why "fuck off, scumbag", among others, isn't worth a block. causa sui (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Only one insult was sanctioned, the other were not brought to attention. The Block was lifted after a mere 10 hours without the editor showing remorse. But with a promise (after he was unblocked) to refrain from further uncivil behaviour, A promise he didn't keep. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the incivility and personal attacks from POVbrigand about other editors and his incessant canvassing to get his opponents in trouble may be of interest to those looking to clean house: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. Just keeping y'all honest! 128.59.171.194 (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@causa sui- Relevant discussion. Swarm ^X 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Given your involvement regarding the topic POVb, I think you would perhaps do as well to leave this issue to disinterested people. Yes, I know I lost my temper, and I know it wasn't appropriate. There is a difference, however. I am not using Wikipedia to portray fringe 'science' in a positive light, and I am not making allegations about vast conspiracies manipulating Wikipedia, the media in general, and the world at large. This is the key issue regarding AB's comments. She sees Wikipedia as a forum to present the 'truth' to the world, and when asked to comply with policy, and to treat others with respect, she makes allegations that can only do harm to the project as a whole. (And for the record, I see no reason to assume her comments were 'a joke', given her past history of making wild claims about 'conspiracies'.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This:

• [68] what has your crackpot conspiracy theory got to do with the article?
• Referred to this:[69]
• Which in turn referred to POVbrigand's original research:[70] Right where it says "citation needed" the crackpot conspiracy theory[sic] begins?

I'm not seeing anything of the kind. This is a bad faith report designed to out a user. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a game of cluedo to an uninvolded editor/admin. Maybe time for mediation ? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Professor Patterson did it, in the garage, with a cold-fusion-cell ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy - Didnt you agree to avoid this topic because it tends to get your blood boiling a little?--v/r - TP 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to avoid the article in question until the AfD closed. It has. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, you did. My bad.--v/r - TP 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The phrase "using an iron wheel to crush a butterfly" comes to mind. Greglocock (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ask this editor [71] about his opinion on Andy being "hell bent to kick other editors off this project" 19.10.2011 --POVbrigand (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User claims to feel suicidal

handled. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While patrolling new user feedback, I noticed this feedback from User:AllyG.1. The feedback explicitly mentions that the user feels "sad and suicidal" as a result of seeing his/her edits reverted. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I sent an email to the folks that matter. We'll let them take care of it.--v/r - TP 21:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC) ...and I left a nice welcome template with a plate of cookies. So, two people just revert her only edits (sure, they weren't overly beneficial edits), left a couple of warnings, but nothing to tell them how to actually edit the project? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Meeeeh. I may be the exception, but honestly, I tiptoed around here and was very scared when I made my first edit, hoping it was good enough. But because I did my research and read up on the whole thing, it was. I see no reason to expect less of anyone else. Though, the welcome template does help I guess. --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC) In what was is this even remotely benificial. On 8th Dec 2011, Jonsson finally decided to remove Romanov's flumpy Lithuanian sausage from his back side and join local rivals Hibernian. Im all for welcoming new editors but when there first edit is vandalism. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC) So they're a passionate fan ... haven't you thought essentially the same thing once or twice about a player? It wasn't vandalism, it was personal opinion from a passionate and frustrated observer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I really hope, Bwilkins, that you are making a joke. Bielle (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC) You, erm, do understand what "Romanov's flumpy Lithuanian sausage" refers to, don't you? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC) It was vandalism. Plain and simple. There is no way that any user, new or experienced, would think that the statement in their first edit belongs in an encyclopedia article. Have I been mad about things that happen with athletes and teams that I'm a fan of? Yes. Do I think that talking about them taking sausages out of their asses belongs in an article anywhere? No. It was vandalism. It was reverted as vandalism and they were properly warned for it. AllyG? (Ali G?) Sorry. Not a huge amount of AGF when it comes to them just being a passionate fan...which wouldn't be an excuse anyway. --Onorem♠Dil 22:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Oh, I fully understand. No, it does not belong. But no, it was not vandalism in the true sense of the word. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Vandalism is any addition ... in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding ... crude humor to a page ... and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. In the true sense of the word, or as the word is described on Wikipedia? I'm confused why anyone would defend it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Whatever the intent the edits were, the post on the FeedbackDashboard is not a joke, nor is it to be taken lightly. (At least I am not convinced that this is mere trolling, nor should we take that chance.) Moreover, I think it shows some rather bad taste in discussing the edits in question in the midst of a potential suicide threat. Given, I joke around occasionally, but situations like these I do not, and neither should others. –MuZemike 22:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Indeed. It was closed by the foundation guy. That should be an end to it. Leaky Caldron 22:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)