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

Not again..

Frankly I am just sick to death of having to put up with this user's hostility so I'll just report this right away. User:Timbouctou (even after being warned and blocked for a week for exactly that sort of behavior) once again arrived on a perfectly amiable discussion between myself and a third user and immediately started intensely revert-warring, threatening [1], and insulting my intelligence by implying I do not know my own language ("perhaps your Croatian might not be perfect" [2], he of course knows full well I am a Croat). I mean this sort of stuff just ruins the discussion right then and there and you know there is no chance of an amicable agreement from that point on, its one-post instant disruption.

When I asked him to stop, he just replied with "yeah yeah, spare the usual rants". Bearing in mind the two previous ANI reports about this user's flaming [3][4], and my previous experience with him, I don't even want to wait for this to escalate to the point where I'm called a "psychopath". It seems the user "got over" his block and its just business as usual all over again. I honestly feel this person's "out to get me", attempting to provoke me into another one of his conflicts to then try and get me blocked in retaliation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in commenting your distortions and rants. The matter is explained quite clearly at Talk:Zoran Milanović#Atheism and I would have reported you here for editing against consensus and violating WP:3RR anyway ([5], [6], [7], [8]). And all this in the very same article where you had violated WP:3RR and started an entire drama involving half a dozen editors over which image should be used in the infobox ([9], [10], [11]) two months earlier (and were even accused of harassment over it by the image uploader, twice). Looks like getting blocked eight times for edit-warring did not do the trick. Hopefully a ninth one might send the message more clearly. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rants", right.. As I said twice before, Timbouctou only ever tries to attack me in response to being reported himself, trying to prove I really do deserve his treatment. This has happened time and time again, and here as well, a discussion is a "drama I started", some new user's uninformed accusation of "harassment" is brought out, as well as everything I might have done over six years on Wikipedia. (As far as I can see, those four edits took place over the course of several days. And while I am sure Timbouctou would not mind to get himself blocked as well only to get me blocked for a longer period, I will point out he neglects to mention he reverted three times [12] [13] [14].) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

As I said in the previous two discussions [15], and even after being told by others to focus on his own actions, all this user does is try to paint me as a menace and a troublemaker whenever he is reported. This is my perception, but I see this not only as irrelevant in justifying his actions (along the lines of "he deserves it"), but as personal attacks. And yet again in this thread as well, he's justifying his harassment - with more harassment here on ANI. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right, except that it's already stopped.. Sigh. If you guys want to block, fine, block me for posting four reverts, not over 24 hours, but since January 3. But what annoys me is how this thread has departed off topic, and how my behavior is being equated with that of Timbouctou - which indicates a lack of understanding of the wider context. Is anyone reading through the two older cases? This is not a "silly", minor issue, at least not where I'm standing. I posted this to report a continuation of the same behavior that Timbouctou was warned for, and then blocked for a week [16][17]. This user won't leave me alone, I'm asking for help and a review of the user's behavior, and all anyone can do is focus on the four reverts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interaction ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps some of you might have missed the point of what is truly being discussed here. A move was requested based on what is the name mostly used by English speaking historians. The name is João VI. We have 53,800 results for João and 40,800 results for John. Ed17 closed the discussion because here were no longer replies except for three users who against the move who kept debating by thsemves. So far, so good. What some may have not noticed are the comments by three users with a high dosage of xenophobia.[18], [19], [20] and [[21]], to name a few. This is the kind of behavior that should not be allowed on Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Shouldn't the article be "John VI of Portugal", followed by, (João VI de Portugal). Which follows the pattern found on John II of France[22] and Henry IV of France[23]. Maybe this should be the pattern for all royalty? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Why is it that admins hestitate to ... well .. do what admins are supposed to do? And why is it that Alarbus, who has all the hallmarks of being a returning editor and who shares a position with Lecen and Ed on the FA director issue (and a review of their editing histories and talk pages shows that Alarbus came to support Lecen over the "Wehwalt for FA director" issue-- a phrase first seen from Alarbus on the Lecen issue[ [24]) are now editing on the same side of a conflict? As Lecen has already shown, there is an abundance of articles that refer to John by his name in English, this is the en Wiki, and we have naming conventions here. That there are slightly more sources that refer to his Portuguese name than the translation to English is irrelevant to the issue: there is an abundance of sources that support his English name and that translation, so it should be used on en Wiki. WP:SOVEREIGN says "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference ... " English! Feel free to point out what I'm missing. And by the way, besides the curious nexus of the apparently returning editor Alarbus suddenly supporting Lecen's content positions after they came together on the FA issue, there has been a long history of canvassing on this suite of articles, so again, why the heck aren't admins looking at the things they're supposed to be looking at: disruptive behaviors, returning editors with a possible agenda, possible meatpuppetry-- is it rocket science or did we not have an arb finding a few years ago about coordinated editing? Why must we have an RFC when we have policies and conventions? Why are admins unable to sort this here and be done with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

More background: before I knew him at FAC, I had edited with Lecen at Hugo Chavez. While we share views on what has gone wrong in that article to make it POV (the who, how and why it came to ignore reliable sources to become a pro-Chavez hagiography), Lecen was so argumentative and disruptive on the talk page that he effectively shot any effort to NPOV the article in the foot, using the talk page for long anti-Chavez rants, ([25][26]) leading me to recuse on his FACs, where he then went on to alienate reviewers and delegates alike with the same intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style,[27] leading him to sour grapes at FAC,[28] leading to Alarbus's post about the Wehwalt for FA director campaign. Lecen is very difficult to edit with, which is why he's having a hard time getting FACs reviewed-- he argues with everyone about everything. So give the poor fellow who came here with a legitimate issue a chance; solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to PBS on admin "The ed17"

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

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

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

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

This charge is based on the following factors:

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

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

• Jan 11

* Feb (FAC coop)

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

* Dec (FAC review coop)

* Dec (greetings & gratitude)

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

and from Lecen's talk page (from 2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Dec 11 (FAC coop)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In furtherance of this hypothesis:

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

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

• I also find Ed's citation above of "only three opponents" of the move in this ANI, which is false, to be suspicious, as it simply reiterates the situation as interpreted by Lecen, and stated by him in other venues. (e.g. [30]), suggesting he never took a careful look.

• Although I recognize I protested a little strongly immediately after the shock, Ed did not and has still not provided satisfactory justification, and his consistent reply to my concerns and appeals has been to brush me off and tell me to "go start an RfC". At one point, he even referred to my concerns as "lame" with a mocking link WP:Lame [31].

• that upon closure, Ed immediately pushed his current FA candidacy of his FA candidacy article on the Dreadnought Race in the reply to the protests over the closure [32], which I believe is a significant hint of him eliciting grateful participants to reward him with a favorable review of his FAC. Lecen has duly done so today. [33] This seems like tit-for-tat payola.

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

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

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

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

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

I would, however, like to direct admin's attentions to User:Lecen's recent aggressive personal attacks & mud-slinging accusations of xenophobia (e.g. [34], [35]), attempts to archive the talk page away ( [36] [37], [38]), and frivolous attempts to get administrators to block me (ANI, 3RR) as part of a pattern of disruptive behavior designed to derail this ANI and my continued participation in it. I believe the swifter this matter is resolved, the quicker those disruptive shenanigans will cease.

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

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

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

When you said "...If this change is undertaken, I will not respect it, nor will I adhere to it, but will continue referring to Portuguese monarchs by their common anglicized names"[39] you were not joking. I will not even waste my time discussing The ed17's ethics. He is a well known and respected editor here. About the other editors mentioned here (Paulista, Cristiano Tomás, Astynax): like myself, all of them are well known contributors of Brazilian/Portuguese articles. About the move now: nothing of new was occurring on the discussion, except for Walrasiad and two other editors who were opposed the move who kept arguing against it. None of them have made any contribution to articles about João VI, nor his son Pedro I, nor his grandson Pedro II. See the discussion on the talk page: they opposed the move because they saw it as an attack against Anglo culture (I'm not kidding, go see it for yourself). --Lecen (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User Blospa

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but Blospa (talk · contribs)'s contributions seem very odd. Could be normal vandalism, but I wonder if there is more to the user. Very confusing. (Had it been straight vandalism, AIV would have been the place, I think; but I wondered if this quacked.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 1:37 pm, Today (UTC−8)

I notice the user was blocked whilst reporting this (also, I don't have access to deleted contributions, but when I checked there were at least 6 nonsense pages of just Margaret Thatcher). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 1:38 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Time to blacklist that image and set up an edit filter.Jasper Deng (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−8)

User:La goutte de pluie and Singapore-related articles

Resolved

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

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

A1 Current context:

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

A2 Also see:

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

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

A4 Grace Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — La guotte version 1, La goutte version 2, La goutte current version Grace Fu has received media coverage recently for certain remarks she made on her facebook page. La goutte's style of selectively picking up phrases and quoting them on article pages is very disturbing. According to WP:BLP, Wikipedia is not a tabloid and biographical articles on living persons should be written conservatively and dispassionately. She later makes a POINTy addition to the article: [40]

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

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

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

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

Again, I am disconcerted by the use of selective paraphrasing and quoting out of context. Quoting from the source:^[41]

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

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

As part of the "dual strategy on the internet" in 1995, as usage of uncensored internet messageboards became more popular, the Young PAP began regularly commenting on the Usenet group soc.culture.singapore.^[42]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lee quickly rose through the civil bureaucracy as a brigadier-general in the 1980s and was one of the key leaders in the mid-1980s leadership transition. [43]

This assertion is unreferenced.

Lee was regarded as one of the next key leaders in the People's Action Party leadership transition that was taking place in the mid-1980s, as Lee Kuan Yew had declared that he would eventually step down as Prime Minister in 1984. Following the Singaporean general election, 1984, all the old Central Executive Committee members had resigned on 1 January 1985, except for Lee himself. ^[44]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither of the two sources used on the article pertaining to the Library of Congress mention the word "eugenics" even once. – [45], [46]. You are using Wikipedia as a tool to advance your political agenda. I am alarmed by your brazen disregard for NPOV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Eugenics on the Rise: A report from Singapore

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

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

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

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

Btw, from the second LOC ref:

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe WP:POINT and sowing confusion are part of her editing style? I recall [47] and see a repetition with [48]. So a topic ban from whatever area she disrupted now (Singapore, China?) won't be enough. She reminds me of User:TreasuryTag in that respect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "In both cases here, I see no plausible reason for blocking whatsoever."
• " In brief, Toddst1 was involved and the block was a disproportionate response to the conduct in question." [49] elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Cherry picking - my ass. I notified the admin that unblocked you.[50] Toddst1 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Still irrelevant to topic at hand. Take your complaint about Toddst1 to a new section please Bouket. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this admin was also involved with incident here [51] which i cant find in the archives can someone find it? because of this instance where i spoke up against hid friend i was ordered an interaction ban here[52] despite that other people found me helpful and i was just trying to help out like this person said [53] and he also changed his comments on my talk page when i said they werent helpful [54] and never AGF despite telling me i should AGF for him. he also was stalking me on wikipedia here [55] and here [56] and here [57] and ill probably be blocked for talking about him now. Bouket (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you would be interested in a user conduct RFC. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 00:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Bouket, your edits do not belong in this topic. Just because you have a complaint about an admin doesn't mean that you can complain about that admin in an unrelated topic. You're just adding unnecessary clutter here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) sorry bbb23 i just thought that the admin was acting extremely rashly recently so wanted to mention it. he would make very fast edits without thinking about them and used lots of words that show anger or annoyance as well Bouket (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing disruption

User:La goutte de pluie is now stalking my edits to alter articles on my contribution history. – [58], [59], [60], [61] and also hiding my comments without my permission and revert-warring over them. It's very exasperating dealing with her. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 01:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

IP problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

possible hijacking of a retired/vanished user

Resolved

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

Katarighe (talk · contribs) claims on their userpage to be the re-incarnation of a "vanished" user. The two accounts dfo not share any interests, Katarighe shows an extremely poor understanding of the English language while the vanished account had no such problems, and when questioned about it his replies [62] [63] smelled strongly of WP:BALLS. Up until this point I hjad thought this user was just a bit misguided in that they seemed a little too focused on looking ready to be an admin, but this is different. I do not believe them to be te same user. And now, as I write this, he is trying to have all his talk archives deleted. Something is rotten in Denmark. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This user did a lot of editing on the "Suspected copyright violations" page today [64]. It might be a good idea if anyone who knows the ins and outs of that page were to double check the items that K marked as resolved. Thanks ahead of time to the editor(s) who take this task on. MarnetteD | Talk 01:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

Alt accounts

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

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

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

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

Possible sock of banned user?

This looked kind of suspicious to me [65]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Featured articles/Make Featured Article leaders elected (RFC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After being warned for his "leaking pussy juice out of its nutsack" comments in a paragraph that mentions me by name twice here,[66] he entered a long diatribe that was redacted by Carcharoth[67] at WT:FAC.[68] That's only a few days' worth-- the entire history would take much longer to put together.

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

Independently, TCO recently made his first-ever appearance on Richard Nixon to back his mentor Wehwalt in edit warring, with the edit summary of "crufy rule monger",[69] in a case btw where they both falsely claimed the issue had been recently reviewed at FAC. Whether TCO should be topic banned from FAC might be considered at a later date, since there is a long history. Harassment, edit warring, canvassing, forum shopping-- all by an editor with a block log showing a history of disruption. Can admins think of no action needed in such a situation? For his mentor Wehwalt to ask that this thread be closed, during the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign is also iffy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

The RfC demands many formal words describing its incompetence, the least of which is stupid, and I say that without trying to violate NPA. TCO has proven to be interested in a self-serving mission that is unclear to editors who are not TCO. He certainly has no interest in improving processes associated with article quality. He refuses to heed the opinions of editors with much more experience than he, preferring to depend on ill-formed confidence and oddly unscientific data that he manipulates with his own ends in mind. Those ends all point to the same direction: disrupt FAC. He was asked by Johnbod (talk · contribs) [70], Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) [71], twice by me [72], [73], and by other editors not to post his RfC, because it would inevitably be more about him than improving FAC. Mike Christie (talk · contribs) had already planned an RfC that would be neutrally and competently worded to solve the problems apparent at FAC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONE PERSON with 3 USERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block of Sheodred and MarcusBritish

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests:

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm a neutral party, even Sheodred recognised this, and apologised for his reaction, and recognised my abilities as a neutral editor: [74]
• Archiving was in relation to a de facto banned user called George SJ XXI much earlier, and not Sheodred. The hyperbolic reference you make is irrelevant and seeking to use evidence which precedes the dispute you have a problem with.
• "one of the more shocking examples" – why shocking? Looking to scare some editors with more hyperbole RA? You can't stop people doing whatever they want in the real world, so you must be confused that sysop gives you magic powers beyond Wiki. If a person feels harassed online, they can go to the police, or a lawyer. But legal threats were not required. Whistleblowing to his college was an option, and quite legal. Not shocking. The thought that he might be expelled is your implication, and further hyperbole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuff like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having interacted with both these editors I found Marcus blunt, but so too have I found Shoedred blunt and with a tendency to side step. What worries me is the post above highlighted by Snowded, where did Marcus get such information , if on wiki does it require a mention in such a hostile and very bullying way? The comment above about ploughing a feild is stereotypical racism and would digust many ,uncivil and racist to say the least. Marcus has contributed to IMOS only since he interacted with Sheodred, the only reason Sheodred got banned is he edited Bio's in a manner similar to Marcus' suggestions after coming back from a block, which to say the least is ironic. The fact that Marcus now calls RA's action here a waste of time yet brought similar to the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts board with a list of edits from Shoedred , [75] most of which where non-contentious , "Packie Bonner: — added "Irish" to lead" , that made me laugh , born in Ireland, holds Irish citizenship , one of the most capped Irish players off all time and Marcus is using the addition of Irish as a point of ethnic conflict ? But the most interesting point is Marcus' list of personal attacks on there, yet here it has been shown the he made racist comment and a use of information to engage in action that might have serious consequences outside of Wiki. Do we all who comment have to wonder if Marcus will contact our bosses after we do a lunch time edit on the office computer? Or do we have to wonder will he give away our personal details on here? The threat he made is more serious than any block on here could ever be.Murry1975 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're also very selective in your ANI discussions and what opinions you raise, given that you were supporting my neutral opinions recently [76]. As I've said already, the "threat" was dated back in mid-December. No one gave a shit then, it's too late to do anything now. Like I said.. if you plough a ploughed field, you don't unearth anything new, it's just the same old mud to sling! This thread is and remains a charade. You might consider redacting your unwarranted suspicions.. they are facetious. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Pieter Kuiper again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

Radvo (talk · contribs) has linked several times to sites that advocate for pedophilia, notably MHAMIC (Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors information center) and IPCE (International Pedophile and Child Emancipation) as well as helpingpeople dot info, on Talk:Rind et al. controversy ([77], [78]). I have repeatedly removed them [79], [80], [81] and stated in no uncertain terms that linking to these sites is never acceptable - they are not reliable sources, and they are far, far, far too partisan for an illegal act to ever be convenience links. Despite this, Radvo is still arguing for the sites to be considered [82]. May I request the community have a look, and perhaps stomp, hard? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swarm, my reply was in part to you and in part to the editors suggesting this be reported to arbcom. The part to you was in response to "This diff looks like a good faith effort to seek a third opinion on the disagreement." I'm not advocating for a block of Radvo - I'm saying s/he needs to learn, quickly, that these links are not and will never be acceptable on wikipedia. That requires attention from outside the current page participants, because apparently Johnuniq's wasn't neutral enough (nor was Legitimus' apparently [83]). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Purplebackpack89

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

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

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

Mailinator addresses (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually there's already a related bugzilla [84]. There have been some contradictory comments but my understanding is the foundation is already aware of this and looking in to the best solution. I'm not entirely sure whether more community pressure would help, I would have expected the nature of the emails is enough to convince the foundation that this is a serious issue. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mobile Payments in India

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

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

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

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

It's worth keeping the page on watch for the next 7 days. I've just reverted an IP registered to Indian Institute of Technology, Madras who had removed the blanking template [85]. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And again [86] (reverted by another editor). Voceditenore (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Crissy Moran - low-level edit war, block evasion

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politician editing own article?

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

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

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

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

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

Diacritics usage on hockey team articles

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible whelwarring over offensive off-topic post

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

---

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

I would like to achieve three things with this post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Sathishanandsanthanakrishnan

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

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

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

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

Help needed

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

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

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

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

Fake lawyer offering his services?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm dealing with an angry person

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

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

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

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

I'm exasperated and at a loss. This article is about a physics theory proposed by Antony Garrett Lisi (note that there are similar problems on that article, too). There are two distinct sides, both of which seem to not understand or care whatsoever about Wikipedia's policies, with only one or two editors (I consider myself to be one) in the middle. One side thinks that Lisi is, well, words that I can't use for fear of breaking WP:BLP. They think that the theory is complete bunk, hype, and a public relations travesty. The other side thinks that Lisi's theory is new, imperfect but promising, no different than any other new physics theory, and deserving of a warm limelight (and that the detractors are basically envious string theorists). The first side wants both articles deleted, or, at least, stubbed and left with no info about the science itself. Deletion is out of the question, of course, because there are dozens upon dozens of sources that discuss both Lisi and the theory (what happened is that the mainstream press got excited that this "surfer-dude" physicist, working outside of the academy, came up with a theory that set the physics world on edge). The other side wants the entire theory explained in great detail, both mathematically and scientifically, at a level that 99.9999% of Wikipedia readers could never understand. This is really also out of the question because there are quite a number of sources that say that, unfortunately, Lisi is simply wrong (the main paper was never even published in a peer reviewed journal).

I'm fed up with the two sides. Most recently, I've "threatened" to just start collapsing every discussion that calls for the article to be deleted, because that's so obviously not what Wikipedia policy says. I'm also sick to death of having to have the same fight over and over again with the ones who don't want anything removed. Furthermore, Lisi himself has been discussing this off site, and it is entirely likely that either Lisi or one of his supporters, as well as some of his direct opponents, are actively editing the article and/or talk page. Just recently, 2 editors have said that they're planning to take me to the Administrator's Notice Board for my threats (see Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything#Does Wikipedia need this article and, if so, what form should it take?). So I'm taking the initiative and doing it myself.

Of course, the question is inevitably, "What Administrative Action is requested here?" First, please review the conduct of all users there, and see if anyone needs to be blocked for BLP violations (of particular concerns there are posts by [[[User:71.106.167.55]]), such as [87]), or tendentious editing. See if anyone sees any meat or sockpuppetry. Please also review my own conduct, and trout or sanction me as appropriate--my frustration may well have gotten the better of me, especially in the last few days. Ideally, I'd like a neutral admin or two watching the talk page and stopping tendentious editing before it gets out of hand (as if the article were under discretionary sanctions). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An article written in the tone that is written in which contains the phrase "was not submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal" and "largely but not entirely ignored by the mainstream physics community" should send red flags waving. Honestly I'd support deleting it, we don't need any more pseudoscience here. And that is what that appears to be to me. That article seems to have rushed through AfD last time with ILIKEIT type "look, it is in the news!" support. That doesn't demonstrate a lasting notability (notability isn't temporary). This theory seems to have no lasting support or impact. Send it back to AfD, perhaps. Prodego ^talk 05:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An exceptionally easy decision. Mainstream science ignores it. So should we. Per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm an interested editor who hasn't done much with the article because it was outside of my expertise, but since Lisi's public presentations have focused on the visualizations of his theory which is within my geometric expertise at least.Qwyrxian has been patient and fair, although it was his deletion of a large portion of the mathematical aspects of the article that pulled me in [88]. I appreciated the detailed descriptions of the theory even if there was much I don't understand, and I'm one of the 99.999% too, in terms of judging its failings. There's advanced mathematics in the theory only really taught to math (or physics) grad students, although Wikipedia has a great deal to say about this advanced math, like Lie algebras of E8 and the subgroups. I find Lisi's paper and article represent an excellent inspiration for aspiring math students for a reason to try to learn more about this abstract math. Similarly for me the theory was the first attempt I ever saw that offered me a "map", that the hundreds of subatomic particles had a structure I could understand, and again, there's wide wikipedia articles on subatomic physics articles. So my interest in "explaining" the theory is to connect Lisi's use of weight diagrams to show known and speculated relations between the particle and charges of all these particles. These diagrams seem to do a great deal to help explain the relations between the particles to nonexperts, and are used in many papers, while wikipedia editors who added the physics articles haven't included them. As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question since Lisi still works on it, and his public presentations shows a progression from the standard model to various extensions which are speculative, ending with his E8 proposal. So it seems fair to me, that wikipedia, with its vast math and physics articles gain by Lisi's paper as an article, showing the progression of theories, and I think if there's people on wikipedia who are able to understand and summarize the model and reference their sources properly, it seems inspiring to those who are interested, and actually harmless to those who fear science is being destroyed by a speculative idea they don't like. So I'll keep learning, and if I can help, I will. It would be nice if the harshes critics could think of some constructive on the talk pages. Qwyrxian suggested rants be deleted, and I see his reasoning, but accept suppression can just makes ranters more self-righteous. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question". Possibly. Wikipedia isn't the place to close it. Take it elsewhere - our science articles are based on mainstream consensus. If you want to promote a new and radical theory, find a new place to do it. That isn't what Wikipedia is here for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

His work will exist whether or not we have a Wikipedia article on it. Indeed, we can even export this article somewhere else. But that mainstream theoretical physicists immediately reject it is all I need to know. Wikipedia's science articles need to be about science. Speculative theories that are completely disregarded by the mainstream don't belong, under the same sort of theory that leads us to the WP:OR policy. Prodego ^talk 06:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of our policy (I'm speaking against Prodego and AndytheGrump here) is that even fringe topics should be covered by Wikipedia, so long as there are reliable sources to cover it. And there is no doubt whatsoever that this paper and Lisi have been covered by both mainstream news sources (quite a bit) and scientific articles (a little bit). This is why we have articles on Water-fuelled cars, Hollow Earth, and Tired light. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of science only, it's a general encyclopedia, so even if Lisi's theory is pure bunkum (or just plain wrong), the cultural and historical aspects of it need to be adequately covered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My argument is that there is no historical or cultural significance. I can walk up to anyone on the street and I would venture not 1 in 100, maybe not even 1 in 1000 would have heard of this. It is also not significant in the scientific community, as evidenced by the mainstream scientific community ignoring it. So then who needs to be educated about this topic? Prodego ^talk 07:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That same man in the street will also not have heard of several dozen quite well-established and important scientific theories and likely doesn't know what continent Myanmar is on, so the "man in the street test" isn't terribly relevant. What is relevant are our standards on notability, and this clearly passes, given the coverage in mainstream reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Those have significance in the scientific community though. Prodego ^talk 07:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think of myself as one of the neutral ones. I know the theory very well, in almost all its intimate details, which is one of the reasons I was able to respond point by point to one of the editors pro-Lisi that is very stubborn when it comes to remove any part of the page and to add any criticism. At the same time I support the existence of the page and some degree of explanation of it and don't agree with all the recurring users and requests to delete the page or to erase each detail about Lisi's theory. Lisi isn't a person with his own theory of the world. His theory has flaws but it was coherent with the general approaches of particle physics and at least he holds a PhD in physics (just to say that it's better than the hollow earth theory). "As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question", this, unfortunately is a false statement. Lisi's theory is currently considered wrong because there are mathematical problems with it (as in how fermions actually are fermions in his theory). Of course, in the future Lisi might solve this, but he could be solving this just changing (at some degree) the theory. But the current version certainly is wrong. There is a published theorem that states it pretty clearly. In the year long discussion (at this point), I have written from some different IP's (they called me 24 or 98), although stating it was the same me, and just recently created this user because lately it was becoming difficult with the presence of many other IPs (so I first started using a name as signature, then I decided to actually create one because editor above Tom Ruen asked me for my talk page as a place where we could talk of some physics details in the attempt of including weight diagrams to explain other article physics articles and models, the official ones). I had to avoid editing other wikipages from the same IP given that this page brings people to harass you. Even Lisi in his offsite comments tried (ironically) to out me (who cares who I am anyways, haha) when he was the first one to be accused to be secretly editing himself the page. But Qwyrxian even if sometimes was at the point of being upset, I think is managing the situation quite well. It is rather hard to keep a neutral attitude when you deal with a page that is highly polarizing and at the same time you can't be weighing the two sides equally because the mainstream physics weighs more than the almost fringe theory side. ~GT~ (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Context note: This came up a week or so ago at WT:PHYS#An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. The discussion there may provide useful background as to how this fits in with the scientific community as a whole. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond my Ken. However, this isn't the place to have a debate about inclusion, but to discuss how to help Qwyrxian.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If Qwyrxian believes that users are acting disruptively and attempts to engage have failed, then it's time to work through the steps at WP:DR to build a case for that. If, on the other hand, everyone is acting in good faith but has widely divergent opinions on the issues being debated, it's time to go through the content-related steps at WP:DR. Both of these have already been pursued to some extent (pinging WT:PHYS for additional opinions on both aspects, and now pinging here for additional opinions/advice (mostly about behaviour)). If I understand correctly, the next steps are probably mediation (to defuse conduct issues) and either polls regarding specific changes or article content RFCs on broader issues (for content). It then gets kicked back up here if tendentious editing continues even with mediation and sufficient discussion to establish what content is and is not encyclopedic/appropriate. That said, it's been a while since I've been involved in anything like this (thankfully), so I may not be up to date on what the next steps are.

With regards to content-related discussion in this thread, a discussion of whether or not the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, or whether or not the article's description of its scientific merit matches reality, is relevant to some extent: who is being tendentious or editing non-neutrally depends on what the facts actually are. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Teabagger" vandal is back

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

Aaron Hamill

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

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

User Zenanarh

User Zenanarh has used systematically personal attack in the following discussion. [89], despite the discussion was already mediated by an administrator. I have not replied before in order not to influence the decision of the administrator about the matter of the dispute.
This is over now and I need to report this incident. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RealCowboys and Walter Görlitz

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

User:RealCowboys is displaying uncivil behaviour again

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

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

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

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

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

User:Walter Görlitz

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

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