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

Deleting (references to) moved comments on Talk:Daniel Pipes

Please review the removal of (references to) his comments by User:Jayjg here and here.

Jayjg and me were discussing on my personal Talk-page an addition I did at the Daniel Pipes page. But after a while, I came to the conclusion that we would not be able to find a resolution, so I moved the whole thread to the Talk page of Daniel Pipes in order to attract comments of other editors (note that Jayjg was canvassing to do the same). Subsequently, Jayjg removed his comments altogether as he wrote "my comments were meant for a user talk page, not an article talk page. I did not give consent to have them moved to an entirely different context.". Fair enough, so I replaced the paragraphs where used to be his comments with diff links to those comments - for other editors to be able to still follow the thread.
Next he also removed those diff links. So after that I put diff links to his original edits at my talk page, which, you guess, he also removed.
He wrote on his talk page that I create the false impression he commented on the Talk page of Daniel Pipes page, but the section is clearly headed "Moved discussion".
I consider his removal of the diff links to his comments, as a modification of my comments.
Please advice. -- Honorsteem (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Honorsteem feels it's appropriate to move my template warnings to an article talk page, or even my user page discussion with him there, but I made it clear to him that I

1. made the comments in the context of a user page discussion, which have different rules governing them than article talk pages,
2. did not authorize him to add comments to that article talk page with my signature, giving the impression that I had made those comments there, and
3. did not want him then adding comments indicating that I had "deleted" the comments, thus giving the impression that I first made the comments on the article talk page, and then later retracted them.

I see no reason why Honorsteem needs to move the comments to the article talk page at all. I note his user page indicates he is making a WP:Clean start, and I've received an email suggesting that he is an editor who has been twice permanently banned by the Arbitration Committee. I'm not familiar with the editor in question, but this doesn't feel like a "clean" start to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The clean start has nothing to do with this incident, it is on my user page for transparency reasons. I made a clean start too on the Dutch Wikipedia, because my original user name felt too much indentifiable to me IRL. I didn't indicate the clean start there clear enough and it was mistaken for sockpuppet abuse. I tried to argue my case there, but failed. To prevent any such confusion here, I indicated the clean start on my user page. Before all the confusion around the clean start on the Dutch Wikipedia I had no issues. As far as I can recall I have never encountered Jayjg before. Administrators can contact me through email if they want to know my old user credentials. -- Honorsteem (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether these particular comments belong on a talk page (because I haven't read them) I will point out that the license you release your edits under allows another editor to move them anywhere and for any reason so long as you are attributed. They technically do not need any authorization to do so and if the editor is soliciting editor opinion in good faith then I see nothing inappropriate about moving a conversation from a user page to a talk page (I'm sure I've done it myself at some point). This, of course, is based on the assumption that the conversation is relevant to the topic of the talk page to which its being used. I'm not sure how warning messages for a user could be relevant on an article talk page. N^oformation ^Talk 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Those warnings are of course not too relevant, but the thread went from those warning messages into the topic of the article page, and to avoid deciding arbitrarily where to cut, I copied the whole thread. Also, I think that is not the main concern of Jajyg -- Honorsteem (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's some suggestions:

1. Refactoring the thread slightly might be worthwhile, removing the templates and replacing them with a note.
2. Copying is probably better than moving. Leave a note on your talk page, and make it clear on the article talk page where the thread id moved from.
3. Noformation is perfectly correct, you are at liberty to do this if you think it helps.
4. Please both of you are old hands, WP:AGF, and work on resolving the issue, not arguing about the location of the discussion.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

I think there's a more fundamental issue here: User:Honorsteem is a banned editor. He's been banned twice from Dutch Wikipedia, banned twice from English Wikipedia, and is still banned on both. When I warned him about a BLP violation, he argued with me, then starting moving my posts around, then followed me to an entirely unrelated page to oppose me, then brought me here to complain about me. As far as I can tell, what I should have done, and should still do, is block this sockpuppet, and delete or strike all of his contributions, per WP:BAN. I have not yet seen any reason why I shouldn't still do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont have any blocks on en.wikipedia, please don't smear. Also now Jayjg removes my comments from his Talk page, I didn't know that is allowed like that? For me this discussion was closed with the copyright consideration. -- Honorsteem (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming you have not twice been banned on en-wiki? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

From the department of redundancy department, Wikipedia:Clean start: "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." Is this the case here? And who or what would decide--a CU? Drmies (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest Jayjg strike his comment above regarding Honorsteem being a banned editor, unless more information comes to light. Kansan (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem wrote "Administrators can contact me through email if they want to know my old user credentials." (20:26, 14 February 2012). Obvious suggestion is for an uninvolved admin or CU to email him/her. I didn't check directly into the talkpage/usertalk issue but from context here, absent confirmation of problems with the user history, Rich Farmbrough's comments/suggestions sound sensible to me. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK. Honorsteem is indef-blocked on the Dutch wiki for socking. As far as I can tell, no socking has taken place here. [I'm not going to give those names and links; they're hardly secret, but I am reluctant to air out too much laundry. You can always email me.] However, the old accounts (there's two) were not clearly discontinued (I'm looking at WP:CLEANSTART), and on one of them one edit was made recently (minor, nothing to worry about). There were no blocks on the old accounts, but editor is still active in the same fields; there is a warning or two for edit-warring and a speedily deleted copyright violation. That's not great, but it's not a real issue right now, as far as I'm concerned. Honorsteem, let me propose the following: go to your old accounts, properly logged in as that account, and put "retired" on them, and maybe blank the talk pages. You can even scramble the passwords. If you like, I can block them, and then you can never be suspected of foul play again with those accounts. I think that will show plenty of good faith and will put this part of the discussion at rest; for the other part, stick to Rich's advice. (I personally do not like such copying/moving at all, even if it is allowed, maybe, by the rules, and I can understand Jay's taking offense.)

  All you old hands, please check my comments to see if I overstepped or sidestepped anything: I've not had many dealings with clean starts and I'm anxious to get this right and put it behind us. Whatever Honorsteem did on the Dutch wiki does not concern me since, as far as I can tell, they haven't done that here. Still, Honorsteem, een ezel stoot zich in 't gemeen niet twee keer aan dezelfde steen. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, thank you for hijacking this thread. Even if I would do stuff under the old account, as long as it is not sock puppet abuse, I see no problem, just like there would be no problem posting under two different IP addresses. Sjalom. -- Honorsteem (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

First, there is no "hijacking" taking place. Secondly, editing under multiple accounts is permitted under only a very small and well-defined group of scenarios - anything that is not permitted there is sockpuppeting. And if you are indeed making a WP:CLEANSTART, then any use of the old accounts is an egrerious violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

From the internets: Thread hijacking is the process of replying to an existing thread with a different topic. This is generally discouraged. It is better to start a new thread if you have a problem that is related to an existing posted issue but clearly different. On the other hand, it is better to respond to the existing thread with additional information if you have what appears to be the same problem.
Posts that hijack a serious thread with off-topic discussion are also tolerated but generally discouraged. .
You have the right to start a new thread, here or on any other appropriate forum to air your concerns. This issue is now closed. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? the internets? I got a different link for you: WP:BOOMERANG. I don't know what your personal grudge is against me, but your claim of a clean start should be accompanied by the appropriate actions on the old accounts. Yes, you have three accounts in all, and on one of them you were active recently, and you were blocked indefinitely on the Dutch pedia for socking. And you ask us to trust you? I'll start accepting your good faith when I see proof of it. I will be glad to start a new thread, but you could have put this to rest already and no one would have cared. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is not "the internets" (thank goodness). When somebody starts a thread at AN/I, all relevant materials to the matter at hand are subjects of dicussion - and the apparent fact that your WP:CLEANSTART hasn't been so clean after all is very relevant to the subjects of discussion here. You can't declare a discussion "over", either - especially in a situation where it suddenly becomes apparent it's turning in a direction unfavourable to you. My dad does that in RL all the time. Finally, as Drmies notes, at AN/I, your boomerang does come back. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the issues raised above. I first encountered Honorsteem when I warned him about BLP at Talk:Daniel Pipes. Since then, he's talking to following me around to other completely unrelated pages, and opposing whatever I was saying at those pages. Three days after I first warned him, he showed up at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates to oppose my position at an RFC there. A few days after that, he showed up at Talk:Circumcision to oppose my position in an RFC there. There's no coincidence here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And it only gets worse.

1. At Lev Landau he's apparently decided, based on his own personal criteria ("Jewish" is a purely religious designation), that Landau wasn't Jewish.
2. I set up automated Talk: page archiving 5 months ago at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Honorsteem recently began insisting that I had done so "without consensus" (despite the fact that no-one objected for 5 months), and at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates#proposal he's proposing that automated archiving be turned off and all archives be restored to the article Talk: page (despite the fact that the Talk: page is already over 85k and growing quickly, and the archives are almost 140k), and that we must have a !vote and achieve "consensus" every single time we want to archive a thread!

This behavior is increasingly disruptive, and taking on the appearance of a personal grudge or vendetta. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem, why did you follow Jayjg to other articles that he has been editing? That is not appropriate and is considered as harassment. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• This edit strikes me as diametrically opposed to the very concept of a clean start. The old accounts that I know of only had 1235 combined edits, and right now Honorsteem as 142. There's nothing illegal about putting some Service Award (for 78,000 edits and ten years of service) on one's user page that does not appear to be correct, I guess, but it's odd, especially in this case. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor Korean biographical stubs which seem to come from a model or template

If a chronic, rather than acute, problem like this is not an "incident" and should be discussed elsewhere, my apologies and please move it to the right place and let me know! PamD 14:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

While stub-sorting I've been finding a series of badly-written Korean historical biographical stubs which look as if they are all from the same template or model, although from different, usually newby, editors. They all have years in dates linked; the lead sentence mangles singular and plural (eg "Yi Jae-hyun(korean:이제현, hanja:李齊賢, 1287–1367) was a politicians and early Korean Neo-Confucianism scholar and philosopher, Writer, Poets."); they tend not to use capital letters for sentence starts; they usually have both {{stub}} and {{Korea-bio-stub}}; they use non-standard section headings. I've raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Mass-produced_biographical_stubs.3F, but they continue. They started Nov 11 or earlier. I've mentioned problems to individual editors, but they continue. I don't know whether a student group has been given poor instruction and urged to edit, or what, but it's sad to see such a string of poor quality additions. Any ideas what can be done? PamD 14:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like at least one of the accounts has now been blocked. Unfortunately I'm not sure what else we can do if most articles are created by new accounts and we have no idea where they're coming from. Sadly we have seen poor content work from educational institutions but it could equally be one individual running multiple accounts. Are the article subjects themselves notable? EyeSerene^talk 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned, this is not the only such case. I;'ve seen similar from other geographic regions, or on other topics. We need some better way of handling them. The ideal solution is some way to convince the originators that they need to do things properly with good referencing, and give them the needed help for that. But usually the people doing this do not respond to messages, and I can't imagine blocking just to get someones attention when they 've done nothing actually block-worthy. 71.125.252.218 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If necessary we do issue blocks to get attention - remember a block is not a punishment but a technical means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, which persistent creation of large numbers of poorly formatted stubs most certainly is. However blocking may be ineffective if the stubs are mostly being created by new accounts each time. We'd be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

As I see it the range of possible responses are to:

• block the accounts anyway, and keep at it until someone starts listening to concerns and talking to us; or
• delete the articles, and keep at it with new ones until someone starts listening to concerns and talking to us (may be problematic if the subjects are notable though); or
• try to make the best of a bad situation by tagging and/or cleaning up the articles; or
• see if we can write an edit filter to catch the creations (not my area of expertise); or
• some combination of the above.

I'm open to suggestions :) EyeSerene^talk 12:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Tnxman307 has blocked 21 editors as "Abusing multiple accounts". The problem is that almost all of these stubs are created by new (?) editors who arrive, create one or two very markup-heavy article in this format on one day, and don't edit again. Will be interesting to see if it continues now. Of course I don't see them all, only the ones I happen to stub-sort (and if the editor(s) listened when I point out that they don't need {{stub}} as well as {{Korea-bio-stub}}, then I wouldn't see any of them.) They are getting past New Page Patrol without so much as a {{cleanup}} tag, despite linked dates and mangled English.

Have just spotted that a couple, at least, of these editors have a log record saying "Account created automatically" - see Special:Log/Lagnaqar, Special:Log/Jddbc. What does that signify? Is it a clue as to where they are coming from? PamD 14:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Poking around I see that Lagnaqar has uploaded a number of images to Commons where they also have an account. Although I'm just guessing, I strongly suspect the "Account created automatically" tag is because the original account was not created on en-WP and WP:SUL was then used to create unified accounts across all WMF projects. Unfortunately I don't think that gets us any nearer to solving the stub issue though. Perhaps the best thing, now there's been a cull, is as you suggest to wait and see if there's further disruption. EyeSerene^talk 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Lagnaqar and Jddbc both are blocked on the Korean Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 00:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR Violation and edit warring by Markvs88

I would like to ask for administrator action regarding an ongoing disagreement between myself and Markvs88. When I attempt to make changes to an article on this users watchlist they revert it without hesitation regardless of the edits being made. Secondly, Markvs88 has violated the 3RR rule by reverting the changes too many times and rather than continue into an edit war myself I am bringing the issue here for resolution. The following 3 articles are presented:\

• Talk:American Crossword Puzzle Tournament - 1, 2, 3
• Talk:American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - 1, 2
• Talk:American Cruise Lines - 1, 2, 3.

The source of this trouble is Markvs88 displaying innappropriate ownership over articles in the scope of WikiProject Connecticut and not allowing another related project, WikiProject United States, to add a banner. In some 2 cases above he also removed tags of other related States projects such as Rhode Island, New York and New York City. I have left the user multiple warnings but the users continues to revert any changes being made. --Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like this might be a matter for WP:AN3 rather than here. Doniago (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Or, indeed, of me being stalked by Kumioko. Or bad faith that he refuses to even discuss the issue at hand. But hey, I'm happy to discuss it anywhere. Also, I could not have reverted 3RR before Kumioko did, so I'm looking forward to hearing how this goes! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, the source of this trouble is Kumioko's bot tagging every article on Wikipedia that starts with "America" or "United States" as being in the scope of WikiProject United States. Including, of course, Americano (cocktail), Americano do Brasil, and Americans of European descent, that last being a redirect to Caucasian race.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If the bot's malfunctioning, I'd block it. But is this a case of bad input, or of the bot going off the reservation? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, bot stopped editing about a day ago. But still problematic. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad input. Kumioko claimed that he had removed problematic items from his lists, but it's clear he didn't review them closely enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot was doing exactly what it was supposed to do but it has been stopped, unfortunately a lot of other tasks arent getting done either but thats another matter. Sarek's comments are off topic and he is just trying to cloud the issue with bad input. I am not talking about those articles, the bot, the tagging run or anything else.I brought this here rather than get into an edit war over the actions of Markvs88. I am talking about Markvs88 violatingn 3RR and edit warring. Since Sarek mentioned the list. I tagged about 11, 000 articles of which about 150 were incorrect such as the ones he mentioned above. A very low error rate of about .825% --Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For example, he tagged American Tourister as being in-scope. When I reverted that, he reverted me as vandalism, only later realizing that it actually was in the scope of WikiProject Rhode Island, which he took over with no actual community input in September 2011. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop making up numbers, please -- you have absolutely no idea how many are incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) That's absolutely not vandalism, nor are the other removals linked above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So any user is free to remove the work of other users? Thats completely absurd. Sarek you are just confusing the issue with. I have already admitted there were some errors. I am not talking about those I am talking about the 3 specific ones above and Markvs88 conduct. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to review the header on this page - all edits by all involved parties are reviewed, including those of the reporting editor. And, on the merits, I'm really trying hard to find a reason not to block you outright for disruptive editing (Edit Warring and Highlighting non-vandalism edits as Vandalism). You're responding to questions about the tagging operation, and about these edits in particular, with rage and anger, and that's not helping your cause. Please settle down, have a cup of tea, and discuss the matter. If I know it's not going to continue to be a problem, perhaps we can find a solution. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't helpful, either. See Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to block me for trying to follow the rules then I guess thats your right. Personally, this all came about because I am getting frustrated by other users beging allowed to repeatedly violate policy and no one seems willing to do anything about it. If reverting another users edits, that improve the article isn't vandalism then I guess I don't know what is. --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And that right there is precisely the problem. There's a big ol' long discussion at the Village Pump on this very topic - whether the tags are duplicative, what has been (or should be) done if they are, and how WP:US can work with other wikiprojects to ensure that in-scope articles are noted as such without stepping on each other's toes. You know that this discussion is ongoing, because you are a participant in it. It's unclear what the consensus is regarding the rules, so what I see is that you interpreted them one way and reverted as vandalism an editor who disagreed. The step after that first revert would've been to post "I think this should be tagged as WP:US because X". Then you discuss it. You don't repeatedly revert, and you don't declare the project dead because a discussion may not have gone your way. You might consider discussing the issue with other projects and editors, maybe finding a path forward. Drama helps your cause and your project not at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Since it isn't a matter of 3RR or vandalism I went ahead andn reverted Markvs88 reversion of my edits again. I am sure he will revert that and we can go back and forth. I was really hoping that we could resolve this issue either here or in the village pump but it seems not. It seems the community would rather have editors showing ownership over articles, violations of policy, constant harrassment of other editors who are just trying to tag articles for their project (who should be able to tag articlesin their scope) rather than have actual constructive edits and cooperation. Its really a shame what is happening these days. Since the discussions are going on Mark should leave the articles tagged in their current state until the discussion is over. I have attempted to discuss is with Mark who refuses to listen insisting that any article tagged as Connecticut is out of WPUS's scope. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As that was a declaration of intent to continue edit warring, I've asked the people at WP:EWN to take a look at this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Actually, Sarek, it goes much farther: WPUS has "borged" other Wikiprojects as defunct ((ie:WikiProject Massachusetts, with no disucssion (that I could find) at all other than a notice on that talk page. This means that those projects cannot be restored without a LOT of work to seperate them from WPUS. This started after he proposed all state projects be under a common WPUS banner, and there have been other debates on the subject with other editors such as user:racepackcet and myself, which are in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. As a note to Kumioko, I *always* leave valid Wikiproject tags on articles, and he full well knows that. That he thinks that things like List of colonial governors of Florida is a WPUS issue is the problem. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, Ultra, this is ridiculous. Is a block imminent here? I am going to revert the edits referred to in the first complaint as disruptive and overly extending the scope of these projects. Kumioko, your restraint will be appreciated; lack thereof will be blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Too late. See below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone has noticed, but there appears to be a similar ANI thread above (#Blind_bot_tagging) regarding the same two users and same "incident" in question; but with different admins/users participating in that discussion, as oppose to the admins/users commenting on this current thread. Thought I'd best point it out in case it had been missed or overlooked. Wesley☀Mouse 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Kumioko 31 Hours for Edit-Warring. Despite being told that their edits were disruptive and constituted Edit Warring, they went ahead and reverted 3 different articles again. They also posted here their intent to continue such reverts. I'm open to a review of the block, and I know some would've blocked longer - on that point, I defer to consensus. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I also blocked User:Kumi-Taskbot as a result of this edit, and have so notified Kumioko. Not sure how deeply we plan to delve into the bot issue here, despite the thread noted by Wesley Mouse. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support block (although longer) "you're being disruptive, and you're edit-warring" does not mean "ok, I'll go off and do it some more" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block (and consider extending). Kumioko obviously had no intention of ceasing the edit war. The remark "If reverting another users edits, that improve the article isn't vandalism then I guess I don't know what is." is quite telling, as it indicates unwillingness to even consider the possibility that an opposing viewpoint (Markvs88's belief that the tags don't improve the articles) is defensible. Oddly, Kumioko complained that "everyone just wants to assume bad faith", which is precisely what he's doing by deeming edits with which he disagrees "vandalism". —David Levy 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block blind reversion of users edits, regardless of quality, is something that's so bad I've heard people complaining about it off-wiki. Edits that just don't improve the article (in your view) aren't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block - almost did it myself when I saw this a little earlier -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support and since he has now used his bot to get around his block I would either extend his block or make it indef as abusing multiple accounts. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Bots belonging to blocked editors should also be blocked ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Seems a bit over the top... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Which is why I suggested the less over the top method of lengthening the block. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  True :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  NOT a good general rule --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support block and regretfully propose extension - the continued assumptions of bad faith, combined with edit-warring, declarations to continue edit-warring, block evasion using a bot account, and the overall "I know what is right and you are all wrong" attitude lead me to no other conclusion. I've been somewhat involved at WT:BIRDS trying to discuss things with Kumioko; I thought I might have been getting somewhere but apparently he decided he wasn't going to listen after all. (For those not following the discussion there, his response to his bot willy-nilly tagging bird articles starting with "American foo" with WPUS banners, and then the project pointing out a large number of said taggings weren't appropriate, was to willy-nilly AWB away all the tags on "American foo" bird articles - including completely approprately tagged organization articles and categories - and start tossing around accusations of WP:OWN.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Indef blockClearly this user is no good for the community and never did a useful thing in 7 years and 300+ thousands edits (according to their userpage). WPUS is a huge project with lots of articles and few active members. This one user tried and failed to do it all themselves. Just ban them, (which seems to be what the user is suggesting on their talk page) and disband the project. Thats what everyone wants, quite pussyfooting around the issue and just man up and do what needs to be done. --71.163.243.232 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  Based on the contribs of this IP I am pretty sure it is Kumioko evading his block again. -DJSasso (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  Concur - I've struck through the comment above. I'd also note that apparently Kumioko - ironically considering his comments regarding other WPs - believes he WP:OWNs WPUS and it won't survive without him. One of these days I'll get around to writing WP:THEWIKIDOESNOTNEEDYOU... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yep. Blocked by MuZemike. —David Levy 02:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support block: but no extension for an editor with an unblemished record and incredible service to WPUS. Something like this has been building for a long time: Kumioko has been under intense pressure to keep the momentum going at WPUS while simultaneously dealing woth those who oppose his leadership and vision. He has resurrected a dead project and created a mega-project, almost single-handedly that is the envy of every wikiproject coordinator at wikipedia. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatly his leadership and vision appear to have been somewhat...strained by the pressure, apparently, judging by the accusations and overreactions. However, it's entirely possible a WikiBreak (enforced or otherwise) might help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this unblemished record either. I remember much bogus ANI drama and dead-horse flagellation surrounding Kumioko's misuse of AWB a while back[1] so this seems like more of the same. I don't understand the purpose of those banners anyway. It used to be that if an article talkpage tab was a bluelink, that meant there was actually some discussion there, so if you clicked it you'd find out something relating to the article's past or ongoing development. If it was a redlink you knew there was no point to clicking it. Now the tabs are mostly bluelinks but when you click them you too often just see those damn banners that tell you nothing. Maybe there's been some past discussion about that, so I don't claim to know what is or isn't established practice, but I find the banners pretty annoying and IMHO it would be better if project tagging were done with hidden categories. Certainly I would urge withdrawal of the bot approval for this particular tagging operation. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It's very long-established practice, and in most cases the banners themselves add the hidden categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment See past ANI here (June 2011), another conflict over same issue between Kumioko and Markvs88 under subheading "Requesting help with a disagreement". Deja vu all over again. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The original issue

Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem to have been addressed whether or not Markvs88 should be blocked for 3RR. I'm not stating my position regarding this, just pointing out that it may not have been addressed yet.--Rockfang (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On what page? None of the three examples cited in the original complaint are 3RR violations. 46.208.215.98 (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I defer to consensus, but I chose not to block Markvs88 because he stopped reverting once the ANI discussion got under way. Had he reverted again despite being warned against it (from someone not a party to the dispute), I would have blocked him as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting another person's edits (except special circumstances like BLP) counts under 3RR. A bot is not a person, so in general, reverting a bot should not count. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@Ip Editors above: If I implied that I thought he violated 3RR, that was not my intention. I was just pointing out that it did not appear to have been addressed yet.--Rockfang (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw the start of this thread yesterday and was writing up something recommending a thorough WP:TROUTing for both parties before I got called away. Obviously events then overtook my intended response. However, both parties have misapplied the term "vandalism", both parties have edit warred, and both parties are experienced enough editors to have known better. Although Kumioko has now been rightly blocked for continuing to edit war, I hope that Markvs88 doesn't take that outcome as a vindication of their handling of the dispute. I see no need for a block but up until Kumioko resumed reverting, conduct was equally poor on both sides. EyeSerene^talk 10:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Vindication? No, of course not. I did what I did becuase the other party refused to talk, and has refused to do so on other occcasions. This is why I've not been replying to any of Kumioko's posts/goads (nor those of his various alts, nor allies), and why have I not done any more untagging work (as the bot has been stopped) because I don't want to escalate the issue and cause more drama.

All that I want (and I think there are not a few other editors in this camp too), is a proper discussion regarding the scope of the WPUS and it's practice of "assimilating" other wikiprojects. Every time I've tried to discuss this, the problem dies down for awhile and then resurfaces after awhile... sometimes with other editors, sometimes with me. I'm not against valid tags on articles. I do not revert blindly, and only do so when I feel it's clearly out of scope. If an admin (or someone) is interested in creating such a discussion (so it would be "neutral ground") I would be happy to discuss it there. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Such a discussion seems to be brewing a bit at WP:US's talk page, but obviously that's not exactly neutral ground. A Request for Comment might be the best bet, particularly if you're drawing comments and suggestions from many projects at once (US, the State Projects, some of the larger locality projects, US History, maybe the US-centric task force of MILHIST, etc). Consider also inviting comment from projects that have dealt with this issue in the past (I want to say WP:Computing?). Obviously, it could end up being a big discussion, but could provide a path forward. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's hopeful at least, though I agree that an RfC might be better. Markvs88, I do appreciate your obvious frustration; my main concern was that by engaging in tit-for-tat reverting (to the extent of using the same edit summaries) you were escalating rather than defusing the situation. I can't think of many talk-page templates that are so disruptive that they need to be urgently removed and then edit-warred over. A better solution might have been to revert once in each case, then try to discuss the issue with Kumioko when they reverted back, then come here if that failed. It wouldn't have mattered much if an inappropriate template stayed on the article talk page for a few hours during that process and would have saved unnecessarily muddying the waters. Basically we expect editors to both be interested enough in a subject to want to edit about it, and disinterested enough not to get hot under the collar when their edits are challenged. Unsurprisingly this is a very difficult balance to maintain :) EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A bit of edit-warring is problematic, but I don't think it's a crisis and it's not what concerns me here; what I find more worrying is the blanket criticism of people who point out problems with many of kumioko's edits, often in the same edit as nonchalance or dismissiveness about actually fixing the problems. In a community-built encyclopædia, that's really corrosive, and will erode a lot of goodwill. Pointing out bad edits is part of the solution, not part of the problem; I hope kumioko will take a bit more responsibility in future. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My responses to the comments and accusations on this page

Due to my block, and the requirement for me to force fragment the discussion I have responded to all comments on my talk page. I doubt anyone wants to continue this discussion or solve the actual underlying problem of inappropriate article ownership that caused me to come here in the first place but if you do please do so there. --Kumioko (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

POINTy disruptive editing

• Kumioko wants to break up WPBIO
• Kumioko doesn't think a bot should help convert a WikiProject to a task force of another WikiProject
• Kumioko thinks there are too many admins
• Kumioko doesn't think anyone wants to solve article ownership problems

And that's all just in the past 5 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me respond to each in order. Next time use numbers please its easier to respond too when you have multiple items.

First, its not what I want. Its what the "community consensus" is according to editors here and in other discussions. WPUS is too big and unmanagable at 179, 000 articles. I now accept that. As such WikiProject Biography, with more than 800, 000 articles also fits in the category of a too big to manage project. If you don't like that Sarek that is your opinion. Your opinion does not seem to meet community consensus however.

Second, I still don't. That discussion is still ongoing. The bottom line is there are quite a few bots that can do this task and others like it but moreoften than not they declinen or ignore the requests because WikiProject tagging is inherently dramatic. I was warned as such when I started and it turned out to be correct.

I do think there are too many admins and I think that Wikipedia is better served giving people the tools they need rather than a toolbox full of stuff they never saw before. Additionally, most admins specialize in one or 2 areas, few use the entire package and therefore my conclusion is they don't need them.

I don't and again that discussion is still ongoing. Maybe someone will prove me wrong, I hope so.

I added these comments recently because I have decided to spend my time in other areas besides editing articles and working in WPUS. There are lots of other areas in WP to invest my time in such as these discussions. I have lots of free time now. :-) In the end Sarek I am afraid is just crying Worf (a little Star trek pun there sorry I couldn't resist) and only proves I added a comment of how I feel. Nothing more. Live long and IAR (sorry another borderline innappropriate joke). Additionally I would suggest that this discussion be broken off into a seperate one. The original 3RR issue I submitted due to Markvs88 breaking policy was determined to my shagrin to be acceptable conduct in this new Wikipedia environment and my personal feelings on the matter aside is behind us and this is a seperate matter. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read any of the comments here or on your talk page? Any at all? Because your comment here sounds an awful lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Theres a policy for everything and an interpretation in everything. I heard every word although it seems like a lot of folks have selective hearing about my comments. I am just trying to follow the policies that you and others have been explaining to me. Or should I instead opt to IAR. I have tried for years to be a productive editor. The community doesn't want me to use my time and abilities to participate in WPUS and do actual article developement so I am trying to find another niche to see if I even want to continue to use my time here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Stop pouting. Sometimes we get what we want on Wikipedia, sometimes we don't. There is plenty of work you can do that will receive absolutely no objections from anyone, so there is no point in endlessly mourning the loss of the work that some people do object to.
2. Knock off the obvious WP:POINT violations (e.g. trying to disband WPBIO despite "not wanting to") or someone will block you for disruption. 28bytes (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Its fine, you can block me if you want to. Thats what admins around here do when they don't want to discuss the issues and have a conversation. I'm just going on the direction of what everyone is saying here at at the Village pump about WPUS having too broad a scope. All bios is a pretty darn big scope too and it isn't even broken into 70 pieces like WPUS is. It doesn't really matter this place isn't about building a pedia anymore anyway, just drama, discussions and policy blocking every comment or suggestion with whatever policy suits our needs at the tim. This place is a waste of time. I shoulda played World of Warcraft or something. --Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in blocking you. I just want you to stop pouting and being pointy. Why won't you consider doing that? 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am compiling an essay response to you Kumioko outside of Wikipedia to avoid edit conflicts.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,341,926) 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just wrapping things up anyway. This place will be better off without me and my bot and our 20-30 thousand edits a month. --Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't want you to leave, we just want you to be OK with the fact that in a wiki, you don't get your way 100% of the time. That's really not so unreasonable, is it? 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well ya'all have a funny way of showing it. Actions speak louder than words and right now your screaming at me to just go away. --Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your content work is appreciated and you do contribute but these are issues that may cause problems and not help them and why are you bringing your bots into this. They were malfunctioning and had to be disabled. It's not like you can't use them anymore. Fix the code and resubmit a WP:BRFA. Still compiling that essay.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,377,192) 00:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sick of saying this. The bot was doing what it was supposed to do the list I gave it had a few bad article titles in it. I was identifying the bad articles and trying to fix it but Sarek and Mark wanted to open up discussions all of the Wiki about it and start edit warring over it. Then I got blocked and said screw it let em fix it themselves. The bot tagged about 11, 000 articles and I had a list of about 150 that were mistagged to start. There were probably more but now I guess well have to let them work themselves out. The bot is fine, the code is fine, the list was 99% fine. Had anyone actually taken the time to ask I could have explained it but everyone started jumping to conclusions and making bad faith assumptions. The whole show is pure BS and a perfect example of why Wikipedia is dying. --Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the above statement is that when you were "identifying the bad articles and trying to fix it" you were AWB-ing the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, removing the tags from Talk:American Eagle Foundation [2], Category talk:American ornithologists [3], Talk:American Racing Pigeon Union [4], etc. - the contribution history clearly shows that you simply went in, selected the bird-themed articles that had "American" in the title, and blanket untagged them, using an automating tool, without checking whether the untaggings were appropriate - which is not acceptable editing behavior. And then you essentially accused the project of acting in bad faith/WP:OWN behavior [5] for simply having questioned the appropriateness of some of the taggings. (And "Wikipedia is dying" has been declared for years now; reports of its demise are, obviously, greatly exaggerated.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly part of the problem is that the scenario is difficult and confusing but here goes...yet again. At the time of the incident I was converting the tags of Texas to WPUS at the same time the bot was tagging articles. I had 4 different tasks running concurrently as can partially be seen from the edit summery. The articles you refer to that I removed the tags from were because Jimbleak (I think thats his username) of the birds project said thats what needed to be done. So I took it at that and didn't argue it (because article ownership these days is allowed and I didn't feel like fighting...yet). Then the discussion turned because you said otherwise (there were 43 articles total affected). So the 43 articles I "untagged" were in fact because Jim from WikiProject Birds told me too and eventhough I felt it was an article ownership issue, didn't fight it because no one cares. At the same time Jim was griping about my tagging and you were griping my untagging, Sarek and Mark were griping about a similar related issue in three other places. About then the bot finished the run. But someone started jumping up and down and made me stop the bot. Eventhough the task effected was completed and it only affected other, unrelated tasks. Mark started reverting every edit I made to any article that pertained to Connecticut and Sarek began deleting talk pages with the WPUS banner on them because he didn't think they were in the projects scope. Eventhough, with the exception of 2, they clearly were. So I reverted a couple of Marks 2nd and 3rd generation revertions and got blocked. Now there are still about 161 (maybe a few more) articles out of 11, 000...Eleven thousand (that is about 1.463% error by my calculations) I consider to be mistagged as WPUS. But since all anyone wanted to do was run at me and the bot with pitchforks and torches and assumptions of bad faith and article ownership rather than let me explain and fix the problem everyone, expecially me, got all pissed off and frustrated. --Kumioko (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from unregistered user

78.86.217.250 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

IP 78.86.217.250 has been vandalizing V (science fiction) over and over again since late November. 18 edits in total and every one of them vandalizing the same page. Could someone please block this character? DigiFluid (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You should have notified the user. I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really look liked WP:VANDALISM to me, just a newbie who doesn't edit properly. Maybe you should try talking to him a bit. There's been no real discussion on his Talk page (one warning from another editor), and no discussion on the article Talk page (the only article he's edited). Certainly doesn't look like coming here was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, genuine vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV, not here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-read the edits. Every one of them is to interject that the article's content is false and incorrect without changing anything else. But I'll take Bushranger's advice. DigiFluid (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I did look at many of the edits (and you've provided zero diffs here), and some are clearly inappropriate (mostly annoying commentary), but some are not. In addition, the IP has received only one warning, and it's hard to get an editor blocked without proper warnings. Plus, at the point you posted here, there was one bad edit (commentary), but there had been no edits for a week before that. Good luck at AIV, but I think you're going to need more before an admin will impose a vandalism block. I do see you've engaged the IP in a discussion - that's a good thing, although I'd stay clear of the discussion of whether the edits constitute vandalism and just focus on the content and how editing should be done. For example, your comment about WP:COMMENTARY is constructive, whereas your comemnts about vandalism (e.g., "obvious nonsense") are not as helpful. I'm not sure you will convince the IP of the errors of their ways, but you have more chance to do so if you leave out the inflammatory accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of ARS list DRV

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

---

This deletion review was closed by User:S Marshall, who is not an admin, four-and-a-half days after it opened. He appears to argue that it was a snow closure, but of the 28 comments, not including my own, five people voted for relisting or around 18%. Of those votes one came from someone who had voted keep in the deletion discussion and another two comments were from admins. Indeed, one of the admins, made a point of noting that the first twelve votes endorsing the close of the discussion did not address the deletion discussion at all. Yet when I raised all this to the user who performed the non-admin closure he responded:

“ I'm afraid you never stood the least chance of success with that nomination. I waited until there were enough !votes to prove that to you before snow closing. ”

That seemed to be an admission that the editor was monitoring the discussion with the full intent of closing it as an endorsement from the beginning. Notably among the last six comments on the discussion, three were supporting a relist. Given that this was a non-admin closure (violating the criteria at WP:NACD and WP:NAC) by someone who appears to have been biased towards a certain outcome from the start in deciding to close I would like an admin to re-open that so it can continue for the remainder of the seven days.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Could it have been closed any other way? Probably not. So how cares how it was closed? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The DRV certainly could have been closed another way and the MfD as well. Discussion appeared to be turning towards a relist given the last six comments. Instead of allowing things to play out for the whole seven days, it was closed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you also raise this on Jimbo's talk page, on Wikipedia Review, on the AN noticeboard, and on at least five WikiProject talk pages. Perhaps an RfC is in order here. If all else fails, send a letter (registered) to ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, almost any decision is possible with pages involving the ARS--the divisions within the community about it are pretty clear, & it may take some different approach to settle them, if they can ever be settled. But the best way of avoiding further conflict in any contested deletion process is to let the process run for the normal time. 71.125.252.218 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 The results of the MfD which was snow-closed by other users, twice in quick succession, and the DRV which I snow closed, look crystal clear to me. I've never been a member of the ARS and I doubt if they'd think of me as sympathetic to their aims, but on reading the DRV I felt that this user might be being a bit overzealous in his dealings with them, so I decided to examine the background more carefully. After reading around I was confident that this user was conducting a campaign or vendetta of some kind and I felt strongly that it should be brought to an end. I was probably a little sharp with Devil's Advocate on my talk page, and for that I apologise, but I really don't think it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests to reopen the DRV.—S Marshall T/C 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to state in the strongest possible terms that S Marshall is among the most competent editors we have and that he is far, far more qualified to close a DRV than most admins, myself included, and that any complaint about him closing a DRV based on his lack of an admin bit is completely and wholly without merit. 28bytes (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if he were an admin his comment that I quoted would suggest that his close was anything but appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, I say, "is there a chance it would have been closed as overturned"? No. There were many, many more Endorses than Overturns, and less than 24 hours remaining. I echo Drmies' roundabout way of saying this conversation is a waste Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There are "less than 24 hours remaining" because Marshall closed the discussion over twelve hours ago.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ho hum, another "ARS is teh evulz" thread on AN/I...must be a Thursday. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, these assumptions of bad faith have got to stop. I am not pursuing a "vendetta" against ARS. What I have been witnessing are non-stop shenanigans, often by people who should know better, that have allowed very little time for these issues to be discussed and so I have been looking for the appropriate venue to have all these issues aired fully within a reasonable time frame given that the last discussion we had over the rescue tag went on for days and involved nearly a hundred people jumping into the fray. The longest discussion we had about the rescue list involved that DRV and it was closed just as more editors were coming to support having the discussion relisted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you stop opening these pointless "ARS is evil" threads all over the place. Quite frankly, this behavior of repeatedly restarting an old discussion is disruptive. Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass already. It hasn't been four days since we last got done discussing these issues. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alpha, point to a single time where I said "ARS is evil" in any way. This isn't even directed at ARS, but the closure of the DRV. I am not even trying to say anything about the editor. I just want the DRV to last the whole seven days.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion contesting this close because it was closed by an non-admin is an absolute non-starter. The reason that admin closures are often a good thing is there has been some assessment of their ability to correctly asses consensus. S Marshall's ability to do so has been more than adequately proved by other means such as the respect he's held in at DRV. It's is my opinion (and I believe that of many others) that the only reason he's not an admin is because he does not want to be. I'd be very surprised if an RfA was anything but very successful. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and insisting on an admin close when an equally well qualified editor has closed is nothing other than bureaucracy. Dpmuk (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, read my entire comment. It is about more than just him not being an admin. That just adds insult to injury.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Well, thank you Dpmuk and 28bytes for your votes of confidence, which have me tickled pink, but I must say that I don't think this should be a referendum on S Marshall's qualifications to close DRVs. I've made a lot of contributions there in the past but I'm just as capable of making a mistake as anyone else. I think this should be about whether this particular snow close was appropriate, not about the identity of the closer.—S Marshall T/C 01:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Quite right, and I'm expressing no opinion on the merits of the close itself (I've had my fill of reading any more ARS-related debates for quite a while, I think), but the "non-admin closure" aspect of it is, as Dpmuk says, a non-starter. 28bytes (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I assure you, I get no joy out of talking about this at all either. There are many things I would prefer to do, but I can't just ignore a group that appears to be, intentionally or unintentionally, little more than a tool for canvassing deletion discussions, or any discussion for that matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you don't like it. Should we delete the Deletion Sorting pages too while we're at it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, my reason is very simple. I have very little tolerance for people trying to game the system in any way whatsoever. Other delsorts notify interested parties who can provide knowledge that is particular to that subject area without regard to their perspective on whether things should or should not be included. The ARS delsorts do nothing like that. If you can point to one of those other delsorts being used in the same manner then I will be just as quick to persistently criticize that. However, at this point I am only familiar with the ARS and not out of any agenda. Two articles I have nominated for deletion got tagged by the ARS and the result each time was that the discussion got flooded by members voting keep while making no significant change to improve the article or establish its notability. In other words, my bringing them up at ANI is only because they have been repeatedly drawing people to deletion discussions using questionable mean and I just happen to keep noticing it. For heaven's sake this list was created the day after the rescue tag got deleted by the very same editor whose use of the tag created so much controversy. Suffice to say I find that rather unsettling and even more unsettling that numerous people who make their bias clear seem intent on shutting down any discussion about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I have my own reasons for not wanting to comment here but felt strongly enough about the NAC bit of it to comment on it. I'll leave discussion of the the close to others. Dpmuk (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just want to add my opinion that S Marshall is certainly capable of closing DRV's as well as anyone. And that in this case his close was entirely reasonable. Nothing would be gained by reopening this debate. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. There's no way this close was going to go any other way, even if it had run its full course. There's no point in prolonging a bureaucratic process past the point where the answer is completely obvious. It wastes the time of everyone involved. The amount of time and effort spent on ARS related threads recently is ludicrous, and I hope that this is the last ARS related thread from TDA in the near future. If not I feel like it's getting to the point where a topic ban would be warranted to stop wasting everyone's time. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If I had say, more evidence of much more blatant impropriety involving this list, would you really suggest that? That evidence was something I planned to bring up at the MfD, in lieu of yet another ANI thread. Also, I will say that until the DRV we got barely 20 hours of discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you had this evidence, why have you not mentioned it before? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You've had eons to produce said evidence. If you have it, produce it. Otherwise, stop murdering the dead horse. If you suddenly solid produce evidence that something horribly horribly wrong is going on, then of course my earlier statement doesn't apply. But if you produce another noticeboard thread about the same set of issues without producing additional, solid, convincing evidence of wrongdoing then it will be wasting the time of everyone here. It's clear that the community is okay with the idea of the existence of ARS, and is okay with the idea of a delsort like this as long as it's not in the main space. I do not personally like ARS. But it's disruptive to refuse to respect community consensus. Kevin (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This evidence only came about because I kept looking over that list during the Deletion Review, something that might have surely been noticed sooner had there not been attempts to conceal the discussion altogether. It concerns a different AfD than the one that most recently brought me here. Do you want me to start a separate ANI thread for it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless it's, like, indisputable evidence of an ARS member secretly orchestrating a malevolent, malicious, cross-wiki campaign to bring about the new world order, I would suggest that you avoid creating a new AN/I thread. Unless you have strong evidence of some form of actual wrongdoing, I would suggest just stepping away from the dead horse for a while. I would suggest sending any strong evidence of wrongdoing you have by email to a sympathetic administrator who can evaluate it and then act on it themselves or bring it up on a relevant board. Kevin (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything said about S Marshall above, but do still think it was wrong-footed to close this early. Better to have let it run its course. Not as a paper-shuffling excercise, but to get along nicely with each other. Give that little bit extra to someone, "let the baby have his bottle," if I may paraphrase without prejudice. To do otherwise causes discussions like this one to occur. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aaron Brenneman, I normally agree that it's best to let discussions run their course. In this case I do not: TDA has had many opportunities to have his say, and he's just repeating himself. There's nothing new being added to the discussion here, it's just dividing editors along tribal lines. The only objections to my close have been process-based, and that's not a strong objection to an IAR close bearing in mind that nobody's actually supported TDA's position. The DRV was also creating needless drama and interfering with the process that ought to be going on right now: reasoned and collegial debate about the reform of the ARS proceeding in an orderly manner. I'm quite keen that we do begin to make progress on that.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? It is just a "process-based objection" that you appeared to state that you were intending to close it as endorse all along but just waiting for "enough votes" to prove what you believed was the "correct" decision that just happened to be right as the discussion was turning towards relisting? I honestly do not see the DRV as having created any drama that was not created already by editors who were creating drama from the outset. Honestly, allowing it to follow its natural course was doing the exact opposite, as letting things take their natural course tends to achieve. Rather than being subject to frequent disruptive closures by involved editors we had four-and-a-half days where people actually had the time to discuss things and raise concerns (not to mention allowing people time to realize there actually had been a deletion discussion as CrossMR's comment at DRV clearly indicated), as well as allowing everyone to focus on other things since it was not a constant battle just to be heard. I can say right now, the DRV left me feeling more calm and allowed me to focus on other things under the belief that a fair decision would be reached.

You say that it is "interfering with the process that ought to be going on" as though somehow there was no effort to have such a process. In fact, that is exactly what I tried to get involved in at the Village Pump right after the rescue tag got deleted. There was hardly any participation and the discussion about reform quickly died off as everyone lost interest. My problem is that North didn't even wait for discussion about reform before creating this list and it is being used just like the rescue tag was used. The fact is, I wasn't even looking for this. I nominated an article for deletion, ARS showed up just like the previous case, and I was all "Again? Are you kidding me with this?" Seeing that North had completely disregarded numerous concerns raised at that first ANI discussion and the TfD, I went straight to ANI since it was obviously the only thing that could have any effect on that editor's tendentious activity. Also, are you kidding me with that "no one's supported TDA's position" comment? I can direct you right now to several people who commented in clear support of my position in every single discussion. Honestly, I shouldn't have to since an editor who closed the DRV should have paid enough attention to the comments there to realize that claim is just plain false without even considering the two ANI discussions about the list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Really? "The discussion was turning towards relisting"? Really? Are you and your "several people" reading the same discussions that I am?—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic ban discussion

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_proposed

Nobody Ent 13:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional evidence of ARS canvassing

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

---

Since Drmies has decided to make this discussion about allowing a DRV another 36 hours to finish into one about banning me from bringing up any misdeeds on part of the Article Rescue Squadron, it seems it is appropriate that I leave this here now.

The article concerned is Keerthi sagathia. It was listed at the ARS page before the article on Sal's Pizza that I nominated and was clearly nothing more than an emotional appeal bemoaning that a "new Wikipedian" was being "bombarded" by deletion nominations and described this as serving to "chase away a newbie" from "a part of the world" we needed to attract and so on. One thing that sticks out is the user that created the article who only made one contribution, creating the article, also happens to have the same last name. A ten-second Google search turns up that it matches the name of the artist's manager. User:Ginsengbomb clearly noticed there was a WP:COI issue within two-and-a-half hours of the listing and expressed difficulty finding sources. At the deletion discussion only five votes were made, the four keeps all being from people who clearly arrived from the rescue list (the only one who doesn't appear to be an ARS member is the person who listed it there), who would have all reasonably seen Ginseng's comment. Despite this, not a single one of them thinks it worthy of mentioning that there was a conflict of interest issue in a promotional article for which they had trouble finding sources. The one delete vote happens to be from someone who is from India, part of Wikiproject India, and interested in Indian music.

Despite pretty much all of them indicating they did not really know much about the subject, they still voted keep basically arguing "well this person must be notable we are just having a hard time proving it" and all the while failing to disclose a very serious issue with the article they had every reason to know about. Undoubtedly thanks to their involvement, the decision was keep. Why would they not disclose a WP:COI issue they clearly knew about? Of course, mentioning that would likely strengthen the case for deletion and it is clear the listing at the page was worded to evoke sympathy for the user creating the article who clearly joined just to use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting the artist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your "clearly noticed" link points...here. On that AfD, there is nothing mentioned by Ginsengbomb about COI, but on the list, he hinted at it - while agreeing with the "bombardment" comment and voting !Keep at the AfD with an assertion that notability was established. From the above it seems you're misreprensenting Ginseng's position on the matter, and as there was no CoI assertion, by him or anyone else, on the AfD until you brought it up at the very end, the assertion that they "clearly knew about" potential CoI is disinguious at best.

I hate to say this, but the appearance that you are conducting a campaign against the ARS is extremely strong. Whether or not you actually have a beef/vendetta/etc. about them, it has reached the point from your actions that other editors are no longer able to reasonably assume good faith that you do not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bleh, fixed the diff. As to your "hinting" comment, there is no hinting about a conflict of interest involved in saying the article appears to have been created by a family member. That comment was made five hours before anyone said anything at the AfD. I brought it up because I saw it had been brought up on the list almost immediately upon it being listed yet not a single editor from ARS commenting there apparently thought it worthy of mentioning at the AfD after over a week of it being up there (all of them had commented at that section of the list days before I said anything).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The power of numbers can make anything look different. Undoubtedly Wikipedia has a bias towards the group and against the individual more often than not so a large group are more likely to be heeded than a single outspoken voice. However, sometimes that voice just happens to be the first one to notice or speak out about a problem before others take action. Every time I initiated a discussion involving ARS it was mentioned at the project's talk page. In some cases, like the deletion discussion and deletion review, I am specifically required to put a big old notice at the top of the page to notify people frequenting that page about the discussion. Effectively, I am expected to ask that something be deleted while at the same time required to notify a large group of people likely to vote keep and being unable to offset that as to do so would be seen as canvassing. That is one of the reasons why consensus is not supposed to be a vote, and in this case a clear demonstration how it often is just that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: The author's COI in itself neither strengthens nor undermines the argument for deletion. If the article is written neutrally or is non-neutral but not to the point that a full rewrite would be required, COI is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. Goodvac (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing the problem. The article was nominated for deletion, with a rationale that it fails GNG and is written like a puff piece. Four editors - maybe from ARS, but I don't see why that matters - came forth with additional sources or evidence of additional coverage, while !voting to keep. One editor !voted delete with a simple statement that it fails GNG, without addressing the source that had already been brought up in the discussion or the sources that others were able to find. Another editor !voted keep for non-policy related reasons, which one of the other keep !voters pointed out. So basically two editors favored deletion on the basis of GNG, but that claim was disparaged by the unchallenged evidence of coverage from 4 of the editors favoring keep. The tone of the aricle was problematic, but that was not a valid reason to delete in light of the evidence of notability that was presented, that is a reason to edit the article further, as pointed out by the closing admin, which is probably also the reason any !voters who were aware of the comment to that effect on the ARS list didn't bother mentioning it - because it was irrelevant to the discussion. So basically, the article was appropriately kept, and if that was the result of this ARS list, then it is a demonstration that it is being used appropriately, hardly evidence that it is a problem in any way. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, there is no evidence of canvasing keep votes because some of those that regularly appear say delete, and sometimes no one goes over to say "keep" at all, even among items listed at the same time. Hopeless articles like this one [6] I pointed out I did a thorough search, and listed reasons why it shouldn't be an article, and suggested redirecting it. Articles like this [7] are obviously notable, and its a good thing people showed up to take at least a second to click on the links at the top of the AFD for Google News archive search, book search, and scholar search, all showing ample coverage of this. Its good to catch bad nominations from people that don't follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 08:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering about WP:CANVASS if you think success rate means anything. Above all else, intent is what matters. Can anyone honestly say that the discussion I listed above did not involve a partisan message targeted at multiple editors who were perceived to be inclined towards a certain view and that it also resulted in multiple votes consistent with canvassing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that everybody knows about the existiance of this page. Anybody can watch it - pro- or anti-deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I only have two things to say, and they're simple. 1) COI is, as Goodvac rightly points out, not really relevant in deletion discussions, so I have no idea why that was brought up. I'm certainly not about to raise a major reason to delete an article and then turn around and vote keep because of the seductive and insidious canvassing power of the Rescue List (avert your eyes! run away!). 2) At what point does this endless crusade of TDA's become an actionable disruption? Talk about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I am utterly confident he's acting in good faith, but this is getting well beyond absurd.

  Beyond that, I have nothing to contribute to this. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The ARS canvassing? I'm shocked, shocked. ThemFromSpace 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Curious editing activity by User:Bisexual Orchid, User:69.171.160.39 / User:69.171.160.12

I'm not sure what's going on here: under normal circumstances, I'd report this to the edit-warring page, but the circumstances, with the accusations and counter-accusations and mentions of ipsocking and User:Justamanhere, are sufficiently curious to make think this might be part of some larger pattern of behavior. Could both ends of this actually be the same entity, self-editwarring for the purposes of creating confusion and drama? -- The Anome (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Folks, I'm not sure I can really puzzle out what's going on here. Yesterday I saw Bisexual Orchid (talk · contribs) reverting some constructive edits by an IP from earlier in February. That user appears to be a single-purpose account. But if those IP addresses are the socks of the blocked user, then they should be dealt with. It seems to be a dynamic IP in the 69.171.160.xx range, e.g. 69.171.160.39 (talk · contribs) is the most recent one I've seen. See Masdevallia for an example of the disruptive edit warring. Don't really have the time right now - anyone else want to unravel it? Rkitko ^(talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the section above, so I merged my note here! I wondered the same thing about the self-editwarring. Curious. I'm glad someone else has noticed. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bicurious editing, perhaps? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the UAA report on this user in the mean time to await the outcome of this one here. It does seem strange, the IP is reverting this user back with similar accusations of sockpuppetry or trolling in the edit summary. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done some research on this account and cross referenced through some of the wikipedia tools. User:Bisexual Orchid is a sockpuppet of User:Pfagerburg, an account previously banned for wikistalking and repeated harassment of wikipedia users. His pattern is to raise sockpuppetry and banned allegations claims along with a group of trolls from a message board called SCOX, then troll wikipedia. One admin in previous wikipedia posts referred to these users from SCOX as 'playing wikipeida like a cheap flute'. Seriously, I am just here to write good articles about plants when I have some spare time. I don't have the time for someone who trolls around looking for people to harrass. Life is too short to waste time on trolls. There is another account, User:CanadianLinuxUser who is a sockpuppet of another user banned named User:Kebron who appears to act in tandem with this user to harrass wikipedia users and disrupt editing on the site. It's clear this user was here solely to harrass and disrupt. Better to just ignore trolls. Paying attention to them and reacting it what they want. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This account is a sleeper account for these trolls that has managed to get itself granted rights to read and distribute IP information for this group on SCOX. This account should be investigated -> User:CanadianLinuxUser. Access patterns of this account indicate it is used mostly to track wikipedia users by IP and maintain an offsite respository of IP information in violation of wikipedias policies. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Their pattern and motive appears to be to use wikipedia to create scrapable content with high page ranking by piggybacking wikipeida which is then used to manipulate search engine results using SEO link farms. Review of Google webmaster tools shows 41 links from blogs.wikipedia.org to this page already placed to create a spamdexing entry. See [8] 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And you, 69.171.160.168, wouldn't happen to be Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, would you? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is that? 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I reviewed links on google and found that numerous wikipedia postings do point to 'Jeff Merkey' on google. The purpose of the trolling is to promote links to this name in order to promote wikipedia entries to high page entries. Most of them appear above the facebook entry for 'Jeff Merkey', which indicates deliberate spamdexing, with wikipedia being used as a link farm. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. This entry alone has 181 links, some of them on blogs.wikipedia.org, all of them hidden links with artificial keywords littered throughout wikipedias domains. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the following as a suggestion on the talk page at Wikipedia Criteria for speedy deletion which will prevent this type of misuse of the site in the future and protect site users -> You should add that user pages which are excessively linked to by blogs and appear to exist solely to be used for search engine spamming in user talk space such as this page should be treated as WP:BLP issues and deleted on that basis [10]. Many SEO groups who promote deragatory content can and do use wikipedia user pages which are not normally visible to search engines and can link to them through SEO. Any user talk page which appears in googles listing should be treated as BLP and deleted to protect the user and wikipedia, and to prevent misuse of the site for spamdexing. This page has 181 links from external sources whose sole purpose is to promote derogatory content and is exposing an innocent user of wikipedia by promoting this page above even facebook entries. 69.171.160.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Obvious sock is obvious. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think all user talk pages are now noindexed and nofollowed. User pages are still indexed and I'd support noindexing all of them. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Apart from the socking above, Bisexual Orchid made a legal threat here [11]. Can someone block? A checkuser would probably also be helpful in wrapping up these shenannigans. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It just says "I'll take action" (albeit in ALL CAPS), so it's a bit too ambiguous for an NLT block, but a CU wouldn't hurt. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I am not this troll user Bisexual Orchid or this other nutjob he is apparently after. Don't you people realize that by joining with these trolls you are just posting more garbage for them to use to link to and spam google? Life is too short. Find someone else who has grown orchids for 30 years with a PhD in Botany to clean up your orchid articles. Life is too short for this type of stress and to subject valuable contributors to this type of treatment and trolling. You need to get rid of most of these trolls on your site,and I hate to say it, but user like this one The Blade of the Northern Lights and some of your so called 'admins' are as bad as the trolls based on the things they post. Have a great day. I am writing a letter to our Dean recommending that we ban this site from the University of New Mexico as a research resources. Our students will only be subjected to ceaseless trolling. 69.171.160.194 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to explain what I did that's so horribly wrong? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize UNM had an extension campus in San Diego. Or are you a "pretend" student? Personally, I think you and the Orchid account are both banned user User:Pickbothmanlol. Night Ranger (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's Jeff Merkey. All of the 69.171.160.xxx addresses are from New Mexico and are banned user Jeff Merkey.JeffMerkey'sGhost (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations

Sudar123 (talk · contribs) keeps adding some copyrighted material to the article Lies Agreed Upon [12] [13], despite being clearly warned. The section he continues to add is a verbatim copy of the following articles: [14] [15] [16]. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I know that is a copyright violation, but the article Lies Agreed Upon is created based on, as a major source the "Lies Agreed Upon" a documentary by the Ministry of Defense of Sri Lanka and was critisised by International Crisis Group as a propaganda piece. The Ministry of Defense is the line Ministry and waged a War with War Crime Charges. Considering above factors only I have added the Critsism of the International Crisis Group on Lies Agreed Upon and requested other editors in dispute to copy edit it.Sudar123 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note I have informed the user now that any user not supposed leave copyright works on the page even for a minute.Further I have removed the copyright violation from the article and put the NPOV tag.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued legal threats by blocked user

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

Looks resolved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

User:Trojancowboy was recently blocked for legal threats. He is continuing to make them on his (unblocked) talk page.[[17]] Can somebody revoke talk page access? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the edit to which you point. What legal threat? I don't see one. -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

He states that he is trying to contact the subject of the article he was blocked on with the purpose of initiating litigation for libel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that he is trying to contact the article's subject, but at no point does he state he is doing this to initiate litigation. He says he wants "his thoughts" on the matter. That said, the continued refusal to retract the legal threat should be enough reason to close down the talk page at some point.--Atlan (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've revoked talk page access. This continued "discussion" (it isn't) is going nowhere, and what we should see on the talk page if we wish to reconsider anything is a retraction--and that's still not there. If I'm wrong I gladly stand corrected. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a user who "doesn't get it". I would propose restoring talk page access, and making it clear that they need to edit co-operatively. Also that they need to get a handle on their behaviour, blustering about "rights" on WP usually ends in tears. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Rich, if you feel inclined to do your proposed come to Jesus speech, feel free to reinstate TPA and tell them where it's at: I don't mind. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to TPA being restored, I have asked that other editors stay off his talk page now unless they want to discuss his past edits. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, but to quote a former Navy Senior Chief who posts on a discussion board I'm on, "that might just be me - I'm funny that way". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I already did the speech, I'll restore TPA shortly. There's been some cooldown time, we all know that often these sort of things are prolonging the agony, but sometimes they work. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

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

Disruptive IP needs admin look-in

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

Looks sorted to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Yes, went to revert this IP's peurile edits to video game controversies [18] but Achowat beat me to it, same for the warning on the talk page.

Please see this user's talk page as there are serial warnings from Cluebot and editors about their behaviour and I was surprised to see that they had not been severely warned or blocked yet.

96.5.162.75 (talk · contribs)

CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not enough recent vandalism to justify a block - they come on once a week, make some random edit (this diff shows they are experimenting) and leave again. If they persist, please use WP:AIV. You also need to notify editors about ANI, which I have done for you. GiantSnowman 16:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, oops, been off-wiki for a while, will remember AIV for this sort of behaviour, thanks for your time. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No problems! GiantSnowman 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

A serious issue needing to be dealt with.

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

---

Resolved

 – 1 month interaction block between Abhijay and Dave1185.

• Dave1185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abhijay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since 14th February, there has been a hot showdown of dispute on my talk page. It all started with a simple mistake, only to be told in an extremely belligerent way, then proceeded to a blame game of who did what and all that. This as many would know is not Civil on wikipedia, and neither is it appropriate or accepted in this community. I have continued in my actions not to forgive the editor for his vulgarity because never In my life on Wikipedia I have been greatly insulted by such abusive remarks. Therefore, I would endorse the idea of an interaction ban with this user and possibly a block/warning for this user's actions because this issue between the both of us will never seem to stop and neither party appears much more innocent than the other. As much as the editor I've had a disagreement with looks like a good guy with a sensible humor and all, this user has the tendency to deliver personal attacks and hurl vulgarity. If you are asking for diffs, please refer to these: ([19]), ([20]), ([21]), ([22]), and then with this ([23]). Please deal with this as soon as possible because this is starting to get on my nerves. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm plowing through your contributions, hoping to find the 14 February diff that started this all--and what I'm seeing is an editor who probably needs to stop making those automated "test/vandalism" edits. On 16 February, at 10:16, you made nine of them. This is the problem with reporting: it opens one up to investigation, and you might lose your rollback as a result. Also, your talk page gives me a bit of a headache, with all this stuff on the top (you've covered over the User talk:Abhijay?) and two things floating around on the side. Please stick to convention. And now I'll continue to search for the spark that started this fire. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• I gather it started with this? (Dave1185's talk page is also enough to send me for aspirin). I think I can make this easy for you. Your interaction ban is granted. Both of you may not interact with each other for a whole month, starting now. Maybe then you will have cooled down. Dave, I hope you're listening. Also, Dave, tone it down. Your language and approach leave something to be desired--seriously, what was going on in your mind when you added this? Also, Abhijay, just drop it already. Someone insults you--well, consider them an idiot (softly, to yourself) and move on. Let it go. One more thing: if anyone wants to have a second look at the enormous amount of semi-automated edits ("test/vandalism") made by Abhijay on the 16th, please do. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Their interaction certainly got off track. I agree an interaction ban is the simplest thing here, since I don't think there's much of an overlapping interest in articles that should be easy. But I would add that both editors should also stop talking about each other to third parties, otherwise it isn't going to work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This thread is particularly troubling to me. --Chris (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • [ec--to Floquenbeam] Are they? And can that sort of thing be muzzled under an interaction ban? That's a difficult thing to police, I reckon. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Are they talking about each other, you mean? Yes. Chris' link is what I was thinking of, but Abhijay has been asking for help from several admins too. I think if the ban is to work, they both need to go beyond not talking to each other, and not talk about each other either. And sure, I think we can prevent that as part of an interaction ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. I have no objection to that additional boundary. Abhijay, Dave, are you listening? Drmies (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Apparently Dave had not been notified. I do agree that an interaction ban is the best solution. —Dark 01:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
          • He was notified, and removed it as read: [24]. An interaction ban with Floquenbeam's "extension" does seem best, imo too. Begoon ^talk 01:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Drmies, Floquenbeam and Chris, I have carefully listened to your thoughts about this and are both reasonable. I have to admit that at this point, a block on Dave1185 sounds a bit too harsh of a punishment in regard to what he has done. I agree with your point Floquenbeam. We need to stop talking about each other. If that's done, what about the other editors on User talk:Baseball Bugs? To admins: If it's still an persisting issue, should we impose a block on Dave 1185? Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
              • You can leave Bugs out of it. If Dave hadn't been complaining there, nothing would have happened. Alright, I think we have a deal. Abhijay, Dave (in absentia), you are to refrain from contacting each other on talk and article talk pages, and you may not discuss each other anywhere else either. Violators will be blocked temporarily. I guess violations may be reported here, with reference to this section. Dave, I sure hope you're reading this. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Thank you Drmies. Please contact him and tell him about this as well. Have a good day. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 05:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Fleming Facebook post

There's been a discussion going at WP:BLPN#John Fleming (U.S. politician), and the article talkpage, about a post on his Facebook page linking to an article in The Onion as if it were factual. I feel that without evidence that Fleming personally approved the post, it is a WP:BLP violation to mention it. Given that evidence, it would probably still be WP:UNDUE, but that's a discussion that could go either way. For the moment, I believe it needs to stay completely out. I'm bringing it here because once people start using edit summaries like re-writing section to appease SarekOfVulcan's misguided and unreasonable objection, further discussion on the talkpage isn't likely to help.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What type of admin intervention are you requesting? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No admins can't really assist here. This is basically just a cry for help. Sadly - there is nothing here to help you Sarek. More and more I see partisan users, in groups - over-riding simple npov, policy driven editorial control. En wikipedia policy is not fit for purpose and a group of half a dozen POV driven users are almost insurmountable. Youreallycan 03:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, we need a policy allowing for an easier way to sanction political POV-pushers. (I'd add ethno-political POV-pushers to that list, but ArbCom's got those under control.) Our job is to be a neutral encyclopedia, not the rope in a political tug-of-war. Nobody bring up the SOPA blackout, please; it's been debated to death and any more will be counterproductive. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What can we do about users like User:Wnt that repeatedly reject WP:BLP policy as the day the project died and yet continue to vote in opposition to any BLP discussions about disputed content - can we topic ban him/them from opining in such discussions? What can we do about users that continually contribute in a partisan way - a user that likes porn and votes keep keep keep all porn and rabid illusionists inclusionists that vote keep keep keep for anything - users like this make good faith NPOV contributors feel commenting or editing articles is just a waste of time. - NPOV experienced editors need to step up to the mark and opine more in RFC and content discussions or en wikipedia will be a cess pit of POV content. Youreallycan 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U? Oh, wait... Those work so well in cases like this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Those dastardly illusionists -- always fooling people with their tricky magic tricks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

When people cite "BLP" as a reason to remove very well known, very significant facts about politicians simply because they look bad, that is an abuse. It is enough of an abuse that I think we seriously need to go back and ask ourselves whether a special policy for this one class of articles was ever a good idea at all. If we were to allow those who believe BLP should be expanded to opin in such discussions, showing apparent obliviousness to things like the WP:WELLKNOWN part, because they happen to have the "right" WikiPolitics, while excluding those of us who think it needs to be rolled back, then it is pretty clear that the outcome of such discussions will not be consistent with the policy as currently written. So far as I know, Wikipedia has not yet descended to the level of snactioning editors for their views on the direction in which policy should be headed. Wnt (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The thrust of my argument there is that it is not "a significant fact", not that it's a (mildly) negative one. I'd say the same thing about a positive "fact" if it were as trivial as this one. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Very significant facts" ? That is not the case at hand, thus is a rather weak argument, if it is an argument at all. Collect (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Wnt's comment about "Very significant facts", Collect. Anyhow, in my view what's pertinent to the case at hand is WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. But I suggest the discussion continue where it started at Talk: John Fleming (U.S. politician). Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, Youreallycan is referring to my Support vote at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Santorum, and it was about that which I responded here. Prior to being mentioned here I was unaware of John Fleming. But at a glance that situation appears very similar. I should point out that, at least in recent months, I have not been taking the initiative on articles about politicians - rather, those looking to strike out inconvenient information create disputes which become widely publicized here, and when I notice them or am notified about them I respond as seems appropriate. These conflicts originate from the deletions. Wnt (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My comments are not related to any specific vote of yours, but to all of them, considering you very vocally and at every opportunity completely reject wikipedia WP:BLP policy - as such - imo, if you reject current policy you should you should stop voting on anything. Youreallycan 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because I want to get rid of it doesn't mean I can't read what it says, interpret it, and alas, even follow it. And what's really odd is that every once in a blue moon there's a time when I'm thinking BLP applies while its usual heralds deny it, because the issue involves keeping in information which is sympathetic to a living person, rather than taking it out. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the primary issue with your interpretation of BLP - such as you express there is not a consideration - it's not about if the content reflects on the subject well, or not so well. Undue weight is a BLP violation, if an article is not neutral its a violation of BLP, if you over emphasize a minor event in the life story of a living person its a BLP violation, its not about content removal. Anyway, your stated position is total inclusionist without any editorial control, hence you don't support en wikipedia policies and guidelines and as such please stop opining in content discussions, especially related to living people, until you do. Youreallycan 18:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As User:Wnt states - Users that don't support current en wikipedia policy are influencing content discussions. Also, as you all know, we have a massive problem with users simply voting on the side of their personal bias. A solution for this is that experienced NPOV users and users that are willing to opine in regards to current policy vote comment more in discussions, thus providing a balance to the biased and policy ignoring comments. Experienced editors have a duty of care to the project and to the living subjects of our articles, to contribute to these content and policy interpretation discussions, so, please , please please, no matter how lengthy and laborious the discussions seem, have a read and post your policy interpretation. To quote Casliber, the "more independent eyes the better, even if (actually particularly if) you don't have a strong opinion one way or the other."Youreallycan 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said on the talkpage, I think this error was freaking hilarious, and most of my family would refer to me as a flaming liberal -- and I still don't think it's appropriate for the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

On the incident named at the top of this section: If nothing else, the incident is way too minor to warrant its own section heading. If Fleming's spokesman is being accurate when he says the post was "taken down within minutes," then necessary coverage consists of no more than a single sentence, perhaps nothing at all (since this really isn't, and won't be, notable - unless he starts to become known as "that congressman who thinks the Onion is real"). On the newly important issue being discussed: Much more troubling in this incident, though, is the strain of BLPartisan thought that says that people who think BLP policy is over- or mis-applied should be muffled. Trying to topic ban those who don't hold the most restrictive possible interpretation of BLP policy from even being allowed to comment on BLP threads? You're shitting me, right? Editors are proposing we should have Soviet-style ideological purity tests of people's opinions on BLP? This idea doesn't even deserve a reasoned rebuttal - the only possible response is a profane and ludicrously impolite counterattack. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 02:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot vs. Bot

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

---

Resolved

 – Bots 2, humans 1

We have a couple of bots that appear to have a difference of opinion. Not sure what to do about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RepRap_Project&action=historysubmit&diff=477237678&oldid=477221948

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RepRap_Project&action=historysubmit&diff=477221948&oldid=476057120

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

CocuBot has an old version of python I am thinking. There was an old bug in it that caused certain special characters to be misread so they linked to the wrong pages in pywikipedia's mind. ie one that doesn't exist. It should probably be blocked until he upgrades his python. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Actually, both bots are correct. CocuBot deleted the link to this, whereas EmausBot linked back to this. (I don't have a clue whether the pages are related, or even what language that is, however!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh yes you are right. It looked very similar to a bug that was affecting pywikipedia with the same language types. The pages would look almost identical but the bot would see it differently. Was something wrong with the unicode. Either way he is a version behind. But I forget which version had the correction. If it was 2.7.2 or 2.7.1. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Amusing it happens on that page. (Rep rap is about potentially self replicating physical bots) Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Interwiki links are broken in a surprising number of cases. Bot wars are just a consequence of that. There's a page on meta documenting just how broken" m:IS#Automated analysis. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. Could someone please close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Conflict of interest/SPA/OWN

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

---

Opwdecks (talk · contribs) apparently has something, as they created the article Deck stains, have edited nothing but that article, and make constant reversions to it. I'm not sure if this is COI, SPA or just plain weird — anyone got any suggestions? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The username suggests to me some level of intended promotion and references a company (see opwdecks.com) so a corpname block may be appropriate. I'm not sure if the account holder has ties to the external sites linked to... there are no links to opwdecks.com (though there was one at one time). At any rate, it'll be interesting to see what the editor does after the AfD discussion ends. --Chris (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Suspicious Interwiki activity

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

---

In the post above (Bot Vs. Bot), I was what sort of hilarious mistake the bots made on each other when I noticed that Luckas-bot also added RepRap to Simple Wikipedia. This led to an investigation being done on simple Wiki. I found out that the blocked User: Shakinglord has exiled himself to Simple English Wikipedia, seen here. Shakinglord has created a slew of pages from English Wikipedia and has even started an article creating even there. I'm not sure what can be done, but I find that it is disturbing that a banned editor has escaped. Rapide (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing for us to worry about. If he's behaving on simple, great, if not, the admins there will act. 28bytes (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A further look shows that he's copying pages from here to there without attribution in violation of our licenses. I'll post a note over there about that. 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a note about the copying at simple:WP:AN. I'll let them take it from there. 28bytes (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Escaped is IMO the wrong word. By and large each WMF wiki is allowed to manage themselves as they see fit and most don't automatically block or ban people just because they've been blocked or banned elsewhere (although such a block/ban may be considered in a decision to block/ban based on behaviour on their wiki). While global locking is possible (as an alternative to global blocking which isn't currently possible for accounts), it generally only happen when the user has already proven they are disruptive at more than one wiki (or when a SUL account is compromised). If Shakinglord is disruptive at simple (this would likely include copying wholesale any pages from here without modification to make them simple) I'm guessing he/she's likely to be blocked there soon. But there have definitely been cases where en blocked (not sure about banned) users have been considered fairly constructive members of another wiki. For the benefit of simple, let's hope it's the later. Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, now that I have finally found this thread (see mine below), I realize that this whole thing was started by a sock of him! Good grief. Users are being blocked. Calabe1992 17:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Shakinglord likely block evasion

Someone mentioned that Shakinglord recently was active over at Simple, but I'm not seeing the thread at the moment. I'm nearly certain we have activity from him here as well. ChocolateWolf (talk · contribs) was previously blocked as a sock of him. SL stated it was his friend, and asked for CW to be unblocked. An admin assumed good faith, and unblocked the account. Since then, the sockpuppet farm expanded, and I proposed and successfully banned SL. Now, CW has been active again and I believe at this point it is beyond the point of assuming good faith with the original "friend" claim. At minimum I believe the account should be blocked, but we may need a sock investigation again. Requesting further comment. Calabe1992 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Are you saying the farm expanded because of all those welcome messages? I clicked on a couple, all with no edits, but one of them was apparently a student in some educational wiki project. Last of CW's activity was two weeks ago, and I see no evidence of vandal edits. I personally don't buy the "friend" story, but Bushranger is a nicer person than I am. Now, if CU confirms that some of those new accounts are sleepers, so to speak, then I think you have proof: but I don't know if that will be considered a fishing expedition. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, no, lol. The sock farm expanded after CW had been unblocked - it blew up when User:BusyBlacksmith came to ANI to complain about you, actually. I suspected he was a Spotfixer sock and subsequently opened an SPI, which led us to Shakinglord. Calabe1992 17:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and open an SPI on this. We'll see where that leads us. Calabe1992 17:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Users have been blocked via SPI. Calabe1992 17:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As a note, I was suspicious of the "friend" story as well, but decided to err on the side of good faith; unfortuntatly, things didn't work out. Ah well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Question about editing during AFDs

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

---

• - When should those who voiced a "delete" opinion in an {{afd}} then perform referencectomies and informationectomies on that article while the {{afd}} is still running?

When should those who voiced a "delete" opinion in an {{afd}} then perform referencectomies and informationectomies on that article while the {{afd}} is still running?

It has always seemed to me, that those who voiced a delete opinion should not edit the article -- at least while the {{afd}} is still running.

Some people have told me that nominators, and those voicing delete opinions, should be entitled to remove violations of {{blp}}. I don't agree. I think in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest they should ask a previously uninvolved third party to look at it.

Recently I participated in an {{afd}} where I voiced a keep opinion, and did some work on the article. I thought it was a pretty clearcut keep, and hadn't looked at it for several days. I was quite surprised to see that not only /had several contributors voiced delete opinions, but that the nominator, and two of those who voiced "delete" opinions made extensive excisions to the article.

The nominator offered an explanation for one of their edits, on the talk page. But the other contributors favoring deletion only explained their edits in their edit summary. In my opinion controversial edits really ought to be explained on the talk page. I see justifying a controversial edit in a short edit summary is an unnecessary trigger to edit-warring, as it represents a temptation to respond with a reversion, so those who disagree can reply with their in the same place, with their own edit summary.

In general I think it would be best for the project for those who think their concerns with an article make it irredeemable state their position in the {{afd}} itself. Specifically, in this article, I thought the justifications for the excisions were flimsy.

Because I am not forum shopping, I am explicitly not naming the specific {{afd}}. I have seen a couple of people who routinely edit war after nominating an article for deletion, or voicing a delete opinion. Since this seems to me to be a problem that routinely repeated by a small number of contributors I thought I could request general opinions here.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am intentionally limiting the scope of my comment to the removal of BLP violations, but I see no reason to think that those who have voted "delete" should forfeit the right to remove them. BLP issues are taken seriously enough by Wikipedia, and rightfully so, that their removal is considered an exception to, say, the 3RR rule. The very real principle of avoiding possible harm to living people far outweighs the more abstract principle of wanting an AFD to look as tidy as possible. Kansan (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I normally avoid making major changes to an article that is at AfD that I have !voted to delete, with the exception of removing BLP violations or copyright infringements. I see absolutely nothing wrong with making BLP policy related edits to an article I have !voted delete on however - BLP is nonnegotiable, there is no situation where it is not appropriate to take out BLP violations. What is/isn't a BLP violation can be controversial and tricky, and if someone else goes "I don't think that's a BLP violation" than the person involved should certainly discuss the issue, but there's nothing wrong with removing something you think is a BLP violation unless it's clear that consensus is against you. There's also nothing wrong with removing a BLP violation from an article you have a conflict of interest on. (Also, I'd hope that closing admins would take a quick gander at the history of the article, and pick up on things like unwarranted removals of content.)

Also, if you aren't requesting specific administrator action be taken here, it belongs on another board. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Only one of the edits had an edit summary explanation that mentioned BLP. It was a very minor edit (changing "is" to "was") -- not one of the extensive, questionable excisions. Geo Swan (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

They should be able to edit the article in any way that would normally be permitted. In fact, sometimes its practically necessary: if there are a dozen things in the articles inclosed in "ref" tags, but 11 of them are "references" to blogs, PR reports, or other things that don't meet WP:RS, removing them is entirely appropriate and actually helpful to the process. It helps all users see immediately whether or not the baseline criteria are met, and helps explain to the article creator or others defending the article that no, in fact, the notability isn't verified. Of course, someone removing valid content in an attempt to hurt the article should be sanctioned, but I assume that's not what you're talking about. P.S.: could you change the section title? There's not a lot of room for edit summaries like this. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why can't the concerned contributor explain their concern in the {{afd}}?
• I had an extremely dedicated wikistalker, who used to regularly make extensive and disruptive edits to articles they had nominated for deletion. They defended these edits as "improvements". But no one should nominate an article for deletion, or voice a delete opinion, if they think the article can be improved to the point it should be kept.
• You seem to be saying that it is acceptable for contributors who can't explain their concerns to demonstrate their concerns by editing the article. It is extremely rare to see nominators or those who favor delete to edit the articles. I strongly suggest that no one should demonstrate why they think an article should be deleted through excising those portions they object to. I strongly suggest only individuals willing and able to participate in a collegial exchange of ideas should participate in deletion discussions. I am sympathetic to those with dsylexia, or other learning disabilities, or who are still learning English. But those individuals simply aren't qualified to participate in a deletion discussion. Is that what you were suggesting?

  Frankly, I have never seen anyone do so when those edits weren't extremely disruptive. Those who favor keep should have the opportunity to actually improve the article, without having to contend with edit-warring from those who have gone on record favoring deletion.

• You wrote: "if there are a dozen things in the articles inclosed in "ref" tags, but 11 of them are "references" to blogs, PR reports, or other things that don't meet WP:RS, removing them is entirely appropriate and actually helpful to the process." I accept, at face value, that any occasion when you practiced this technique you did so in good faith. I accept, at face value, it simply hasn't occurred to you how disruptive this practice is, and how it gives the very strong appearance of bad faith, and serves to poison the general expectation of good faith we should all try to maintain.

  Nothing prevents you from saying, "IMO only one of the article's N references is to a an WP:RS." But, when you actually excise references from the actual article, other good faith participants, who look at the article, will find only the one reference you left. They don't get to form their own opinion as to whether the references you removed. The contributors who follow you are unlikely ot realize you performed a referencectomy on the article, if you don't say so in the {{afd}}. There is a pretty good chance that they won't notice, or won't understand, that you performed a massive referencectomy, even if you do say so in the {{afd}}, as a lot of {{afd}} participants don't read the whole {{afd}} discussion, or don't read it very closely. So, what you described as "actually helpful to rhe process" looks like an attempt to deceive other participants in the discussion.

  You seem to be asserting that that excising "blogs" with little or no explanation is okay. But there is a lot of confusion, even among experienced contributors, as to what is an unreliable blog. Most blogs are unreliable, because they are the work of a single individual, who is not an expert, who is not supported by an editorial team, following an editorial policy. But a small minority of online publications that are called "blogs" are reliable. They are the online only side of a reputable magazine, withe the same or similar ediorial standards of their print version. There are other online only publications, like Scotusblog, which have a greater reputation than print publications. Generally print publications cite Scotusblog, not vice versa. Finally, there are individuals who are already highly respected expertes in their field. When they publish something online, without benefit of a team of editors, their writings are nevertheless reliable, even if someone calls their writing a "blog". Don't be offended, but given the confusion and disagreement over what constitues a blog, even among the most experienced participants on the wikipedia, I am not going to accept your opinion, or anyone's opinion, that a reference is an unreliable blog that should be removed, wihtout an explanation. I strongly feel that, when an article is before {{afd}} it is far better if those who favor deletion confine themselfves to comments in the {{afd}} and refrain from editing the article. Geo Swan (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a problem, see WP:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Removal of sources on notability grounds at Mindell Penn.  However, !voting delete does not mean that edits to an article are debilitating, ref.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Short answer: when the references are bogus, misleading or otherwise unsuitable, when the information is unverifiable or an infringement of policy. Longer answer - unless and until the consensus is to lock articles at afd so that the deletion discussion is on a snapshot of the article, there is no need to stop editors editing articles at afd. Not even editors whose opinion on the article differs from yours. pablo 10:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment). Whenever I nominate an article for deletion, as a purely personal policy I then attempt to wikify it, add cats, ELs and talkpage banners. (Caveat: I am a hugeificially baleetopedian, and/or All-Round Nice Guy.) Shouldn't we be discussing this at WP:VPP?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• I tend to treat WP:AFD as Articles for discussion. Issues with an articles are raised: if you're able to fix something, then do it. That may include weeding out improper ref's, but if you're good enough to replace them with better ones, then you have probably improved the 'pedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete !voters should of course be welcome to improve the article. However, if they are editing the article to (for example) remove sources they don't like (and thus reduce claims to notability) they'd better be clearly bogus sources. I've seen cases where someone says something like "all sources are only passing mentions" in the AfD and then remove wide swaths of text (and those sources) even though they were clearly reliable sources that supported the text in question. That, IMO, is unacceptable. Especially if the keep !voters had comments like "sources in article clearly meet WP:N" or the like. Baring BLP issues or clearly bogus use of sources, folks pushing for deletion shouldn't be removing sources--and if they do feel they need to they should make it clear they _did_ so in the AfD. My 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• If the statement of the subject is correct, the article really needs to be deleted under DONOHARM. Saying someone with relatively minor past involvement is a leader of this organization is very much the sort of thing DoNoHarm was meant for.(While being aware that it can be in the interest of someone who is truly the leader of such an organization and notable as such to try to hide the fact despite reliable evidence otherwise). But the first step is to validate that the person saying he's the subject actually is. And the person offers circumstantial evidence he cannot be the subject based on his travel and other considerations, not all of which appear likely--was he actually only a recent learner of Arabic and yet teaching a madrassa?, which would need also to be verified. And that can only be done on OTRS, where we can deal with such evidence.

As for the general issue of removing content during AfD , it depends on the circumstances. Sometime removing content makes a stronger article, for example by removing promotionalism. sometimes there are genuine BLP concerns. But sometimes it's an attempt to destroy the article unfairly by making it as weak as possible. Since if the BLP claims are correct the article probably does need to be deleted, the better course would be to leave them in during the discussion, so people can judge that; if so, they'll be removed soon enough. If the article is kept, then they can be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Point of order This page is for discussing particular incidents not generalities. The discussion here should therefore be closed or relocated. Warden (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Wholetruth123

There are two warning signals in a user name: something about "truth" and a set of sequential numbers. I can use your help with this one. I blocked this editor earlier today for edit warring on Islamism, where they are trying to insert an OR/synthi/soapboxy definition of islamism. Besides those problems, I noticed something else: please note the possibly revolting antisemitic language in this edit. I blocked them for 48 hours, but I wonder if that should be lengthened to, say, indefinite. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've notified the editor. I hope that someone will be helpful in copying their comments, should they have any, from their talk page to this thread. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I shall watch their page, and do so if they have any. Kevin (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

48 hours? Really? You're very generous. I don't see "warning signs"--I see a hatemonger who needs to find an opinion blog to post his/her opinions on, and leave the encyclopedia alone. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I tell you what, Qwyrxian--feel free to overrule me! What I saw was a bunch of stuff I couldn't really make heads or tails of, and that ridiculous edit above, I only saw that after the block. Which is why I brought it here... Drmies (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one who couldn't understand them! I was tempted to block after I saw what they were posting but thought it better to err on the side of caution and make sure they were properly warned first. I can't see them lasting too much longer as they seem to be here to push their view and little else. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

CBW, the plot thickens. In response to their talk page message about admins with agendas voting to redirect the article and abuse the truth (whatever that may be), I wrote the following, which I'll quote in full:

"There was no vote. The history of Islamist is here. The argument is simple: an islamist adheres to islamism. Your comparison to African American is specious. BTW, you're not the first to propose what you did--this edit, by User:Coninera, and an IP in the 142 range, did the same in 2005. Odd--some other IPs in that same range had redirected the term in 2003 already. Are you quite sure that this was your first edit on Wikipedia?"

Interesting. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

American Piano Academy

This isn't probably the best place to dump this, but could somebody please take a look at the edit just before mine and figure out what, if anything, needs to be done here? Sorry to be vague but the edit summary should explain why I thought this needs another look. 28bytes (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• From looking at this version, the last one edited by the editor with the supposed COI, I can't tell that it would be POV or otherwise contaminated. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • About a dozen questions popped into my mind, including: does the rather accusatory edit summary present BLP concerns? Is the article subject even notable? (I see it's not referenced.) Is it a copyvio of anything? These are normally things I would dig into but am just too exhausted to do tonight, which is why some more eyes would be welcome. 28bytes (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Um, the current version with the bolded sentence under "philanthropy" is a bit unusual as well. You rightfully reverted the edit in question, but I think there is definitely some sort of agenda being pushed here.I think maybe, being it is unsourced with some borderline BLP concerns, would make it a candidate for an AFD process at the very least. Any takers? Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I've PROD'd it, as the reasons given for this commercial music school's "notability" are totally unnotable - every music school in the United States has seen some of its graduates go on to study music. And some of its students happened to be in Japan during the earthquake -- well, that's certainly significant!

        It's just a run-of-the-mill music school with nothing particular to differentiate it from hundreds of others just like it. Next we'll have articles on every bakery in every town in America. ("Noted for its excellent pumpkin pie and its strawberry tart is to die for.") Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That edit summary doesn't bother me too much, given the relatively limited search exposure of edit summaries. (Added: the edit you removed is indeed pretty bad.) Looking at the academy website[25] shows the name mentioned, indicating COI, though the promotion level is fairly tame compared to what we often get. I'm too burnt out for it right now, but maybe someone could have a polite chat with the initial contributor explaining the COI and notability issues. I'm going to endorse the prod based on difficulty of assuring a neutral article with such sparse sourcing when there is an apparent controversy. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) (updated).

In a strange bit of Irony and coincidence, if I would have been allowed to tag this article with the WPUS banner I probably would have noticed that myself. --Kumioko (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Outrageous personal attack

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

---

After I flagged Freedom, Inc. for speedy deletion as an unremarkable organization (the article had only one link from a library about someone making a documentary), Judge Dred Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a similar article at Freedom, Inc where he called me "an evident white-supremacist" and alleged that I "initiated a political controversy". This is completely out of bounds, and I request that action be taken against this editor. I will also be filing a sockpuppet investigation on this editor, as I noticed that they seem to be editing as in a very similar pattern to new user Riderz Tide. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I continue to allege that User:Mike Wazowski is (Personal attack removed) and anyone can see he initiated a political controversy. What's out of bounds about expressing one's opinion? (Personal attack removed) This is all I plan to contribute to this discussion at this time, I have bigger fish to fry. Judge Dred Scott (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this is the comment to which Wakowski refers, in its totality: (Personal attack removed) Judge Dred Scott (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a block of JDS is warranted. If he's not a troll (and I think he probably is) then he holds strong enough views to make cooperation with other users impossible, and Wikipedia being based off of cooperation, that would represent a rather significant problem. Kevin (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest a two week block of JDS.--WaltCip (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Although it is not a legal threat, there does seem to be a threat implied here ("This incident is being reported to U.S. Congressman Cleaver") that seems to have the intention of creating a chilling effect. - SudoGhost 06:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To accuse this editor of being a "white-supremacist" with no evidence? Ouch. I'm seeing a lot of helpful vandalism reverts in his most recent contribs, not hate-mongering. Doc talk 06:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I have deleted Freedom, Inc, and am leaving Freedom, Inc. for a moment, giving it a bit of time for expansion (maybe it should go up for an AfD, not sure if this is not notable).

Judge Dred Scott, I ask you to withdraw your personal attacks immediately. The tagging by MikeWazowski is at worst a bit quick, but chilling possible discussion with the personal attacks is not how we operate here on Wikipedia. Do come up with proper, independent references from reliable sources, and you may find that the article sticks. If however you choose not to withdraw the allegations, you may find yourself blocked, and the faith of the article may be different. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In ec, I see that the former is also deleted .. a quick search does suggest some notability, though I did not do a full search. I am afraid the tagging was a tad fast. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that Riderz Tide (talk · contribs) has a similar focus. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being as "white supremacist" is a clear violation of WP:NPA. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Scott for 48 hours for his blatant personal attack. I should note that he shows no interest in redacting the attack. Tiptoety ^talk 06:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Since JDS appears to have no interest in removing his personal attacks above, can I get them redacted and removed from the edit history? I personally find his spurious allegations obscene and utterly uncalled for. Thanks. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It could fit #2 here, possibly. Eh. If it were me, I'd just let it roll off my back and know that this account will not be accusing you of this sort of thing again without a much lengthier block being assigned. Doc talk 07:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:GoodDay - topic ban request

So, as some of you may know, GoodDay (talk · contribs) has had a bit of a patchy past, and a little while ago was the subject of an RFC/U (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay) where he was placed under the mentorship of Danbarnesdavies (talk · contribs) and myself. An area that GoodDay edits sometimes are articles relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, and his edits on the articles and comments on the talk pages often generate far too much heat, and very little light. We've discussed this with GoodDay and recommended he stay away from these articles, and he has agreed to a topic ban (see [26]} but I think having it rubber stamped here would be for the best. I think he's capable of doing good work, but this topic area is generating a lot of complaints (see my talk page for examples) and we feel it'd be for the best. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like he's willing to accept a voluntary topic ban on his own accord. This can all be hammered out on his page, and then if if that voluntarily accepted ban is violated, bring it back here. Doc talk 11:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be bureaucratic, but must disagree slightly with Doc9871; any kind of ban can (almost by definition) lead to strife or contention later, especially if the scope of the ban isn't perfectly clear or if it misses the point, so it can be really helpful to discuss a ban with the community. If somebody's volunteering to stay away from a specific area where their edits generate more heat than light, then I'd be happy to rubberstamp that. I wish more of us had the self-control to avoid stressful areas; my blood pressure could certainly benefit from staying away from a few controversial pages. bobrayner (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of whatever duration, ideally indefinite. GoodDay has been a fly in the ointment around British and Irish articles for years doing little more than trolling on many occasions, and rarely contributing anything useful to any debate. I'm generally hesitant about voluntary topic bans as if GoodDay decides he wants the ban to end surely the process is just voluntary still and he can just carry on the same as before? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• One Nigh In Hackney, your comment is needlessly aggressive and unpleasant—if someone you perceive as difficult to work with is voluntarily and peacefully willing to remove themselves from an area of conflict, there's no useful purpose to taunting. (Not that there is ever a useful purpose to taunting, but I digress.) Nevertheless, ONIH's point about the 'voluntariness' of the topic ban is well taken. It would be helpful if the mentors were to expand upon their views of how the topic ban might come to an end. Is this intended to be an indefinite ban, or fixed-length, or subject to review after some set period of time or after some other condition is met, or what? And who would be able to make the call on lifting it—is this a completely voluntary 'ban' that GoodDay would be able to revoke himself, or would it require the approval of the mentors, or would it require a full-blown consensus here...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think it'd be wise for it to be a topic ban that we could revoke, on the condition that his editing improves elsewhere. This isn't being done to punish GoodDay, nor is it implying that he is solely to blame. Perhaps he is being baited somewhat, but he is taking the bait and it's getting him in trouble. He's very capable of doing good work, but this topic area is causing him issues and I think it best he has a break from the area. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's not so much that he is taking the bait, but that he is most of the time dishing out the bait. I find the line that suggests GD is basically a nice helpful type whose endless comments in British Isles-space are misunderstood and provoked, to be well wide of the mark. In fact, he often doesn't understand the simplest issues, either of the facts themselves or of the point at question in a given talk subject. But that doesn't hold him back - he sees a need to not only act confused but, where possible, to very deliberately act in an inflammatory and serially provocative way even when other editors of differing views are discussing things in a reasonable manner. This is the case with his most recent edits in Talk:United Kingdom where there was no possible implication to his remarks other than to try to cause trouble. He also seeks to recruit for trouble and, where possible, to derail attempts to achieve consensus by way of sustained, distracting and trivial sequences of ill-informed and unhelpful opinions. His contribution-to-talk ratio is depresssingly low. He is very, very experienced in Wikipedia and knows a great many tricks, which is the sole reason why he wasn't perma-blocked ages ago. I am emphatically *not* one of the "nationalist editors" complained of endlessly by GoodDay and some supportive others here, but I'm heartily sick of him, because in the UK and Ireland space, he has absolutely nothing useful to contribute and a great deal of extremely exhausting and repetitive "opinion" (for opinion read: deliberate provocation) to bore us with. Would be happy to see him barred from this space, voluntarily or otherwise. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• GoodDay is a NPOV editor in an area that is absolutely overloaded with groups of nationalists, many of whom are very aggressive and work in groups. I have , on more than one occasion told him to take that whole sector off his watchlist, but the bias of the whole sector irks him and he goes there expresses a position that is loudly rejected by the nationalists who hate him because he repeatedly points at the bias they support. If GoodDay is asking for a topic ban then I support him. Youreallycan 15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The subject areas where GoodDay (repeatedly) trips up indeed fall within the field of interest of British/Scottish/Welsh/Irish & English "nationalists", (myself being one), as well as those who could legitimately claim to hold a NPOV. The problem is not who edits and watches these articles, but rather when GoodDay's views upon British and Irish (Brirish) topics are trumped by WP:Concensus and/or WP:RS he frequently plays the "ownership issues" card then retreats to snipe from the sidelines; this invariably increases frustration on the part of other editors to the point that we arrive here. GoodDay is capable of being an asset to Wiki so long as he can keep a lid on his OCD-like tendencies (his overwhelming desire for consistency/conformity/uniformity) and, in accepting that holding a minority opinion is a bitter pill which everybody must at sometime swallow, remain clear of the Brirish articles. I wish him well in his efforts to do so. Endrick Shellycoat 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Sensible move. Fully agree with Youreallycan's analysis regarding ownership by nationalist editors. Quite blatant....and disgraceful. Leaky Caldron 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I agree 100% with Youreallycan. The areas of United Kingdom, Ireland and British Isles are plagued by nationalist POV pushers who game the system and tag team edit. GoodDay's actions in these areas are nothing compared to the disruption caused by these nationalist editors. Van Speijk (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The issue has absolutely nothing to do with any notions of "nationalist bias" and such like - it is solely to do with GoodDay's continuing disruptive behaviour. I agree with User:Endrick Shellycoat. If GoodDay wants to withdraw from those topic areas, he should do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban There appears absolutely no urgency to seek draconian solutions pm GoodDay unless a whole big group of the offenders is included as well. Collect (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Could those who are suggesting that there is a "whole big group" of "offenders" or "nationalist POV pushers who game the system and tag team edit" or who "are very aggressive and work in groups" please give some examples and diffs to show what it is that they are talking about, rather than making unsubstantiated allegations about unnamed editors? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So..."everybody's doing it therefore it's OK"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Too many incidents have been sparked of and far too many collective hundreds of hours of users editing time has been wasted on GD. Whatever the reasons I don't care, but there can be no doubt that GD is unable to maintain NPOV on this topic area. I would far rather precious editing time is dedicated to improving the vast number of articles in need of some TLC rather than wasting it on keeping one user's issues in check. SFC9394 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Youreallycan and Vanspeijk. Completely unneccessary. GoodDay is an impartial, NPOV voice of sanity in an area that often amounts to nothing more than a giant game of nationalistic cat-and-mouse. His presence would be very much missed. — JonC^ॐ 20:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with above opposing voices. I personally do not care about those British Isles, but we still have It is a country in its own right[10][11] in the UK lead. Appears double reliably sourced. Interesting, what the hell does it mean though? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. His own mentor proposes it and he himself agrees to it. If they both think it's a good idea then sure, I'd give it the official rubber-stamp. -- œ^™ 01:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support and please action. This clearly has sysop backing and is wanted by both GoodDay and the mentor; can it now be taken as done? The above Oppose remarks appear to derive from a mistaken view of the pretend "anti-nationalist" context of GD's obsessions. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

As I'm currently making gnome corrections to the birth/death dates of bio articles, will those gnome edits be allowed on the British & Irish bio articles? Afterall, they don't cover nor effect the political topics-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Might be best to steer clear altogether. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Continuos and purposeful false editing.

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

---

With regards to Newcastle United and their ground the Sports Direct Arena. I have amended the page several times only for admins to incorrectly change it back as part of a fans campaign. Several discussions and links have been deleted and topics and subjects locked when they should not. Some contributors to Wikipedia are knowingly giving out false information. The stadium is the Sports Direct Arena which was formerly St James' Park, they might not like the name change and it is not simply a sponsors name it is the actual name of the ground. As of 16th feb 2012 all signage referring to its former name have been removed and its postal address updated. As someone involved in promoting North East football can the person who is knowingly vandalising the pages be removed and prevented from doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.130.113 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• A complaint without merit, on a matter already answered at Talk:St_James'_Park#Edit_request_on_4_January_2012. I semi'ed the article last year--see Talk:St_James'_Park#semi-protected_again, and it is move-protected as well. IP, I think you should stop this campaign: it's obvious that you've tried this before (with different IP addresses), and this disruption is getting irritating. We have rules on names; live by them, please. Also, please don't accuse admins of knowingly giving out false information, and please don't accuse other editors of vandalism. Your last sentence contains a terribly dangling modifier, but if you are actually acknowledging that you're a promoter of some kind, you should probably stay away from the article in the first place. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The matter is already well under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Newcastle United - stadium name in infobox; I suggest we keep the discussion there, in one place, and would advise another admin (I'm involved) to close this thread. GiantSnowman 16:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Drmies. You may not be aware that matters have moved on. Yesterday the ground signage for SJP was removed (a major article on BBC News - Look North). Also, the club's official website now refers to it as "formerly SJP" and the Barclays Premier League official website club page for NUFC also calls it Sports Direct Arena. This is not as black & white as it appears and the IP may have a point as I have encountered intransigence myself which GS has, unfortunately, contributed to. Leaky Caldron 16:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

NPA

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

Moved to WQA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I prodded Wizard (band), which seemed fairly uncontroversial. User:Ruud Koot remove the prod without comment. I asked him, "Please do not remove prod tags unless you explain why." which got a very rude response of "As you clearly are incapable of determining whether a nomination is uncontroversial or not, please do not use the PROD template in the future." I could do without the attack. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ruud Koot has a wonderful set of hair on that fairly recent photograph. Still, nice hair doesn't mean one should phrase it like that. Hammer, I've often agreed with you in deletion discussions, but I have also found you a bit quick on the draw. Then again--is this really a matter for ANI? Drmies (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Further attacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band), saying I have a "bad track record" when it comes to finding sources. Cherry picking fallacy much? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:WQA, surely then? GiantSnowman 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Manson48

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

Manson48 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Manson is a disruptive user whose contributions, such as they are, are far outweighed by his incompetence. He has previously expressed anti-semitism on his user page. He uses his user and talk pages to promote his book. His edit history shows that, of his 145 edits, less than 3% of them have been to articles, the rest mainly to talk pages of one kind or another. Finally, one of his most recent statements was to threaten sock puppetry: "More threats, you guys are really good at that. Block me, I have a whole list of alternative proxies. I've been on this site for several years, if that's the way you treat those you disagree with, so be it." ([27]).

He should be indeffed as a liabilty to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That was after I'd warned him for deleting someone else's edit on a talk page (for the 2nd time) and adding a forum style post which was irrelevant to the article (on a different subject). Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct. As the diff above shows, he removed your warning and replaced it with the sock threat, kind of a double whammy. You've been dealing with him a for a bit now, and, frankly, I think you've shown remarkable patience. I'm not as patient with editors who appear to have no redeeming qualities.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm blocking indefinitely now. If they do somehow snap out of it, I'd consider an unblock, but I won't hold my breath. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Resolved

 – User pointed to WP:BASC if he really wants to be unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone could review this post by Rapide and take any action they feel appropriate. This appears to be connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shakinglord. As I'm possibly involved, I don't want to hand out any blocks, etc. TNXMan 18:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll deal with it. I think I know what I'm going to do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Three occurances of vandalism from the same user

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

---

Resolved

All three of these instances of vandalism involve the same IP address: [28] [29] [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.27.112 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked. Please report to WP:AIV in the future, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:hudicourt personal attacks on User:Nick-D and recreating lists

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

I'm bringing this to ANI as User:Nick-D is away on holiday. There is a fairly unpleasant smear and innuendo been posted tonight accusing Nick of agenda based editing [31]. User:Hudicourt has also recreated all of the lists that were previously removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to see Godwin's law in effect at least. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In a nutshell, User:Formats changed the name of the article from Civilian casualties caused by ISAF and US Forces in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) to Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), then goes on to claim that the article he just renamed "is unfairly biased against the US and ISAF for it does not list the victims of the Taliban". On that same day, User:Nick-D, using the article's new name as an argument, states that "The news reports are also heavily weighted to incidents caused by the Coalition forces, when it is the Taliban who have actually caused most civilian casualties" and proceeds to delete most of the article. I explained the whole thing in detail and the articles' talk page and its all there for verification. Now, it is me that is accused of personal attacks although I explaned the whole scheme, and I am also accused of re-creating the deleted lists, which I approve of, by the way, but which I did not do, as can be easily verified. Hudicourt (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

[32] Another of hudicourt's diatribes. One of the main reasons I went to ANI, is that unfortunately I've had dealings with Hudicourt before. If an uninvolved editor wishes to stroll by the page in question, you can see for yourselves the problem. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The recent chronology here is:

• The material listing incidents where civilian casualties occurred was removed from the Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article as a result of the discussion at Talk:Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#This article isn't neutral at present.
• A 'new' editor (AFPK (talk · contribs) then popped up and recreated this material as a series of articles (all purporting to be lists of civilian casualties by year, when they only contained those caused by NATO/ISAF forces, which represent a minority of the casualties in recent years). I redirected these articles to the Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article, and they reverted me to recreate them. To date these are AFPK's only edits, and it's pretty obvious that they're a sockpuppet account.
• Hudicourt appears to be continuing the same trend of creating articles on civilian casualties of the war that only actually list casualties caused by the NATO/ISAF forces judging from the most recent article's content. The personal abuse and declarations of bad faith are really unhelpful.

Given that these articles are basically POV-pushing (in that they were recreated in bad faith as they attribute all civilian casualties to the NATO/ISAF forces and no efforts have been made to balance the articles by the editor who created them) and also violate WP:NOT#NEWS and I'd suggest that the articles be either nominated for deletion or be redirect to Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Account threatened to be blocked by someone who doesn't appear to be an administrator nor has any idea what they're talking about

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

---

User Neuroticguru left a message on my talk page (User talk:LF#Multiple accounts notification) accusing me of using multiple accounts in order to sway the deletion of an article, and also writing that it is my "last warning" when I don't recall ever receiving any prior warnings. I have NOT been using multiple accounts, they have got their facts wrong. I'm not sure if this user is an administrator or pretending to be. LF (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor is not required to be an administrator to post appropriate warnings. If it's not appropriate, just ignore it. It's fine to remove it from you talk page if you'd like. Note the policy is to notify other editors of postings initiated here using the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template; I've done so for you this time but please do so in the future. Nobody Ent 00:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

warned Neuroticguru for template-abuse. watchlisted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If it is of any reinforcement to you, this user is not an administrator and does not possess any right other than auto-confirmed which means he cannot block you. The best he can do is report you to WP:AVI or WP:SPI but if what you say is true, this will quickly die out and you should be fine. This user was here since 1 July 2007 at 01:04. Thought this might help.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,372,033) 00:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: In my defense and to clarify my actions by adding the rest of the story, I never stated nor pretended that I was in an administrative role of any fashion. I felt that I was following Wikipedia protocol as regarding multiple accounts. Obviously, I see and understand the error of my decision. I realize now that this alleged infraction (performed by LF) did not need to be escalated to a "Level 4 vandalism" template. I was not going to personally block the user in question. I was just trying to flag their account for what I believed were actions taken against the integrity of Wikipedia and an article The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols which I had created. I will gladly remove said template from LF's user page. I sincerely apologize to LF for that rash action on my part and to all involved as regarding the aforementioned matter. However, I do feel that LF is in violation of creating multiple accounts in order to renominate the aforementioned article for deletion. LF nominated the article for deletion back in November of 2011 under Lachlanusername, which now redirects to LF's user page. The article ultimately passed with a "Keep" vote at that time. Presently, LF is the user who has nominated the same article for deletion again, not but three months later. This is my reasoning for believing that LF and Lachlanusername are the same person. If I am wrong, then again, I apologize. Perhaps Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 and Cyberpower678 can look into that matter, if they feel so inclined. Thank you for your attention as regarding this matter. Neuroticguru (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lachlanusername was his former username. He renamed his account to LF on 16:04, 18 December 2011 according to the logs of that account. Renaming your account moves all content from your old userspace to the new one leaving a redirect behind. That is my observation on it. As I am not a checkuser, I cannot analyze if he is using another account or not and therefore cannot contribute more to this matter.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,389,346) 02:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD. It was nominated before by the same editor--why that editor would expect a different result this time is a mystery to me. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Problematic stable IPs editing on prehistoric animal articles

I would like to request an extended block for four related stable IPs (all four advised of this action):

• 212.170.92.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.170.92.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.170.92.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.91.95.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These four IPs have been employed by the same user over several months (as far back as August 26, 2011) for a long series of almost unremittingly problematic edits; out of about 125 live edits over 5 and a half months, I've found less than a half-dozen that were useful. Since the beginning of the year, the best this user has managed was to add a picture of a fish. The user appears to have an obsession with various Late Triassic and Early Jurassic geological formations of North America, particularly the McCoy Brook Formation. The majority of his/her edits have been to misrepresent various prehistoric animals as having been found in their pet formations. Other types of problematic edits include wholesale hijacking of articles, installing hoax animals on 2011 in paleontology and 2012 in paleontology, and creating talk pages for articles that do not exist as a way to sidestep the restriction of IP editors from creating articles in mainspace (see for example yesterday's Talk:Ammospondylus, which consisted of text borrowed from Talk:Anchisaurus with a couple of words changed). Often their edits are a patchwork of text borrowed from other articles; this may be a result of limited English (see for example the clearly machine-translated "With these remains, it is likely that "Merosaurus" gender ceases to be a cripple, and his remains are very few Europeans" from yesterday), but it also serves to camouflage the edits as legitimate. The only thing keeping this editor from wider misinformation is the fact they can't create new pages; this editor created at least six hoax articles on WP:ES (Acceraptor, Adaphaumas, Antarctohadros, Arquax, Glacialivenator, and Lycovenator). Each of the three 212.170.92 IPs has several warnings about these edits from various users, but has never responded. This type of disruptive editing is particularly insidious because if a reader does not have some familiarity with the rock units and animals involved, the edits do not look suspicious. I did not bring this up sooner because I thought that if I improved the McCoy Brook Formation faunal list, the editor might leave off, but their edits over the past few days have proven me wrong. Because of the stability of the IPs, I think an extended block would be useful (at least more useful than for the typical IP). J. Spencer (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The editing patterns from 85.91.95.244 are wider than the other three (perhaps a school or office?) However, all of them resolve to Spain and are confirmed by geolocate as static, so I've soft-blocked them all for a month. If disruption resumes perhaps article protection might be worth considering instead. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 13:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko resignation

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

---

Kumioko has announced his intent to resign. He's in a lot of pain. He's been through a lot. I know a cry for help when I see one. I think it would be detrimental to the pedia. We need administrator intervention asap. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A number of editors have encouraged him to stay. I'm not sure what more we can do. 28bytes (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The two resignation posts (15 and 17 February) remind me of the GoodBye page at MeatballWiki: "...the GoodBye message is seen [by] the author as a means to punish the rest of the community for failing him". The connection seems perfectly apt, since Kumioko has pushed the drama button rather than quietly slipping away. Per MeatballWiki, if Kumioko is given enough positive feedback as a result of his threats to leave, he will subsequently feel as if he has gained privileges as a vested contributor, one who can get away with breaking the rules.

Frankly, I think Kumioko already feels as if he is a vested contributor. He told me that I should not have questioned him because of his "6 years... 320,000 edits" seniority. This vested seniority apparently allows him to declare the intent to engage in edit warring, and to then engage in edit warring. I think the best way forward is to ignore his plea for attention and let him move away from the project. In time, I imagine he will return to positive contributions, but without the attitude that his anti-collegial actions are above reproach. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet for your "understanding" and "sensitivity." You're definitely the guy to goto in a crisis.

Anyway... We have an Article Rescue Squadron (ARS). What about an Editor Rescue Squadron? We could use the acronym "ERS" (pron. erse). It could be staffed by touchy-feely editors who do whatever it takes to show a disgruntled editor how much they are valued, how wonderful they are, that it gets better, you know, crap like that. Who supports formation of an Editor Rescue Squadron (ERS) to work on editor retention?– Lionel ^(talk) 06:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: great idea. Whoever came up with this gets a barnstar! – Lionel ^(talk) 06:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What are you supporting and what administrator intervention are you seeking? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to form one, but that's not an administrator issue. You want the Wikipedia:Village pump or something. --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• NO – His last edits ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and [38] ) are tantamount to WP:REVOKE and should be restored immediately. Otherwise, ignore the troll. --MuZemike 08:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, we are not a psychological service, and we should not be expected to act as such. --MuZemike 08:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, seeing as all those diffs are sandboxes in his userspace, he's perfectly within his rights to have them deleted per WP:U1, I believe. Beyond that, though, I completely agree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Textbook case of WP:DIVA. Ignore. Tigerboy1966  11:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of options:

A. Kumioko is perfectly capable of sticking around and doing good, undramatic edits that quietly improve the encyclopædia. If they chose to do that I would support it very strongly, and I doubt others would stand in their way.

B. If, instead, the editor chooses highly-strung rhetoric and resignation threats, the best thing for wikipedia - and for kumioko - is that they follow through on their threat sooner rather than later. Of course, if at a later date they decided to come back for option A, that would be OK too. bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

His continual "we have too many admins already" votes on RFA are becoming both tiresome, and reminiscent of a past, indeffed editor (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed those also. We shouldn't put up with that sort of vote, they should be removed immediately. RFA is bad enough without editor's opposing candidates to make a point/emote whatever. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please drop the sticks. If the editor has resigned, let them go in peace. If they return, their failings can be discussed then. Rfa is not going to be changed via discussion on ANI, so if you want to change it, please make a proposal at WT:RFA. Nobody Ent 16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Andrew Mitrovic

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

---

Continuously suppresses admin and recreates page, also moved User:DGG to User:DG47685484. Special:Contributions/Andrija987. (Offending user is Andrija987) --J (t) 04:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Materialscientist has blocked him/her but I want him/her blocked indefinitely. --J (t) 04:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why?--Shirt58 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG was the admin who did an A7 deletion of the article he wanted. Retribution against an admin carrying out policy, by virtue of inappropriate page moves with an entirely untrue rationale, does not bode well for the user's long term suitability for the project. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I was following that. Someone bobs up, makes an article with all evidence pointing to it being about themself (enough with the spell-check, Firefox, I know it's non-standard) that gets A7'd, makes clumsy attack against deleting admin, creates the article twice again, it gets A7'd twice again. User rightly gets blocked for this disruption. I don't think they'll try that again too quickly. Minor matter that has already been resolved. Is further action really needed?--Shirt58 (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No. If they disrupt again then escalate. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Long term disruptive edits, sockpuppetry, vandalism

I'd like to propose an investigation of User:147.203.126.215, who was also warned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.216.198.51&action=history and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:209.216.198.240, has been reported here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SCFilm29, comments to article here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-02-13/news/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/. Coronerreport (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't really poke around on the offchance we'll find some misbehaviour, and neither do we control or take much note of what happens on other sites. 147.203.126.215's edit history doesn't seem to be anything to worry about, and I can find no mention of that IP address on the sock puppet investigation you linked. If you're proposing that 147.203.126.215 is SCFilm29 and that SCFilm29 is evading their indefblock, you'll need to provide evidence. If it's something else you want administrator assistance with, you'll need to be more specific. EyeSerene^talk 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Dickmojo on Talk:Acupuncture

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

There is an ongoing dispute on Talk:Acupuncture regarding sourcing. Dickmojo has recently been delving into less than productive behavior, including personal attacks (1, 2, 3) and tendentious editing (see IDHT behavior on talk page). I believe this is leading to the discussion being unnecessarily heated, and after repeated warnings (PA, EW, blanking, notforum, TE, CIVIL, PA), is unlikely to improve. I think a short block or topic ban is in order to prevent future disruption. See also DRN for more info, particularly the first post by Famousdog. Notifying involved users now. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish Jess, you are trying to suppress dissent. I am simply trying to inject the appropriate perspective into the debate at that page, which is dominated by sceptics who want to make the article sound like its a carbon copy of one of those "Quackbuster" websites, and that POV would NOT be suitable for an encyclopedia on a topic of such monumental historical and cultural significance as acupuncture.Dickmojo (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Dickmojo for 36 hours for repeated personal attacks. [39] was so blatant that retracted or not I feel it was blockable, especially given the pattern shown with the other two diffs User:Mann jess provided. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that Dickmojo has posted an unblock request on his talk page. As I'm headed to bed here in a few minutes I'll delegate to the community as to whether to grant the unblock request or not...I've got no problem with him being released from his block early if consensus is to unblock. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I support to unblock him earlier. Seems to me he learned his lesson (about the personal attacks. Not sure if he entirely understood the concept of reliable sources). --Mallexikon (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

His understanding of WP policy seems to have significantly improved of late. He has made good suggestions and is still being treated like a leper.

However, in spite of the recent DRN, he crossed the line again. Will the ban help him maintain a helpful disposition on the talk page? I do not know and 18 hours isn't an unreasonably long time.

I suspect mediation would work a lot better than a big stick and preferably mediation on equal terms.

Is this the right place for it? Promises are needed from both sides, not just because of the hostility but there are a few editors who show an equal CoI to Dickmojo and who are collectively more disruptive than him. Mindjuicer (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While Dickmojo claims he will refrain from further personal attacks, he obviously still intends to continue his advocacy. That's been a large part of the problem, not just the attacks. The advocacy, minus the attacks, would still be wrong. He's here to right great wrongs, and that's not our purpose here. I think the block should run its course, and a reblock be effected at the slightest hint of renewed advocacy, or continuation of beating the poor dead horse (that one poor source MUST be included). The horse needs rest, and the source doesn't need to be included. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The following is resposted from DR in response to this comment by DM:

Above in Dickmojo's first statement he writes "Here I am, trying to vigoursly defend my passion and my profession, which is a part of me, which I have devoted 10 years intimate study to." DM, are you aware of our conflict of interest guidelines that strongly discourage you from being involved with acupuncture articles? Your statement indicates to me that your goal at WP is not overall improvement of the pedia, but rather to push a POV that is dear to you. It also indicates that you cannot edit the article dispassionately. Wikipedia is not a place to defend your profession nor a venue in which to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think that the crux of the issue here is that you see things from a POV that is not mainstream, and so to you the mainstream sounds extreme. N^oformation ^Talk 09:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The following is DM's response. I am going to sleep so I will comment upon it tomorrow, but I wanted to give uninvolved ediotrs a channge to weigh in.

I would be glad to, Noformation. A conflict of interest is defined as "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". The aims of Wikipedia is to produce a "neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia". My position is that editors from the rational-skeptic wikiproject and their ilk are NOT neutral in this subject, and in fact are incapable of being neutral because they do not have any hands on empirical experience with acupuncture, no specialist dedicated learning in it, have not taken the time to grapple with the unique and complex conceptual paradigm that contextualizes it, and thus their knowledge of it is incomplete and immature, and they are ill-equiped to provide a full, rounded, mature and neutral synthesis of the information available on this topic.

Now, as for myself, I will tell it straight, I work 12~15 hours per week in acupuncture practice, earning $35 per hour. Acupuncture practice is not my main source of income, in fact my only purpose for practicing acupuncture is to deepen my understanding of the art and sharpen my skills in it. It requires 10,000 hours of purposeful practice to become a master of any discipline, and one day I aim to achieve mastery in this discipline.

I refute the suggestion that those people who are most qualified, have the most experience, have done the most study, and are most knowledgeable and passionate about this subject should be excluded from editing on the grounds of COI. In fact these are the ones whose input is most valuable, far more valuable than the input of ivory-tower rational skeptics who only bother to attempt to understand acupuncture through a theoretical, critical and dismissive point of view. In fact, considering the tone of most editors on the acupuncture talk page, which emulates the tone of those "Quackwatch" websites that proliferate on the web these days, and considering their devoted following of Edzard Ernst and their elevation of his work as the number 1 source on the page (literally), and their transparent agenda of "de-bunking" the "pseudo-science" they consider acupuncture to be, it rather seems to an objective observer that is those editors who are "advancing outside interests" rather than being neutral, and thus they in breach of COI, as opposed to I.Dickmojo (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to read about the problems with the article and the editors at DR, and I found it to be less than illuminating. However, my sense there and here is that Dick should not be editing the article. Simplistically, there are two kinds of expert editors at Wikipedia, those whose expertise and understanding of Wikipedia policies improve articles, and those whose expertise and lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies disrupt articles. Dick appears to be one of the latter. All that said, I realize the block is not for his edits per se but for his personal attacks, so my judgment as to his WP:COMPETENCE may not be relevant to whether he should be unblocked. But even if he can restrain himself from personally attacking other editors (which, unfortunately, comes from his "passion"), I fear his edits will continue to be problematic. One last thing. So-called experts in a particular field often disagree, thus, whatever Dick's knowledge of acupuncture gained from his practice and studies, he doesn't necessarily speak for all acupuncturists.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment about a broader issue here. I think it is absolutely the wrong thing to discourage editors with extensive real life experience of the subject from editing based on COI. They should be considered an asset due to their (presumed) access and approach to finding good sources. Conversely, such editors should also avoid voicing their expertise in the course of disputes about content. A good middle ground is to outline the extent of their knowledge-base on their talk page, but let other editors point to their knowledge of a subject, when appropriate, as something to consider, rather than bringing it up themselves. Doing so only adds heat to discussions, and gives the (granted, sometimes unintentional) impression that they somehow have more of a right to decide content that other editors. In a nutshell, use your expertise, but don't flaunt it. (Is [[SHOWDONTTELL]] an essay? It should be.) Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 19:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not with that name but Expert editors is pretty close. Nobody Ent 20:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well said. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been absent from WP for over 24 hours and I'm disappointed to see that Dickmojo has managed to call me a racist and a xenophobe again in the meantime (at this point, I'd just like to clarify that the comment I made - "put up or shut up" - that so enraged Dickmojo was an attempt to explain the scientific method and wikipedia policy, not tell Dickmojo to shut up). I have been appalled and hurt by Dick's incessant attacks, accusations and absolute intransigence (to date the worst I have ever seen on WP - and I was involved in the Seeyou debacle back in 2009). I have to say that I'm happy that a block has finally been instated and I see no reason to cancel the block earlier than the (IMHO) rather lenient 36 hours. In other news, I too disagree with Noformation's focus on conflict-of-interest (sorry) and would much rather that practicing acupuncturists contributed a bit more to this article (gosh, I'm such a "zealot" and I'm so "closed-minded") however, Dickmojo simply has not done so in a constructive, collaborative and civil fashion. He has turned the talk page into a warzone because his edits have been reverted on entirely reasonable grounds (WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:V, and many others...)

I would also like to express my concern about Mindjuicer's support of Dickmojo throughout this process since I have found him (Mindjuicer) to be guilty of many of the same breaches of policy and the same sort of intransigence and citation-free editing that has got Dickmojo blocked... and now it seems he's adding personal attacks to his repertoire over on the Emotional Freedom Techniques article. Much of his language ("zealots", etc) is very similar to Dickmojo's, he frequently makes ad hominen accusations without backing them up with evidence or diffs (see his comments on COI and disruptive editing by "a few editors" above. Really? Which editors? When? How?) and I have been harbouring a suspicion that I'm just going to flatly state now that they are a sharing the same sock-drawer or shelf in the fridge. Can we have a Checkuser please? Famousdog (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, investigate away. You'll notice Famousdog did not justify any of his accusations except my response to being trolled by him on the EFT talkpage. His example on this topic of an ad hominem is laughable, as is his interpretation of my comment as "support of Dickmojo". --Mindjuicer (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I second the concerns about Mindjuicer. I see very little difference between the two, both as to POV, blatant advocacy, and personal attacks. The main difference at the moment is that Mindjuicer isn't blocked and is carrying on the battleground mentality that they both had before Dickmojo's block, and is thus acting as an enabler and encourager of Dickmojo's behavior. Actually I'm not even sure who is copying whom, since Mindjuicer has been doing this for some time before I became aware of Dickmojo. We need a CU/SPI, a lengthening of Dickmojo's block, and a block for Mindjuicer. When they get off their blocks, we need topic bans based on Discretionary Sanctions. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess anyone who doesn't share your point of view looks the same huh? Again no justification of accusations. This is harassment now. Do your SPI -- they will continue to use this ad homimen against me if you don't.

Note how other users reacted the last time Brangifer used ad hominems against me [40]. --Mindjuicer (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with acupuncturists editing the article per se, the problem starts when an acupuncturist puts his aims above those of the project. Clearly there is an argument to be made that someone who has studied acupuncture would be well equipped to edit the article, I just don't think that DM and MJ fit into that category because they are clearly here to push an agenda. MJ's edits in 2007 were broad but since 2008 almost all edits have been on either acupuncture or Emotional Freedom Techniques, which is related. DM exclusively edits acupuncture. Both editors engage in personal attacks; MJ yesterday posted a personal attack on FamousDog here (not sure if this had been posted already) and should be blocked on that alone. Both editors carry a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and both suffer from some severe WP:IDHT syndrome. I concur with the need for a topic ban but I'm not sure if an SPI is necessary and I don't think it's going to turn up anything. N^oformation ^Talk 00:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree and have stricken the request for a CU/SPI. Otherwise their behavior is enough for compliance with the other requests. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, no justification for accusations bar the exact same one I already explained. Pure harrassment. And you wonder why I stand up for Dickmojo.

There is one other editor who would like me banned from acupuncture purely because I oppose their POV. Had I not posted this, I would have little doubt he'd turn up and call for a topic ban. --Mindjuicer (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Dickmojo's block has expired, so we need to be alert. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks/Mindjuicer

While it is clear that passions are inflamed, personal attacks are not acceptable. Starting with numerous edits discussing editors rather than edits, it soon progressed to outright personal attacks.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]

A final NPA warning was not well received,[53] but it seemed to have helped some. Then back to discussing editors and personal attacks.[54][55][56][57][58] Don't add warnings, ze doesn't want them.[59][60]

Gee, though, it's nice that ze noted that Famousdog, as it turns out, isn't "one of the much less polite zealots"[61] and that many of the attacks aren't naming names.[62] Additionally, I guess it's nice to allow that rather than being paranoid, an editor might simply be "deliberately creating this noise to achieve his own ends".[63] - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh I forgot one. This is now the full list of people who want me banned from acupuncture purely because I oppose their POV.

First list, first one is not a personal attack!?

Neither is the second one.

Third one is from two months ago and is frankly accurate.

Fourth, guess you could describe that as a very weak personal attack if you're desperate.

Fifth, sixth and seventh is my own talk page where I was being harrassed by the guy who started this section.

Eight is where I returned the compliment.

Ninth is meant to be what exactly?!?

Tenth and eleventh are again my own talk page.

Twelth was a case of mistaken identity which I apologised for.

Notice how all of these are from months ago when I was getting much worse thrown at me. How desperate are they to :get me removed?

From the second list, first one is my own talk page!?

Second one isn't a personal attack

Third one is the one I explained earlier.

Fourth one is not a personal attack but a genuine concern at another editor who I've formally warned.

Fifth is the exact same link from the end of the last list. ----Mindjuicer (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note here. Mindjuicer, you do not totally "own" your talk page. Every single part of Wikipedia requires the promotion and preservation of a collaborative atmosphere. "No personal attacks" applies to all of Wikipedia, including your talk page and your edit summaries (some of them are real doozies!). You have no right to treat other editors like shit, just because it's your talk page. Your battlefield attitude really shines clearest there, and reveals that your basic modus operandi and motivation here is to defend your profession and acupuncture, and somewhere beyond the far distant horizon (we haven't seen much of it at all) to improve Wikipedia. Your attitude isn't the least bit constructive.

Your persecution complex also demonstrates an extreme degree of "I didn't hear that". You keep saying that others are "attacking" you because they don't like your POV. That's BS. Somehow everyone else is wrong and you are "neutral"?!! Any negative responses you get are only because of the way you wave, promote, distastefully defend, and advocate your POV. The responses are about your violations of myriad policies, guidelines, and behavioral codes we have here. If you edited and made comments using RS and in a collaborative and friendly manner, we wouldn't be here at all. The fact we are even here reveals there's something dreadfully wrong with your attitude. Get real. Your modus operandi is what's gotten you here, not your POV. (We've had other editors who were pro-quackery, pro-acupuncture, pro-chiropractic, who did quite well here, and were welcomed. They actually did their cause good and contributed much good content.) You simply aren't suited to this environment and it's about time your disruption was stopped. A topic ban is probably the only way that can be accomplished. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And still no evidence to back up your accusations.

Yes you would love that topic ban wouldn't you. Not a block or a permanent ban, but a topic ban. No surprises there then.

But aren't you a hypocrite after the way you threatened me and another user if we didn't behave in some mostly unspecified way you demanded? [64] --Mindjuicer (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence? That's not my reading of the lists of diffs up there. And I'd like to put my hand up in favour of a block or a permanent ban. You are dragging WP into the gutter and should not be allowed to continue to do so on any page. Famousdog (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The first set of links spans 13 December 2011 to 3 February 2012. Yes, 13 December is (barely) months ago. Your personal attacks are part of roughly 2.5 months of editing.

Yes, the first one on the second list[65] is an edit to your user page. Immediately after removing two of my warnings to you (for unsourced additions and a personal attack) along with your replies (where I am a "smug, Republican anti-scientist", a "dumbass", "a smug Republican control freak" and "pathetic")[66] you decided to update your user page with a screed against "petty zealotry. Zealots who spend the most time driving away competing editors, threatening them on their user pages, instareverting edits, recruiting other zealots and studying the arcane WP guideline structure & misrepresenting it". Even with my I.Q., I "got" it.

The second one[67] "isn't a personal attack". Interesting that you single out one example out of 23. Are you agreeing the other 22 are? :) Yeah, another attack at the "zealots" who "instareverted" your edit is mild compared to the others, but it's part of the pattern.

You explained the third one?[68] Really? You explained how our I.Q.s have something to do with the disputed content? I must admit, with my I.Q., I missed it.

"You take a lot of space and barely comprehensible language to state pretty much nothing. Oh and a strawman at the end." is "genuine concern"?!?! Please don't show your concern for me.

Yes, you "apologized" for saying the editor was "purposefully trying to derail the debate" by allowing that the editor was not "one of the much less polite zealots". You're too kind!

Again, "months ago"? Yeah, 4 of the personal attacks were from mid-December 2011 (just barely "months ago") 1 was from 31 January 2012. The remaining 18 are from this month. Don't believe me? (Why should you, I'm a petty zealot, dumbass and control freak.) Go ahead and check. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Your response is weak and you know it.

So now I have a question for you. How did you know about this ANI since you were not informed of it? --Mindjuicer (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are claiming you did not make personal attacks, you'll need to explain to me how calling me a petty zealot, dumbass, control freak is not a personal attack.

How did I find this discussion? I'm watching your talk page, saw your latest attacks, came here to report the attacks and found this discussion. A real petty zealot, dumbass, control freak kinda move, right?

I'm suggesting a brief block (for starters) and/or a topic ban for Mindjuicer. If, however, Mindjuicer really doesn't the edits as personal attacks, we're going to need something more. How about it, Mindjuicer: do you think calling me a "smug, Republican anti-scientist", a "dumbass", "a smug Republican control freak" and "pathetic" constitute personal attacks? - SummerPhD (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(I now see that I was responding to a fraction of Mindjuicer's comments. Whatever, take my comments with a grain of petty zealot, dumbass, control freak salt. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

Related to that last diff, as I say in a comment [69] I am not threatening to block MindJuicer, I'm not an admin. I'm pointing out that continuing to POV-push, drop insults and demand sweeping changes could result in a block (and also pointing out, again, that the lead already includes the indications for which acupuncture has been found effective). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

One again no evidence submitted. This counts as an adhominem attack. Which article did I demand sweeping changes for? --Mindjuicer (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem? Yeah, I guess discussing charges against you would be against you. Yeah, um, we're trying to dispute your claim that you didn't make personal attacks by, um, pointing out that you made personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I refer once again to the section where Brangifer first tried to get me banned. [70] --Mindjuicer (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, this is moving much too quickly for someone of my meagre IQ... It's nice to hear that MJ thinks I'm one of the more polite extremist-militant-users-of-logic. However, reading his other frankly outrageous comments (above, and linked above) I can't help but feel that he's digging an enormous hole for himself. For somebody who has edited on a virtually evidence-free basis for some time now, to go stomping around here asking for evidence of his own preposterous behaviour - and to then argue that the masses of evidence, once presented (thank you SummerPhD), is patently wrong and all counts as harassment really does beggar belief. Keep hoisting yourself by your own petard, MJ. I thought that I had been one of the main targets for your ire, but reading some of the ignorant, abusive tripe that you have launched in SummerPhD's direction makes me all the more determined that you should have no future on Wikipedia. Famousdog (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of pretty poor behaviour from Mindjuicer here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The question is what to do about it. Topic ban? Block? What do we want done? I would support a topic ban from acupuncture, broadly construed, for 3 months to give him/her some time to reflect on their behavior, with a swift rebanning if WP:TE continued after expiration. N^oformation ^Talk 22:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say a short block (say 24-48 hours) would be sensible if the bad behaviour continues. I've just given them a warning - and I'm not involved - so hopefully that will be taken seriously, otherwise I'll be requesting a block. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I looked at your warning and it appears to be directed at Famousdog because of the placement. I didn't want to refactor it so I'm just letting you know. N^oformation ^Talk 22:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering who that was aimed at! Could you clarify Eraserhead? Famousdog (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for User:The Fresh Beat Band

This user has started to insert random spamlinks since December 2011. Now, the user has continue to spam on various pages and the user has been indef blocked now and has a global account locked by the steward, Trijnstel. Some of them were trying to edit, but the abuse filters has disallowed them, all links used were blacklisted. When the current link has been blacklisted, the user keep change links, mostly are the rugby equipment shopping website. Also, User:Группа "Свежий ритм" (Russian name for The Fresh Beat Band), has spammed to the flag shopping website, including the addition of spam images (deleted on Commons) which it is World Rugby Shop logo. Before the long-term protection on The Fresh Beat Band, the page has been a long-term favorite target which indef-semi protection is better and more positive. Many sockpuppets since December now. The IP used is currently blocked. For more information, see WP:LTA/FBB or if you found this user's sock(s), please submit at WP:SPI/FBB, Thanks. --Il223334234 (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• TFBB is already indefblocked for abuse. If they continue I'd suggest a one year ban. –BuickCenturyDriver 09:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• The user proposing the ban may be a sockpuppet of the blocked user according to a checkuser comment in the sockpuppet investigation. Peter E. James (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked MuZemike to comment here; I at least am not sure whether he said that based on general behavioral observation or based on the Checkuser findings. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a  Possible connection between Il223334234 and all the Fresh Beat Band socks, on both behavioral and technical evidence. --MuZemike 01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

1728 English cricket season

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

Seems to have been resolved. Of note WP:RfPP seems like a better place to have raised this.

---

Any chance of page protection being renewed here as the article has again been attacked by the same troll as in November with consequent necessary reverts. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a broken clock is right twice a day the "troll" does have a point. Why is there a "retired" tag on your page and why is your talk page redirected to your userpage? If you are going to be actively editing then you shouldn't be discouraging others from discussing your edits with you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect is not consistent with policy guideline Wikipedia:User_talk_page#Categories.2C_templates.2C_and_redirects, and active contributions makes a "retired" banner misleading. Nobody Ent 14:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection not required at this moment in time I would say. Only two edits since 15th. No edits since last evening. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. It's in a few watchlists so someone will spot the troll when he comes back. By the way, I've sorted the talk page problem and thanks for letting me know the policy on that. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User WhiteWriter

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

No admin action required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

User User:WhiteWriter removed a POV tag that read "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved", before the dispute was resolved. [71] Majuru (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

They did, and provided a really good edit summary explaining the removal. If you think it's POV explain why here. Nobody Ent 18:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

An outbreak of template-hacking racist vandalism

There's an ongoing outbreak of racist vandalism using a rather tricky hack involving templates that click-hijacks users to an antisemitic website. Some measures have been taken, but I suspect the perpetrators may intensify their attack if this isn't nipped in the bud fairly quickly. Could people with the relevant skills take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and see if they can help with the issue there? -- The Anome (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Filter 453 now created to temporarily prevent all but old/experienced users from editing templates

There are reports that the pages being linked may also contain malware. It's time to put a stop to this. before it spreads to higher-risk templates and presents a major threat to readers. Accordingly I've just created and enabled filter 453, which should temporarily stop all recently-created editors from editing templates at all.

I'll disable it in a few hours, when this has blown over, and all the affected templates tracked down and fixed, but I think it will be a good idea to keep it around for the time being so that it can be re-enabled at a moment's notice if this starts up again.

There will undoubtedly be some blowback from this, but I think at the moment this is the least disruptive of all the possible short-term options, until this either goes away of its own accord, or more thorough precautions can be taken against this sort of vandalism. -- The Anome (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I added a limitation to #453 that should still stop the hacking links but should allow normal template editing. Other filter people, please see if you can refine this. Thanks Anome! NawlinWiki (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have a sinking feeling that coming technical "improvements" to the template system are going to make this type of problem a lot worse. Sigh. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Filter 453 now disabled

On review, there don't seem to be any bad edits among those caught by filter 453, and no new reports of racist vandalism on the help page, so I've now disabled it. I hope filter 139, which is similar but more specific, should be able to handle things from here on. -- The Anome (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Filter help, please?

Doesn't seem to be working too well (17:09 [72] and 17:51 [73]) - CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh crap. What's preventing 139 from working? Can someone please take a look at filter 139, and find out why it's not finding these edits? In the meantime, I've re-enabled 453, which is simpler, and surely has a better chance of blocking this. Please be very careful viewing the diffs given above: they cover the article content, and parts of the rest of the user interface, with an invisible image that clickjacks every link to racist sites which may well also contain malware, even in preview mode.-- The Anome (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The diffs have been suppressed by administrators.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,571,926) 00:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that's what was stopping the filter evaluation code from testing things properly, and that was confusing me even more: I had to go and dig up some actual vandalism, de-fang it, and move it into template space, to try to fix this. -- The Anome (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there was a small error in one part of the regex, which I've tried to fix. Can you look again and see if that makes sense to you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi: was that the addition of the backslashes before the closing square brackets? Unfortunately, I've been editing round and round in circles, and I may well have overwritten your change: can you check both 139 and 453 for sanity, please? -- The Anome (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For some (de-fanged: it just clickjacks to Google) actual test template vandal content, please see the deleted revisions of Template:The Anome/sandbox (admins only, of course). -- The Anome (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I've figured out how it's done, and I've blacklisted the mechanism for doing it. Hopefully, this will result in the template vandalism being stopped. Email me if you want details. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation. That was driving me crazy for a bit. Well, there's one more technique I've learnt. It might be a good idea for the long term to expand the filter's capabilities to take that into account. -- The Anome (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hey guys, please contact me if you see any more if this. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to disable talk page and e-mail access. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Assistance needed with User:90.214.215.17

I was going through the the backlog at WP:AIV when I came across the report of this anon user. He/she had been doing a LOT of editing of talk pages, generally changing links, some correcting of spelling. Thing is... the anon user is correcting other people's work. Wiki link changes (such as this) are POV pushing.

The editor had not been sufficiently warned enough for a block, so I have added a warning. But there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. Not all edits have been reverted. Rollback is great - but this anon-user has been VERY prolific over the last few days, and because a lot of the edits have been in archives they have not been noticed. So, can anyone help with reverting a tonne of edits, please?

I've stepped back from reverting the edits, as I am (a) going cross-eyed from staring at the screen and (b) more importantly starting to have doubts as to whether or not all the edits are good/bad faith or even need to be reverted. A lot of the earlier ones seem to be clearing up disambig, and not all are in talk pages. I have, as far as I can tell, reverted all the talk page edits, but I would appreciate someone else double checking the rest of the edits.

Thanks, Stephen! ^Coming... 20:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone apparently recently changed Conservative Christianity from an article into a disambig page, meaning that links there need to be disambiguated. I don't see that doing so is POV pushing or needs to be reverted. I've reverted your reversion of 90.214's edit to my userpage, because it was a useful edit, not vandalism. Pais (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Block review

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

---

I blocked Wataana (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet account of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). He/she has requested a review of the block. Can someone please review? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You can file an SPI, but based on This edit from the last checkuser confirmed DavidYork71 sock compared to this edit from Wataana I'd say its ducks in spades. This seems open and shut. --Jayron32 21:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree - reblocked w/talk page access off... Duck, duck... Skier Dude (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Unblock request

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

---

I want to know is this a normal custom that unblock requests are not reviewed or put on hold by admins till block expires? My question is related to User:TopGun's current block and the one before this. His last block of 72 hours was put on hold before it expired. At least an editor with some good contribution to the project should not be dealt like this. --SMS ^Talk 22:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a normal custom? No. — madman 23:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok! what I mean to say here is why is his request ignored? --SMS ^Talk 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Except it's not being ignored; an admin is currently discussing things with him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And yes, if no admin is willing to unblock, but at the same time they're unwilling to decline, they do often last. I can guarantee dozens of admins have reviewed it, but decided not to act. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bwilkins. The block is confusing, though, and I spent at least 10 minutes trying to figure it out. It's a 1RR violation, but the editor (a) claims admins can't decree 1RR, and (b) seems to assume it's only for his interactions with User:Darkness Shines, since that's what set it off. I'm currently looking over this to see if he gets some WP:CLUE, at which point I presume BWilkins will unblock; otherwise, I'd keep the block. Someone else can do it, of course; I'm only posting this summary to save others the trouble of going through the diffs. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

On second though, I might as well maintain the block. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

SarekOfVulcan removes question on talk

user:SarekOfVulcan removed my question and quote from a newspaper about James O'Keefe. I provided several media citations and asked why it wasn't mentioned in the article on the talk page. Then user:SarekOfVulcan's action/response was to remove all mention from the talk page. This seems very aggressive nor does it explain why wikipedia should ignore the event-- or even ignore my question about it. Apajj89 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Also SarekOfVulcan's summary "rm per BLP -- some of those aren't even the same person" is FALSE. All those articles are referring to the same person/case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apajj89 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

TRUE, actually. And the accusations were dismissed by a judge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "more sources" Apajj89 posted are repeats of The Record source. The one that wasn't a repeat was about Jeffrey O'Keefe, a completely different person. Apajj89 is wrong and Sarek is right that they are about completely different people. The sources that actually are about the right O'Keefe are about the case being dismissed, but you present it as though they were not. Apajj89 was violating WP:BLP, Apajj89 presented an inaccurate summary of his sources, Apajj89 presented an inaccurate description of his sources (he really only had two, The Record and one completely irrelevant one), and Apajj89 has presented an inaccurate picture of SarekOfVulcan's actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ian where did I present it falsely? THIS WAS THE ENTIRE POST:

O'Keefe harassment isn't included: http://www.northjersey.com/news/Okeefe.html http://www.bergendispatch.com/bergen/articles/862636/Harassment-complaint-against-Westwood-muckraker-James-O-Keefe-dismissed.aspx http://ncnc.newsvine.com/_news/2011/12/23/9659717-harassment-complaint-against-westwood-muckraker-james-okeefe-dismissed-northjerseycom http://articles.courant.com/keyword/sexual-harassment/recent/2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apajj89 (talk • contribs)

But even so, Kumioko felt the need to run over and tell Apajj89 that he had no chance of getting an accusation to stick against me. Guess I know why he nominated WP:Don't feed the divas for deletion... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the sources 1 2 3 4 5 talk about the issue and some mention its status as dismissed. I never implied otherwise. The issue got a lot of press and curious readers, like myself, may wonder why its not in the article (the question I asked on the talk).

Who gave you the power to remove the discussion about cases mentioned in the media as "poorly sourced"? Apajj89 (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Here you only present the accusations, nothing about their dismissal. Don't act like Glenn Beck, you were downplaying the dismissal of the charges.

And again, the northjersey.com source, the bergendispatch.com source are repeats of The Report. You're only repeating sources that just repeat The Report as if they are different sources with those. The newsvine.com and blogspot.com sources are blogs, which do not meet the reliable source guidelines. The Salon source was a good source when it came out but it is soddy work to present now (as things have changed and the charges have been dismissed).

WP:BLP gives any editor the right to remove potentially libellous material, and talk pages are for article improvement instead of POV-pushing for trying to advocating BLP violations. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, because asking why an issue mention in several media articles is so POV. Anyway, I'd done with wikipedia. I'll go write on sand, seems more productive. Apajj89 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not it at all. What you presented completely ignored that the charges were dismissed. You took the one source, repetitions of it, and a source about someone else, and presented only the accusations. You asked for the accusations to be included, but did not mention at all that the charges were dismissed. THAT was POV on your part.

Your sheer inability to grasp that is probably a good indication you should leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Really Ian? I agree that the edits weren't without problems but I hardly think this is the kind of statement that helps us attract and keep new users. Perhaps, since this is a new editor with no experience with the dozens of policies here, it would have been more useful to show the user an example of how the edit should be written and present it as an example rather than drive the user off. --Kumioko (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see you trying to explain to this user what he did wrong. And "you only present the accusations, nothing about their dismissal" doesn't explain what what wrong and what would have been right? I'll apologize for bitey remarks when you apologize to Sarek for hounding him. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll give you credit that your partially right there. I didn't but no one else did either. Not one as far as I can tell from the talk page. Lots of criticism about what rules were violated, what they did wrong and what could happen if they continue. Not one statement of let me know if you have questions about doing this, nothing about you got some good info and usable references but we have to make the statement POV. It still may not have worked but no one tried. That is why the world is turning away from Wikipedia, more than 8 years of insulting new users, running off potentially useful editors. Because the majority of our messages have a bitey, unhelpful undertone and our most senior editors lack the patience or desire to help groom the new users. But your right, I was so focused over the last years of building an encyclopedia that I was blind to this cultural degradation. We are losing editors aster than we can recruit the because the word of mouth is spreading the news that Wikipedia, for all its uses as a place to find information, is not a friendly place to edit. And just for the record, that you even made the ultimatum indicates that a part of you, somewhere deep inside, sees that the situation could have been handled better. --Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note - I just wanted to drop a note that I asked Sarek, yet again, to please follow the directions on the big orange banner to notify editors when e drops their names at ANI. I realize I am about as wanted as a leper these days but I still shouldn't have to find out by watching the page. --Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Would that be the big orange banner that says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion"? Because I don't see any text that says "any user whose name you drop"... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yep, that's the one. Especially since you seemed to do it only to call attention to try and get me into trouble. --Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that your posting on Apajj89's page was quite sufficient evidence that you knew about this discussion - and you appear to be trying to get yourself into trouble. I suggest you stop... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I made a comment to an editor on my opinion of how I thought of the situation. It turns out I was correct. Whoda guessed. Perhaps you are correct though that I should stop. I have been considering doing just that myself and have hardly made any non discussion related edits since my ridiculous block. I even deleted most of my sandbox projects and 99% of the code I wrote for my bots and scripts, not that it matters. Certainly there would have been strong words for an editor not notifying another editor if there name was mentioned here. Irregardless, I don't expect that anyone has a problem with Admins not notifying users of discussions so I would suggest modifying the orange banner message slightly to say that notifying the user is not required if there is a reasonable assumption that the users would know about it. --Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No modification of banner is required per not a bureauracy. Nobody Ent 03:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's as good of an excuse as any I suppose. Certainly I didn't really think anything would be done about it, especially since he is a highly respected admin and I am a barely functioning editor but it would still be nice if the Admins actually followed the rules on occasion instead of just enforcing them when it doesn't apply to them. Thankfully I have 22, 000+ pages on my watchlist including this one so it gives me a wide breadth of visibility. --Kumioko (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

[I] have hardly made any non discussion related edits since my ridiculous block. Have you considered that that might be part of the problem? That maybe instead of making comments almost exclusively to discussion pages you should, instead, work on content that you enjoy writing about for awhile? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, I say this with all interest in you still being around WP and editing, WP:DROPIT. Involving yourself dramatically and disruptively in a conflict is a very quick way to burn up whatever good faith the community has with you at this point. Please stop using loaded language to generate a specific response (Victim language, pejorative phrases, evasive assertions, etc). I would immagine (though I don't have the clairvoyant understanding of) the admins who blocked you considered your actions in addition to the way that you were communicating when determining if blocking would prevent further disruption to the community. Hasteur (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

First let me clarify I simply asked Sarek to notify me when he called me out like the big orange banner says. Thats it. All this extra banter is just a petty way to say that admins don't have to follow the rules unless they want too. In response to your comments on the other issues though and we are really really off topic but I did what I thought to be good edits for the last 6 years (over 300, 000 of them) and that seemed to cause problems too. So it seems I'm screwed either way. I would give some examples but undoubtedly someone would sight Diva or something. Additionally, actual editing and improvements seem passé these days from everything I have seen lately so I am just doing what seems to be important here these days and participating in discussions. I will likely make some edits to other stuff again, but for now I am just doing what all the good Wikipedians seem to be doing. I'm not perfect and never claimed to be but maybe its also possible that admins are not above reproach and occassionally its appropriate to point that out and risk getting blocked or banned by their fellow cabalists. This isn't about my block so I'm not going to dignify that comment with a response that you appear to be trying to provoke. --Kumioko (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And its clear to me that the community is more interested in protecting its admins from well earned criticism than to actual problems such as Ian's comment above telling a user that its better they didn't edit here anymore. I remember a time when that sorta comment woulda received a flurry of severely worded responses, but I guess this is the new Wikipedia and things like that are now acceptable. --Kumioko (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the weather like on the lofty heights of your soapbox, Kumioko? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol, actually its snowing but I'm done commenting on this discussion. We have strayed way too far from the original topic and no one wants to discuss/do anything about it anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko is hounding me

Kumioko only get involved because of a past feud with Sarek, and after provided no correction to Apajj89, called me pointing out what Apajj89 did was bitey, and insisted that I should have pointed out what a good post would have done (which I did, and as if that's what he was doing). No other editor went after me about this, but then again, no other editor got involved because of a prior grudge. When it became clear that Kumioko wasn't going to win any fights at ANI, he came onto my talk page. Before I removed the thread, he repeatedly misread a number of my statements in whatever way was possible to make me out to be the bad guy (which makes his complaints about other editors not assuming good faith all the more ridiculous).

He then claimed that Sarek is hounding him, not the other way around (because the above thread is about Kumioko and Sarek was the one who butted in because of an old grudge, right? Oh, wait, no, that's the opposite of what happened). I pointed out that if he wasn't into drama, he'd quit bothering me, but he accused me of being the dramatic one. I removed the discussion, and he continues to come back (claiming I left a talkback template to let him know I deleted the discussion, which I didn't), even insulting me on a page which contains pretty good proof I'm not bitey, even claiming that WP:HOUND needs to be deleted because he's apparently not harassing me by following me about.

He has no reason to interact with me, and he seems prepared for a block on this. At the very least, an interaction ban is needed.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Then stop interacting with him. It's not reasonable to get in a talk page tussle with another editor and then register a hounding complaint on ANI. Nobody Ent 21:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I only got involved because Ian was being uncivil to a new user (telling them that they shouldn't edit anymore) and I told him to not be so bitey. Then he left me some defensive and rude comments and left a talk back just to show me he deleted the discussion and and called me a Diva. I just told him I left my last message so as far as I am concerned the matter is closed. Just because he can't take a little constructive criticism doesn't mean I am hounding him. --Kumioko (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I removed the discussion, signalling that it was over, and he kept coming. He had no reason to ever come onto my talk page to begin with, and no reason to stay, and no reason to start things back up. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing the edit with WP:DFTD was an escalatory move, not a de-escalatory one. I'd suggest Don't wish to discuss further or the like if you wish to end an own talk discussion. Nobody Ent 11:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Curtis Lovell II

A relatively new article, until I happened on it edited pretty much solely by User:Thor0407 and 76.87.67.241 (talk · contribs)(I suspect they are the same person, possibly even Lowell himself or an associate). Heavily promotional, with way too many copyright questionable photos, lists of "reviews", and dvd sales links. I removed the worst of it, fixed some formatting and tagged for a few things. The IP has reinserted, and reinserted the majority of the material. I left them messages here Curtis Lovell II and February 2012. I'm not sure I handled this very well, and am at 2 or 3rr with them myself, so am backing away. Anyone else out there with a cooler head and some time on their hands who wishes to drop in and access the situation? Heiro 06:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Per this [74], you are absolutley forbidden from editing anothers posts in this fashion, reply below! Heiro 06:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Photos are used with permission and verified with commons. Promo style text removed per suggestion. 76.87.67.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC).

• If they were, this "This file is missing evidence of permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author of the file agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit grant of permission that complies with the licensing policy or by forwarding email communication granting permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.
• This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Unless permission is granted, the file can be speedy deleted seven days after this template was added (13 February 2012) and the uploader was notified." wouldn't appear on them. Heiro 06:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And they are now at 4rr[75] and have blanked image deletion warnings[76] from the article talk page. Heiro 07:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think sources may have been misused too. That "Modern-day Houdini" thing cited a news article which doesn't include the phrase; googling for it (with Lovell's name, to filter out the various other people who also claim to be modern-day houdinis) returns lots of results, all apparently written by (or copied from) Lovell or a publicist. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia, not a platform for self-promotion. However, I'm not sure that this is a case for AN/I right now... bobrayner (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Curtis Lovell II did send all the proper permission and copyright to the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org email, so what is the problem. All the text is original and photos, property of Curtis Lovell II. Curtis Lovell II (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that other than having it attributed to you, the text in the article can be deleted, changed, etc by anyone? Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by User:Redslider

Resolved

 – Legal threat struck and retracted. Attempting to guide further, but no additional admin action needed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Redslider (talk · contribs) has been making a variety of accusations about editors at DRN, RSN, Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino etc. On his talk page today he writes ", Wikipedia is protected by law from suits arising out of defamation or malicious intent to harm the reputation of a person, as I understand it, individuals are not so protected. It would, of course be up to the subject to decide if and how to pursue such matters. But I think some of your "several editors" ought to consider the matter. We're not just talking about "blocking" somebody from Wikipedia, anymore." Could someone uninvolved have a look? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole context of the remarks is significant (as referenced by Dougweller) and my response to his subsequent caution was,

"no legal threat was made, nor do I have any legal threat to make. What i did say was simply to advise people that they should be aware of what they do and use common sense. Especially when it comes to things that may cause personal or professional injury to others. That, I believe is in the best tradition of Wikipedia. Nothing more than that. Redslider (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)"

If any uninvolved individual here (and I mean any single individual) thinks that I have crossed the line, I will immediately remove the offending sentences. No threat, whatsoever was intended. Redslider (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said in your talkpage: Yes, the statement made clearly is intended to "chill" a discussion, and suggests to others that they should behave differently, or else legal action can be taken against them. Indeed, the majority of your interactions on Wikipedia appear to contain faux legalese, which if you truly believed in the community nature of this project, would not be necessary. You would be best to read WP:NLT very carefully, and consider your next steps extremely carefully (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Remarks in question have been removed. Not intended to 'chill' anyone. My apologies. I shall exercise more care in the future. Redslider (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for Clarification: I immediately removed the offending remarks, as I said I would. Then some editor reverted them as "strikeouts". But this leaves the offending material still readable and still a potential for chilling others. I restored my deletion, but I don't want to get into some edit war over this. What am I supposed to do? Thank you. (there was an edit conflict. I put this where it would have normally occurred) Redslider (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Other editors should note that the removal rather than striking of the remarks has rendered subsequent discussion confusing. I tried to help Redslider by striking them in the usual way (per WP:REDACT), but he insists on removal. Even so, as Bwilkins says the same basic mindset pervades his other contributions in other locations, even if they are less explicit in these terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Being taken care of one-on-one. No more to see (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Redslider is not required to require to strike comments on their own talk page -- Redslider can simply remove the entire section if they'd like. Nobody Ent 12:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Other threats from User:Redslider

Having shopped the issue of the controversy of Charles R. Pellegrino's (lack) of a PhD to BLP/N (twice), RS/N, and DRN, and having been rebuffed at all of these, User:Redslider is now laying out threats on the article talk page, such as this. The raw facts, as investigations have uncovered, are that Pellegrino made the news, worldwide, when it was discovered that the PhD he claimed to have was denied by the supposed granting institution; this was in connection with the withdrawal of one of his books by the publisher on the grounds of spurious sourcing, so it hardly lacks notability. We can take that issue to RFC/U, but if he's going to threaten that we "may face disciplinary actions", well, it seems to me that his slow motion edit-warring and combative, threatening approach are problem enough. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mangoe, I've notified RedSlider of the new thread; in the future please do so yourself when starting new ANIs. Nobody Ent 15:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I left the notification on the article talk page which I beleived he was reading at the time. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly possible -- I've been wrong many times -- but user talk page is probably best place. Nobody Ent 22:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

New header proposal

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_header Nobody Ent 15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Harassing messages from User:Milowent

I don't recall interacting with Milowent anywhere in article space, so I don't know how I attracted his ire, but he has repeatedly left harassing messages on my talk page even after I reverted the previous ones.

• First unconstructive message, 20:18 16 Feb. Reverted four hours later.
• "You can delete my comment, but you cannot erase the horrible nomination of Candace Gingrich-Jones. Explain yourself now." 03:27 17 Feb. Didn't revert because I didn't see it til later. Did not respond.
• "This editor, NYyankees51, is dangerous. He is openly grinding axes on articles that flout any and all rules to serve his insane agenda." 01:07, 19 Feb. Reverted five minutes later.
• Latest harassing message.

This editor is engaged in harassment and wikihounding. He's been around for several years and knows the rules. His talk page shows that this is not isolated. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that big a deal to me. Milowent is clearly a little peeved at some of your recent editing activity, which could appear to some (and I don't necessarily mean me) as having a somewhat anti-progressive focus. If it becomes really bothersome, perhaps WP:RFC/U is the place to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering that your most recent AfD nominations seem to be trending in overwhelming keep directions, I can understand why he might be irate at the nominator. Not to mention that you seem to be focusing significantly on LGBT topics. Add to that the userboxes on your page and I can see how someone would take the nominations in a negative direction. And i'm not saying that there's anything wrong with your userboxes, just that when those subjects and LGBT topics are combined in a social setting, it's never anything good. So I can understand Milo's thought process. Silverseren^C 19:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So if this behavior is understandable, I have a list of editors I have a beef with for the same reasons that I'm considering harassing in a similar manner. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope some attention is given to NYyankee51's current editing pattern, focused exclusively on LGBT topics and consisting of edits like this. Individually, the edits might be defensible, but taken collectively it looks like quite a POV campaign, particularly when it comes from someone who has a userbox on his user page expressing support for the notion that marriage is for straight people only (he's quite welcome to that view, of course -- but it makes one wonder whether his intention is to improve those articles). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that people who identify themselves as homosexual cannot edit LGBT articles? Of course not. Double standard. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What matters is the nature of the edits. Some of what you are doing is fine -- but spilling tags all over the place (in a topic area where you clearly have a strong opinion that clashes with the values of the organizations) raises questions. For instance: instead of tag-spamming and large-scale deletions, why not add sources to support the material instead? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no reliably sourced supporting material. If you find some, add it. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The pace of your editing, across dozens of different LGTB articles, makes it pretty obvious that you aren't looking for any. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you find RSs, add them and I won't remove them. Otherwise, I'm going to continue. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:EW, WP:POINT, WP:BEFORE. Sources have to exist to establish notability. They do not have to be on an article's page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This is absurd. I spend hours cleaning up blatant unencyclopedic material in articles in a topic area that Milowent likes, so he's allowed to harass me on my talk page? This is absolutely ridiculous. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed my userboxes so they can't be used against me. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well actually that's too late now - since by now it is very difficult to assume that you are not ideologically motivated in your deletion campaign. For example it does not seem that you have in fact made a search for sources before nominating some of these topics for deletion. It took me about two seconds on google books to find both books and article treating the New York Metropolitan Church quite prominently. A political agenda may be OK if it doesn't seem to interfere with the neutral judgment of notability and will to find sources also for topics you dislike. I think your recent edithistory tells a history that may put that balancedness into doubt. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See WP:BURDEN. See also the "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources." that appears on the edit screen. Nobody Ent 20:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

@NYyankees51 Have you explicitly request Milowent stay off you talk page? Nobody Ent 20:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I believed it was implied. I just made an explicit request here. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just seeing this ANI thread. Well, well, well. NYyankees made no effort to respond to my comments on his page, but please be aware that he is engaging in some seriously bad editing choices. My first comment[77] was quite easygoing, I thought, considering what I appeared to be witnessing. He started an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Gingrich-Jones, on a subject that is notable WITHOUT A DOUBT. It snow closed within 24 hours of opening - that's a nom any good faith editor should be ashamed of and say "my bad" and move on and try to do better next time. Bad AfD nominations do happen but I sorta recognized his username and searched my username and his and saw he was also behind Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gathering_Storm_(advertisement). Both subjects are about gay rights, and one can only conclude this editor has some axe to grind against gay people. I cannot and will not ever stand or suffer pov-pushing bullshit like that on wikipedia. It is unacceptable. Checking his talk page history he clearly has some issues here that long predate me.

NYyankees deleted my easygoing first comment without explanation. Obviously because he had no defense. So my second comment[78] was more direct. Yet still no response. My third message called him out completely [79] yet still I get no response. This is from an editor who had been *topic banned* from editing in related areas, apparently.

My fourth and last comment to NYyankees[80] took a different tack. Yet another gay-rights subject article, but he made appropriate edits, I thought. I noted that, and I asked him nicely how he was finding these articles, and shared that I was personally involved from a reporting standpoint on that story. That's all I said.

Then, without warning, I log in and see this ANI thread. I also see NYyankees has asked me on my talk page to "stay off my talk page unless you have something constructive to discuss." Well, I did have something constructive to discuss -- his anti-gay fetish -- and I tried to do it a number of ways without result.

So, since its clearly worthless to have any effect, I pledge to stay off his talk page COMPLETELY, however, I hope other editors will look into his very disturbing editing conduct.

Lastly, I never looked at NYyankees' userboxes, my comments were based solely on his edits.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OMG, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Community Church of New York (2nd nomination), after starting this ANI thread.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Double OMG, and this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udaan Trust.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved admin, the first of those requires some serious assuming to see any good faith in it; and the second, it's simply not possible to see it as anyting other than a WP:POINT violation, as there was "indpendent, significant coverage" in the article's references at the time of nomination (unless The Times of India, like The New York Times, isn't a WP:RS Don't laugh, that claim was made at one point). Neither nom has a snowball's chance of passing even beyond the pointiness so I've closed them both. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it about a fellow NY Yankees fan, a look through NYY51's contributions shows a very' disturbing pattern of editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

NYY51 continues to make ill-judged AfD nominations and edits that strip content from LGBT-related articles using an unusually strict interpretation of WP:NPOV as justification (example). If this behavior continues, perhaps some consideration should be given to some sort of topic ban. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Misfiled statement

I believe that the material at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse#help please is probably misfiled, and that the subject is more appropriate to this page. It is on that basis that I am leaving this message here. I have no objections to seeing any uninvolved admin act in any way they deem appropriate. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved ↓ Nobody Ent 20:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

help please

Move from [Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse Nobody Ent 20:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrator John Carter has a history of attacking me and posting obnoxious comments to Salem Witch trials task group. Administrator John Carter makes it clear on its personal page that it thinks this kind of obnoxious behaviour is within its rights. This entire thing is beyond my wikiskills and has gone on for several years and is escalating. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It is standard etiquette to notify people of such discussions, but, of course, I had not been. The above editor also has exhibited serious problems of failing to assume good faith, almost seemingly to the point of paranoia, about the topic, as can be found at his own talk page, my own (including information I had just now deleted, including unfortunately material I just now removed, prior to seeing this discussion, posted by him after I had made yet another request of him not to post on my page), as well as at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force and his other previous allegations of misconduct, which had earned him his one block to date. I believe there are extremely serious conduct and POV issues regarding the above editor, and would welcome seeing them addressed. Also, I suppose I should tell the above editor, who indicates a rather pronounced lack of knowledge of how the project works, that this would have been more reasonably posted by him at WP:AN/I. And, of course, JRF has a rather extensive history of obnoxious behavior on my own talk page as well. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint against a respected editor. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, by the way, I think calling me an "it" is probably at best a violation of WP:CIVIL. The issue, as can be seen by JRF's history of posts to noticeboards and such over the past year, is, unfortunately, that the Salem Witch Trials Task Force has been, with the possible exception of JRF himself, in his self-described intermittent edits, has done little to develop the content, and shows little if any recent direct activity. I do agree that the conflict seems to be escalating, in large part because JRF seems to believe that his own individual, recently minor, work in the field qualifies for the task force to remain active and as narrowly focused as it has been. Such a belief is pretty much contrary to basic reason, I think. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just spent about 45 minutes poking through the various talk pages and histories, and I think there's enough in the way of POV warning flags and evidence of combativeness and OWNership issues to cause concern. Of particular concern is John5Russell3Finley's use of his position in WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force to seemingly imply some kind of authority over article content—a massive misunderstanding of how WikiProjects (and especially task forces) operate—and his willingness to characterise perfectly good edits as "vandalism" and "personal attacks". Whether there's enough to support a topic ban (which seems to me to be one viable solution) I'm not sure; I suspect an RfC/U might be the next logical step, but I'd be interested to see what others think. EyeSerene^talk 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Problematic edits at Josephus on Jesus

I have been, marginally, involved in the discussion at the above article, in which one editor, User:Lung salad, seems to be insisting on adding material against consensus of the other editors on the topic. It is their apparent belief/understanding that the material LS has been restoring relates to fringe theories as per WP:FT. LS himself had recently been subject to a short block for tendentious editing on the same article - that block has now been lifted. I believe it is reasonable to ask admins who have not been involved in the discussion to review the recent history and make such actions, if any, that they deem appropriate. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Need some help with a new user, including guidance on WP:NPA

Cabbynet (talk · contribs)

Dracu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been trying to work with a new user after I PROD'd the user's new article, Dracu. After the PROD was disputed and I nominated the article for AfD, the editor made some personal attacks: [81], [82]. I thought I had properly cautioned the editor, but the editor then posted this, essentially accusing editors that want the article deleted to be communists and racist against Romanians.

I'm trying to assume good faith here, and I think this editor may get some benefit from someone other than me (they probably see me as too involved) to give them some advice about editing in Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This comes in as a response to user Singularity42's previous message.

Hello everybody. As we all know, there are plenty of haters among us. This guy that has previously posted a message is nothing but an individual of bad intentions. With under no circumstances I have broughts any of the aformentioned accuses. Moreover, I have tried to ask for help, but he kept on deleting my messages and destroying my valuable work on my article. Instead, he could very easily tell me what to improve. It seems that he is just trying to be ambitious in deleting other's work using racial judgement. Well, we are one race and we are all the same and this is my own statement. Why is he insulting me then? I therefore make a humanist call to all you guys around here and ask you to please this guy and give him the right answer. I am a friendly citisen and will ever be. I don't want to fight or argue with anyone, but hey, haters is what I don't understand. How can I protect my articles from such egoistic and outrageous attackers? Thank you guys and the best of luck in your lives. User:Cabbynet (regarding the article Dracu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbynet (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

All this over a Romanian word? If people flip out over stuff like this, then... never mind, this is typical of how everybody else here reacts over relatively minor stuff. --MuZemike 21:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be blunt: they aren't "your articles" once you've posted them into Wikipedia, which is why the edit page warns "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. " What you can do is create your article in your userspace, e.g. create it here: User:Cabbynet/Dracu, and then work on finding sufficient sources to support it. Then put in in what we call "mainspace:" Dracu. The folks responding are just trying to maintain Wikipedia standards not attacking you personally. Nobody Ent 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours after he removed the AfD notice from the article for the second time. Coming on top of the other problems, it was necessary to give him time to think. Favonian (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• It appears he's now claiming he was deliberatly trolling: [83]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• A troll? On Wikipedia? What an original idea! (I feel sorry for the so-called girlfriend -- trolling Wikipedia, what a way to show a girl a good time). Nobody Ent 22:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Quite! This bit led me to revoke talk page access. Favonian (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, that made my day. "You dare ask for a source? No wonder academia considers Wikipedia a non-referenceable trash." Oh my. Huon (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, dear lord. *polishes glasses* Per that and the earlier admission of trolling I've upped the block to indef per WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am generally on the minority side of consensus, rather consistently; This serves participants of this discussion rather well. For if I were asked, these very recent developments pursuant to this thread receive my first D- grade. (almost failing) It is only for deleted contributions unaware to me that preclude my ability to say you actually failed; being esteemed by me. The rest becomes tl;dr, while remaining irrelevant; so feel free to disregard me now. My76Strat (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"LOLing...my mistakes were on purpose:" [84]. Personal attack in response to source request: [85]. 'Nuff said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Considering the account was registered in 2006, could it be a sleeper sock of User:Bonaparte? Anonimu (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it wasn't so much a hoax as simply trite and a synthesis under a non-English title. "dracu" is simply the Romanian for devil — at least according to Angelo de Gubernatis' Zoological Mythology (volume 2 page 389). Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Flag Institute && Template:Flag Institute

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

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Flag Institute .26.26 Template:Flag Institute

Nobody Ent 01:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to bring this up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, not here. Number 57 00:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

ah ok.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User Kkm010

I have some concerns about the editing behaviour of Kkm010 (talk · contribs), specifically about their use/non-use of edit summaries and their addition/updating of factual information in articles whilst either not adding or updating citations. These concerns are magnified by the very large number of edits which this editor is currently making.

In about half to two-thirds of their edits they do not use edit summaries at all, but when they do they are frequently meaningless (such as 'ok' or 'done'), or more worryingly, completely misleading, e.g. [86], [87] and [88], [89], [90] and [91].

I am also concerned about the way in which this editor updates factual information in articles without updating citations e.g. [92], [93], [94].

I have also noticed that, if reverted, this editor will also bounce back with IP edits, which then often reflect the issues above e.g. [95] and [96].

Looking at this editors' talk page it is clear that a number of other editors have recently expressed concerns about odd editing by this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoon11 (talk • contribs)

I don't see a big problem here. Unfortunately, many experienced editors do not use edit summaries or are cryptic when they do. You can advise the editor to do so (there are templates for this sort of thing). The worst thing I see in the edit summary diffs you provide show that the editor uses "minor" when the changes are not minor (there's a template for that, too). A little more troubling is if Kkm is indeed coming back to reedit without logging in. That should be corrected if true, particularly if the edits are controversial.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that most often I don't mention edit summery but its not possible for me to mention on every single edit that I do. I also agree that there are times when I often don't log in but do make some constructive changes. Thanks!--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 04:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really a very good habit to always include an edit summary. How much detail you put in depends on the context. If there's any controversy at all about your edit, more detail is better. Also, marking an edit as minor is really reserved for changes that have nothing to do with the substance of the article (formatting, punctuation, things like that), and even then a brief edit summary is helpful. Finally, you should make a greater effort to log in before making any changes at all. If for some reason you can't log in, then wait to make the change until you can. When a registered user makes a change from an IP address, it looks suspicious, even if it's perfectly innocent. Besides, it adds to your edit count. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely try my best to follow you're suggestion.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 15:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem user

Okay, I think we've got some trolling here. BrandonSkyPimenta (talk · contribs) has, since November:

• Created the nonsense article BlahBlahBla, then taken it to WP:REFUND with a reason of "I love this page so much!"
• Created the mega-short article Xicn which was redirected.
• Filed a RFA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrandonSkyPimenta) that smacks of vandalism ("What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?" "BlahBlahBia was not a good page, so it was deleted.")
• Warned me of the TFD discussion for {{NOT}}, even though I filed that TFD myself

I'm not seeing anything good from this editor at all. It's clear that they're only here to vandalize and act like a child, not to build a project. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're in the process of notifying that user of this thread, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 06:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He already has... Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Although it gets a little lost between notices. Dru of Id (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we shouldn't just indeff him now? I see that his reference at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Xicn is a book on Wikipedia which says anyone can edit Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

IP cycler

• Special:Contributions/91.180.104.5
• Special:Contributions/81.247.171.5
• Special:Contributions/81.247.100.209

These IPs're all editing from the same location and hounding the same user's edits. They've been making multiple reverts, collectively in violation of ARBPIA's discretionary sanctions. I realize blocking any of the individual IP addresses won't accomplish anything, but maybe Admins've developed more sophisticated tools for dealing with this sort of thing.—Biosketch (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User conduct archive

Most of the entries below the table in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive (i.e. circa 2006 & before) are without context - no links to discussion or evidence, no mention of outcomes. Should they be removed, and the history be expunged? Disclosure: I'm mentioned there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Satinmaster redux

See [97] for an earlier discussion. This editor was an SPA at EUCLID (university) where his concern was accredition (the dispute was about whether Euclid is accredited, and he was disparaging a source which said it wasn't). His recent editing at The Higher Learning Commission appears to be an attempt to make a point about accrediting agencies by misrepresenting a case in which Dickinson State University was the subject of a report stating that it was a diploma mill and that THLC might sanction it. See [98], [99], [100], [101] and [102]. He's been reverted each time (except the last one which I just noticed) and warned about this on his talk page. He's obviously using this to try to discredit an accrediting agency. This edit [103] is probably also relevant to WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that his latest edit to THLC ([104]) which has an edit summary saying "added proof that HLC accredits Dickinson. Not to defame or discredit, but out of public interest." says "A february 2012 audit report depicted a HLC accredited[3] institution Dickinson State University as a Diploma mill." For some reason he uses 5 sources all of which quote the same report (so one would be sufficient) and say "Dickinson State could face penalties from the State Department for violations of the federal student visa program, as well as sanctions from the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security and the Higher Learning Commission in Chicago, an accreditation agency, the report said." Note that none of his edits had mentioned that Dickinson may face sanctions from the Higher Learning Commission, all dwell on the fact that the HLC was the accrediting agency for this public state university. That doesn't seem simply an edit "Not to defame or discredit, but out of public interest". Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been watching the THLC article (now I am), but I have had the EUCLID article on my watchlist for a while, and I often battle with Satinmaster (including recently) about POV content changes he makes there (e.g., [105]). I try to avoid accusing editors of having an agenda because it's done too often at Wikipedia without any solid support, but in this particular case, Satinmaster does seem to be pushing against certain reputable agencies and pushing in favor of certain institutions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked the user indefinitely. The user has had plenty of second chances already, and s/he made multiple disruptive edits following the "final warning" I issued about 12 hours ago. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

New user problems - NPA; copyright violations

Northiran (talk · contribs)

I recently went through Northiran's list of created articles and discovered that most had to be tagged for deletion (mostly due to being copyright violations). In response, Northiran recreated most of the articles again (which I have done my best to deal with), and vandalized my user page. Can an admin look into this please? I think there's needs to be two things done:

1. A temporary block so that the user's contributions can be cleaned up without them being quickly re-created, and
2. A cleanup of the user's contributions to look for copyright violations. (I did try this originally at WP:CCI#Northiran but was told it was rather trivial for CCI, which makes sense. In any event, ANI is probably the more appropriate forum after the vandalizing in reply to being called out on copyright violations.)

Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some specific examples:

• Mohammad Taghi Amoli - deleted as a copyvio
• Shekle Shah - deleted as a copyvio, recreated identically by user, deleted again
• Tower Tomb Sayyed Se Ton - AfD nomination; user removes AfD template from article
• Jameh Mosque of Amol - deleted as a copyvio, recreated by user as a copy/paste as a section from another Wikipedia article, redirected by me accordingly
• Abul Abbas Ghasab Amoli - AfD nomination after PROD removed by creator without explanation
• Ibn Esfandiar - deleted as copyvio
• Vandalism to my talk page in response to my initial tagging of the user's articles.

Singularity42 (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note and will AGF for now, but if it continues, please let us know. Thanks, GiantSnowman 16:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Turns out it was a sock of User:پارسا آملی. Given the number of additional accounts, for which most of the edits are copyvios, I have renewed my request at WP:CCI#Northiran. Singularity42 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just noticed that. GiantSnowman 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Epeefleche and Night of the Big Wind

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Greetings by fellow admins. I would like to propose an interaction ban between the above listed users. Over the past week, Epeefleche has contacted me several times claiming that he feels hounded by NotBW. The dispute between these two editors surrounded articles that Epeefleche has PRODed or put up at AfD. An example: Hum Sab Ka Pakistan was proded by E, removed by NotBW, and then spilled over to the talk page. This is part of a larger pattern of E PRODing articles due to there being no GNEWS, GBOOKS, or Google hits then NotBW DePRODing the articles he just tagged because those methods of BEFORE are not good enough for non western subjects. While I am not contesting the fact that some E's nominations for deletion have been shaky, there are other people that can look over his edits than Night of the Big Wind. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of them haven't been the best and initially by checking the prods night did nothing wrong but the whole thing has got out of hand when Epeefleche began doing what he accused night of and then both reacted. See discussion here at Wikiquette [106] and both users talk pages for more as night isn't the only one to have a problem with Epeefleche mass nominations.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No one likes it when pages in your topic of choice get put up at AfD. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Slightly wrong no one likes it when someone mass nominates articles and it becomes disruptive. When numerous editors have a problem with something it shows something isn't correct. Now given the nom for his prods were substandard reasoning what did night do wrong and the answer is nothing he objected to his reasoning and de prodded we all can. And that comes as something from me as i and night rarely get along but in this case Epeefleche is as much in the wrong Edinburgh Wanderer 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping. The discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Concern about hounding; edit warring, Twinkle abuse, and violations of wp:v/wp:or; Night of the Big Wind is still open. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also he just dosent take the time to properly assess the articles which was shown by the serial nominating of schools over 100 with barely any time in between to show he didn't carry out BEFORE as he stated he did. Its not the nominating its the speed and lack of good quality reasons followed by him doing exactly what he accused Night of thats an issue. They should both of left each other along which i think was going to happen before Epeefleche started hounding him back now nights minor attacks back were a reaction which he shouldn't of done but they are as bad as each other and there is more to this than what Guerillero has laid out. A interaction ban is probably appropriate but also a discussion on whether nominating for afd on such a large scale at one time could be considered disruptive. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I routinely carry out a wp:BEFORE search before PRODing or AFD'ing an article. As well as, for that matterkl, !voting at AFD. I've said as much before. The fact that the vast majority of my !votes are in-consensus supports that I do proper research. It is a blatant mis-statement to accuse me of not following wp:BEFORE. It is also an obvious mis-statement to say I hounded Night. I've not hounded him at all, and no basis has been supplied for that accusation.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be forum shopping if it was brought here by Epeefleche, but it was brought here by Guerillero.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

WQA is toothless. A few people there have suggested an interaction ban between you two. That can't happen at WQA but it can at ANI/AN --Guerillero | My Talk 19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Two week block for Night, then interaction after that. This based on all the diffs at WQA Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no way night should be blocked and Epeefleche not be they have been as bad as each other.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Night of the Big Wind#Notice --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer, that would make sense if Epeefleche was hounding Night. But he ain't; Night is hounding Epeefleche though Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see yet why anyone needs to be blocked. An interaction ban is a good idea: if one is indeed stalking the other, then an interaction ban should put a stop to that. FWIW: I do think that Epeefleche can be quick on the draw, but I also see significant evidence of Night following Epee around, without the kind of justification described by DGG in the WQA thread. Night, leave him alone. The wiki won't break if you do. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Guerillero given your post is largely about Night of the Big Wind what is your opinion of Epeefleche it dosent take long when reading his talk page and Wikiquette to see the problem isn't just with night and I'm concerned that you only seem interested in one side. And if he contacted you for intervention as your opening statement suggests to get involved and to possibly bring here then some could be mistaken for seeing it as forum shopping which is what Night is seeing and reacting to. I do agree it isn't however. This problem isn't going to go away when night backs off as it appears several editors have an issue here and if we want to resolve this it needs to be disused whether mass nominations of articles without enough research is disruptive. Its not the nominating or even if the article gets deleted its the lack of research taken and time to adequately assess the nomination. There has been discussions re this at the RFC on schools, Wikiquette, WP:Schools and on all take pages even at AN a whilst back its an issue that needs resolved because it won't be long before another editor looks at his edits and we go back on the cycle. Oh and I'm not saying his noms are wrong as a reasonable amount are just that he needs to take more time and provide better reasoning and stop nominating large amounts within minutes which clearly shows not enough time taken.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The wiki needs people to both want to delete things and keep things. It is part of life on the 'pedia. Epee is just asking as the party who is putting things up for deletion in this case. I have looked over E's AfDs for the past month and most of them ended in merge, redirect, or delete. Should he slow down his nominations? Sure. Was the majority of his nominations wrong? No. As for the idea that I was canvassed, I came here under my own free will. I was never asked to start a thread. I was asked for advice and I looked closer at the evidence and started this thread. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• My AfD !votes have been against the consensus close only 5.7% of the time, over the past 250 AfDs. Night's !votes, in contrast, have been against consensus 38.9% of the time. (Edinburgh, in those AfDs in which he has participated, has !voted against consensus 10% of the time; I would guess this may well be better than average.) The accusation by Night/Edinburgh that my !votes/noms are sub-standard is belied by the facts. In fact, they are significantly more in-consensus than those of Night and Edinburgh.

Night's baseless assertion that this is his reason for following me around, and confronting my edits in the manner indicated below, does not bear up under scrutiny.

Night admitted, at the Wikiquete noticeboard, to following me around. And the record is replete with evidence of him doing so to confront my edits.

I've not, in contrast, followed Night around at all to confront and inhibit his edits. Despite Night's and Edinburgh's un-supported and baseless assertions to the contrary. Edinburgh seems to think that the mention of the fact that Night has been warned by 3 sysops over the past half year to not hound is in itself hounding. Obviously, it isn't. It is, however, directly relevant to our Arb committee's pronouncement that "Editors may be blocked for disruptive behaviour, which can include repeated or extensive violations of the civility policy, refusal to work toward consensus, or repeatedly ignoring community feedback."

Furthermore, the Witiquette noticeboard string is replete with evidence as to what Night did wrong. As he (as he has admitted doing) followed me around the Project. And confronted my edits. The record reflects, among other things, Night: a) edit warring, b) abusing Twinkle, c) violating wp:v and wp:or, d) removing appropriate tags without proper reason, e) taunting, f) engaging in incivility (such as writing to me: "you can stick that hurling article straight up in your <censored>"; since redacted), and g) current AfDs such as AfD Hum Sab Ka, in which Night !voted against the deletion I had supported on what appears to be a fictitious basis.

This pattern falls within what wp:HOUNDING is meant to prevent.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And your above statement clearly shows you are hounding and the fact you are looking at my edits very heavily as well as your above statement shows the problem. The result isn't the issue its the fact your reasonings aren't complete and the rate of the nominations one after another shows you clearly don't give enough time as many an editor has tried to get you to do. Now i also hate to think you think I'm siding with night which I've said above we barely get along most of the time and as I've said above he shouldn't of made the personal attacks but when you began stocking his edits and now mine thats shows the problem isn't just nights. Personally the result of this should be night being warned of personal attacks and both warned about hounding given you are doing it and finally a limit on the number of articles that can be nominated at any one time to avoid supposed disruption. Ive not looked through your edits in total and have no intention to but given all the mentions of your noms in many a discussion its no surprise others are. So I'm deeply annoyed that you decide to stalk me.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also Epeefleche do you not think when several editors advise you to take closer looks at articles before nominating and raise this with you then something is wrong. You were asked several times to take more time when nominating and you have ignored every one. I couldn't give too hoots with you nominating articles for deletion what i do give a hoot about is the fact that as was raised at other discussions for instance GNews is hardly likely to come up with results for non western countries especially when the title could be in another language will not come up with results. Also you just don't have an answer to the the question of how you can do research when nominating articles virtually straight after each other as you did in december with schools its physically not possible in the time you took. I would provide you with the timings but I'm not going through your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh Wanderer (talk • contribs)

Where are you getting this from Edinburgh seems to think that the mention of the fact that Night has been warned by 3 sysops over the past half year to not hound is in itself hounding. No you looking through his edits is I've never mentioned an admin or am i likely to as i never looked through his edits, block log or warnings.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

On-wiki harrassment, POV editing, and off-wiki attacks

• Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really didn't want it to get to this point, but it did and we're here. Where to start...

I started a Wikiquette discussion three days ago in regards to Mistress Selina Kyle. The issues at the time are well presented there, but i'll summarize. I'm a part of Wikiproject Cooperation, a Wikiproject designed to work with paid editors, PR agents, and corporations in order to help them to get neutral, factual, and referenced changes made to articles without violating our policies at the same time. So, both sides end up happy. The main group that the Wikiproject is working with right now is the Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement Facebook group, a conglomeration of PR representatives and others that want to be involved in Wikipedia in a forward, transparent, and ethical way.

As explained in the Wikiquette, Mistress Selina Kyle seems to have a significant dislike of them for some reason and went around to various places on-wiki saying extremely negative things about them and, often, myself. This included following me to other discussions I was in. This all factors into the POV editing issue, the most recent being this series of edits, which I reverted.

Now, the main things that tipped this over into me coming to ANI was a series of rather crude insults directed at me on Wikipedia Review. You can find that discussion thread here. These insults included:

• Silver Seren you seem like a total attentionseeking victimplaying little troglodyte.
• And come off it a bit of namecalling is nothing compared to your sliming and pathetic attempts to bully me on Wikipedia for Corporate Representatives.
• I'm not surprised, he looks like a skinhead, like one of the latent homoerotic racist thug-boys that's actually admitted he's gay for a change.

This was followed by a long, picture-heavy rant that boiled down to Selina calling me a Nazi.

You can read all of that in the thread directly. There was also a post, which has since been removed though I have a screenshot of it, that attempted to out me. Though this was already done by others months ago and i've never been particular about hiding it, but the attempt stays the same.

Also included in the removed post, and can be seen continued in a post further down by Selina, is a series of insults and attacks on two friends of mine that s/he looked up from my Google+ account.

I think that pretty much covers all of it. This off-wiki attack evidence is being submitted, per the No Personal Attacks policy and its off-wiki attacks section, along with the other evidence, for review. Silverseren^C 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not want any interaction with you on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with anything on Wikipedia Review take it up there. I have not linked to that thread anywhere (which by the way, I did not even start, it was a post that another moderator moved) — please do not try to import your drama here.

This is following up from my replies on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Trying_to_stop_this_before_it_starts which as I said there, seems to be a systematic attempt to threaten critics of the Corporate Representatives movement (who are NOT ethical) and WP:PAIDWATCH (of which I am a member) into silence...

This is posted straight after I made some edits[107] to Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement, an article which the members of the group on Facebook and WP:CO-OP appear to be trying to own the article --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Of the quotes you provided, how many happened on wiki? --Guerillero | My Talk 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

None --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to the three quotes, none of them are. If a single one of them had happened on wiki, I would have immediately come here. Silverseren^C 20:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think excusing your behaviour off Wiki isn't really reasonable. I was happy to defend you against the lack of civility here towards you in a previous thread, but when the shoe is on the other foot you need to behave appropriately as well. While off-wiki its reasonable to have a lower standard of civility applied I don't think this meets any reasonable standard of behaviour - even down the pub.

Contacting other people who Silver seren knows is especially not cool.

Its not really fair/possible for him to act with appropriate professionalism on wiki when you are doing stuff like that off wiki. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't contacted anyone he knows and have no interest in associating with him in any way off-wiki. He has been harassing me constantly ever since I joined WP:PAIDWATCH if you look at my replies on the WP:WQA thread I gave diffs too --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Obvious troll is obvious. Why is MSK not indeffed and/or banned yet? → ROUX ₪ 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. Editors here should not fear having their personal information spread out all over the Internet if they get on the bad side of another editor. I have blocked MSK indefinitely. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse block off-wiki harassment is unacceptable and has led to sanctions by ArbCom. --Rschen7754 20:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. pablo 20:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Draconian solutions do not work - and if the person removed the off-wiki slurs, that ought to be quite sufficient. ArbCom has often stated that it has no control over off-wiki material, IIRC. Collect (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It's personal information, which constitutes WP:OUTING. There's a distinction. --Rschen7754 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Harrison

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Reaper Eternal. Revdeletions also done. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some user named User:Elizabeth Harrison has been removing the speedy deletion template in Elizabeth Kylie Harrison. Could some admin block this person? M'encarta (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some revdel is required at [108]. →Στc. 20:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Help with an AfD

I'm writing here because of the AfD discussion for the article Sleepy Hollow (band). There's not only a revert war going on with several IPs over sources in the article (which I've reported to that noticeboard), but also an ongoing argument over what exactly establishes notability for a band and whether or not the band meets it. Recently it seems that it's gone beyond debating and is heading into nasty territory. Most of the arguing is going on from random IPs whose main or only edits are to the Sleepy Hollow article and AfD. (The link to the AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepy Hollow (band).)

One of the biggest claims from the IPs is that the band has had a huge influence on the music world akin to the Beatles, to where multiple notable performers have changed their style because of this band. There is no evidence to support this beyond the claims of the IP users who have been posting and multiple editors have tried to explain this to the IP users. There's also been arguments over what is a reliable source, what isn't a reliable source, and what would show notability for the band. Part of the revert war concerns one of the band members who has established a good but predominantly non-notable side-project before joining the band and some of the links provided are for comments the band member has made in regards to the mosque being built near Ground Zero and that they'd prefer to build a rehab center for their charity.

The argument is starting to get a little heated and while this might be premature to bring it here, I'd really like for an admin to step in and help keep it from getting worse. I admit that my last post there was a little irate, but the back and forth is getting old. I know that it's somewhat mild in comparison to other arguments on here, but I really think that we need a little mod intervention here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

I reviewed and closed it as delete based on the arguments raised. Should anyone disagree it should be taken to WP:DRV -- Samir 20:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)