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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)

Ugh, why are we wasting our time with this crap? Block him as a clear disruption-only editor, run a CU and throw out the rest of the garbage.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

User:GoodDay - topic ban request

This is actually a bit close, but the fact that both GoodDay and his mentors agreed to this topic ban tips the balance over. GoodDay is topic banned from pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed. This topic ban will be lifted when he has demonstrated to his mentors that such a restriction is no longer necessary, and can be re-applied by them if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

---

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 [1]} 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)

---

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

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." ([2]).

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: [3] [4] [5] — 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 [6]. 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)

[7] 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)

Thank you! Yes, 85.91.95.244 is the odd one of the four. I was interpreting it as the editor occasionally traveling to a second location. I'm not sure how much article protection would help, given that a substantial number of the edits are to similar but unpredictable articles, and one of the common targets (2012 in paleontology) has excellent IP editors that we wouldn't want to cut off. J. Spencer (talk) 22:57, 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 ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13] ) 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. [14] 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 [15]. --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.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

A final NPA warning was not well received,[28] but it seemed to have helped some. Then back to discussing editors and personal attacks.[29][30][31][32][33] Don't add warnings, ze doesn't want them.[34][35]

Gee, though, it's nice that ze noted that Famousdog, as it turns out, isn't "one of the much less polite zealots"[36] and that many of the attacks aren't naming names.[37] 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".[38] - 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? [39] --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[40] 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")[41] 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[42] "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?[43] 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 [44] 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. [45] --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. [46] 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 [47] and 17:51 [48]) - 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 [49], 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[50] and have blanked image deletion warnings[51] 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)

(outdent) This article has a number of problems, not the least of which it's being tag-teamed by a host of anon IPs and SPAs. They are repeatedly edit warring to insert a sentence claiming that CBS News referred to the subject as "the next Houdini", however the reference provided is a bare URL to the subject's own website. The anon IPs claim the video for this broadcast "was" on his website but the link is now dead. In any case, as this is a BLP, statements by CBS News can't be sourced by links to the subject's own website. I have requested semi-protection at RPP to put a stop to this. Night Ranger (talk) 21:08, 20 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[52] 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[53] was more direct. Yet still no response. My third message called him out completely [54] 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[55] 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)

@All - Please see the top of my talk page. My complaint against Milowent remains the same. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"I intend to continue my purge of LGBT brochure articles" - Definitely in favor of a topic ban now. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• • My complaints against NYY do not remain the same -- they are exacerbated: NYY's new talk page comment also says "I stand by the content of my edits, AFDs,..." What? A number of NYY's recent AfD nominations are so bad, that if he cannot even admit that (and he continually refuses to engage on the substance), he must be banned.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:27, 21 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)

Thank you for the time spent, although I'm sure you feel you probably had better things to do. Personally, like I said elsewhere, I think there might be a just basis for keeping such a group, but probably expanded. Also, I wonder whether notifying him (I'm assuming John is a male here) of his POV problems might or might not be sufficient. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 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: [56], [57]. 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: [58]. - 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:" [59]. Personal attack in response to source request: [60]. '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. [61], [62] and [63], [64], [65] and [66].

I am also concerned about the way in which this editor updates factual information in articles without updating citations e.g. [67], [68], [69].

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. [70] and [71].

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

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

---

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)

No, which is why I'm blocking him now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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 [72] 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 [73], [74], [75], [76] and [77]. 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 [78] is probably also relevant to WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that his latest edit to THLC ([79]) 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., [80]). 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 [81] 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. I believe that my nominations and !votes at the ongoing AfDs at the current schools AfDs are appropriate, as reflected resoundingly in the !voting there--but that in any event is a red herring, because it would not excuse the indicated behavior.--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)

In fact I've now looked at both your block logs as you prompted me to with your warning above and you are both as bad as each other i cant defend either of you because you both have similar history. You both need to back away from each other and possibly topics as well .Edinburgh Wanderer 20:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've not followed Night around at all to confront and inhibit his edits. Please see what wp:HOUNDING consists of.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Please see wp:HOUNDING. I've not followed Night around the Project (as he has admitted following me), turning up at pages he edited. And I've not at those pages confronted his edits with de-PRODs and contrary !votes and edit warring and removal of appropriate tags and violations of wp:CHALLENGED and Twinkle abuses and violations of wp:OR. As Night has done.

Your assertion that my rationales "aren't complete" is belied by the facts. You do above-average work at AfDs, in my opinion. But my !votes are even more in-consensus than are yours. Reflecting more than adequate wp:before searches and reasoning.

I do appreciate your saying Night shouldn't have made his personal attacks.

As to my running a tool to see what percentage of my !votes are in-consensus, and then comparing them to the 2 editors who suggested that my !votes were flawed, it is a reasonable way in which to explore whether there was any basis in the assertion. Clearly, there isn't. When Night !votes in a non-consensus fashion 6x more than I am, it is certainly curious that he should say he is following me and confronting my !votes because of my poor !voting record. There is simply nothing in my running the tool to respond to that accusation that falls within wp:hounding -- I've not at all followed Night to any article or AfD to confront his edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The solution is you both stop even remotely looking at anything to do with each other. Also i have no problem with you nominating its the reasoning don't just use GNews or books its never going to give a full picture especially on articles from outwith the west so the chances are a prod may be removed. Also speed when you nominated all those school articles at basically the same time it looks rightly or wrongly that you haven't taken the time to do full checks. So all you need to do to avoid people questioning is slow down a bit and give wider reasoning. The result may be the same but you will have covered all avenues and the likelihood is they won't get removed.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've not at all hounded Night. That's a baseless accusation. As reflected in my above comments.

Furthermore, my record at AfD fails to show the flaws you assert are inherent in my !voting. I routinely follow wp:BEFORE, as I've indicated, routinely doing research on articles first (sometimes in paper sources), and then later nominating them, and my !voting record reflects the propriety of my research. The reasoning I supply is based on my understanding of our notability guidelines, wp:before, and wikipedia practice. My reasoning generally is in accord with the consensus view. In any event, that would not be cause for the hounding to which I've been subjected, by an editor thrice-warned.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Epee is correct that he has been with consensus at AfD over 90% of the time, which is about as often as is possible. However, he also votes delete over keep by a margin of greater than 3-to-1, which goes a long way to explaining how this can happen — AfD results being heavily skewed towards deletion over time. It doesn't follow that because an inclusionist like NightotBW is out of consensus more frequently, they are in any way in the wrong. That's simply the nature of the beast, inclusionists push the big rock uphill making AfD defenses. I don't think there is any problem with Epee, although I would suggest that he doesn't create the impression of "picking on" the work of any one editor by challenging pieces up and down their activity log, assuming this has been happening. Run a couple test cases to get a response and discuss. There's plenty of bad stuff to stop at the front gate, if someone is making a good faith effort at creation within guidelines, target your work there. I'm not sure how precisely applicable any of this is, only that this smells like a deletionist/inclusionist tiff... Carrite (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say night is an inclusionist per se he challenges guidelines that keep articles therefore probably ends up in deletion of articles like the rfa he has done on schools. They just disagree on this. Otherwise i agree with you but it works both ways. Night has agreed to back off so hopefully Epeefleche will as well then there will be no need for this to continue. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Carrite. I don't view myself as a deletionist -- I honestly try to apply our rules. I've been doing a share of clean-up of what I understand are articles that fall outside of our rules, and that largely accounts for the balance here. When the rescue squadron was working as it did before, I routinely did what I could to improve articles I noticed through that venue, often with success. And tagged articles for rescue myself. And I would rather an article -- if notable -- be kept.

The problem here is that Night has engaged in the activity detailed above. On the basis of his assertion that my !voting is based on poor research; that is belied by the facts, and in any event would not be cause for such behavior. Thanks for your advice, which I gather is "if it is the case advice", but I don't believe I've created the impression -- or, in fact, engaged in the activity -- of "picking on" Night by challenging pieces on his activity log. That simply hasn't happened. And while there are a number of unsupported, baseless assertions from some other editors here, I don't believe that has been one of them. In contrast, Night has admitted to following my edits, and he has engaging in the activity detailed above.

@Edinburgh -- there is no behavior I've engaged in to "back off of". I've not at all followed Night around the Project, confronting his edits. Yet he has engaged in precisely that behavior, in many (dozens?) of articles, and coupled that with the problematic edits indicated above. Please see the above posts. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ive read it all and your not getting anything anyone says to you and constantly deny everything. Get the picture Carrite, Dmries and i have all given little snippets of advice take it and this won't happen again if you have a problem with someone because he/she is looking at your edits don't go looking at there's leave it well alone it will sort itself if there is an issue. If you think he's attacking you report it don't take things to heart. By you looking at his its exactly what you accused him off and don't deny it you clearly did that is evident move on back off leave night alone he has said he will leave you alone then this is over. If it happens again report don't start all over again. And i really would take Carrite advice its perfect sense. Do you agree to leave night alone or not.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You've made a series of mis-statements as to my behavior. I've pointed them out. You now ask me a question akin to: "Will you agree to stop beating your wife". Ignoring that the implicit assertion -- your assertion -- is incorrect. I've not at all engaged in hounding Night. And no evidence has been proffered to suggest otherwise. None. Though you have repeated, many times now, that baseless assertion. I'm not hounding Night. And I'm not engaging in the behavior that he has in engaged in, while following and confronting my edits, which are amply detailed at the wikiquette string.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

People have tried to sort it out but your clearly very stubborn night has been the bigger person and agreed to leave you alone and you should do the same and by doing so its really dosent look good. Im no longer prepared to waste my time on you when you won't admit your own mistakes you clearly went to look through his edits and ran various reports that clearly make it look like you did the same as him looking for previous warnings for admins blocks or behaviour of which you would have had to spent time looking through. You ran reports to see what is afd rate was like to yours. No one does this by chance that is clearly doing what he did to you. Im sorry call it what you like but you did the same to night its clear as day.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(@Carrite--edit conflict) Sorry, Carrite, but I think that you are misreporting to say that Epeefleche is with consensus over 90% of the time.  I assume that you are depending on SnottyWong's tool that (based on a theory that a redirect is accompanied by an underlying delete of the edit history) incorrectly assumes that a redirect used admin deletion tools.  I just yesterday made an analysis of Epeefleche's last 25 AfD Primary-school nominations, and only 2 or 8% met with community consensus, and both of those deletion cases were created by...Guerillero.  IMO, both Guerillero and Epeefleche are out of touch with community norms.  I've started a discussion at WT:Deletion review#Do appeals of AfD redirect closures (without an edit-history deletion) require DRV.  Regarding these Primary-school AfD nominations, I don't think that Epeefleche is doing anything more than gaming the system, and I'm glad to hear that someone is helping to keep balance.  It would help if and when Epeefleche agrees to stop nominating Primary schools for deletion.  IMO, Guerillero needs to agree to step away from making Epeefleche's AfD nominations worse than they already are.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@Unscintillating -- I believe that you confirmed that only 2 of those 25 AFDs closed as Keeps. The remainder, I believe, were in accord with my nominations -- which indicated that I was open to deletion or redirect. Being in-consensus 92% of the time may, perhaps, be reasonable. And not cause for hounding, coupled with the behavior detailed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirects that have their edit history deleted are not the same as redirects that do not have their edit history deleted.  In the case of your Snottywong statistics, this is a big difference, and an enormous difference in your Primary-school AfD nominations.  Redirects without an objectionable edit history do not require a deletion discussion.  Your 8% deletion rate at AfD (articles for deletion) for primary schools shows that you should stop using AfD to get redirects, and either boldly merge the article yourself, or discuss it on the talk page of the Primary school.  Your agreeing to do this will remove this issue from the table.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - NotBW just got in touch with me and asked me to explain my comment about him being an inclusionist. And upon further review, I see that he's not. Sorry. And with that, I'm getting back to work. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just a word about statistics for AfD. Anyone can get whatever percentage record they like at AfD by only commenting on the obvious. If, for example, someone wanted to appear a inclusionist in great accord with consensus, all they'd have to do is to !vote keep on every article that was clearly about to be kept, and save their deletes for a few important ones where it might make a difference. This is not in reference to anything specifically said above, but on the lack of validity of using this number in a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a policy encouraging the creation of articles that are only sourcable in foreign languages. It seems to me that maybe EnWP should not have an article if it can not be sourced in English. I don't find fault with Prodding and AFDing such articles. However, if there is a policy regarding this issue please enlighten me. That being said, I would say that I believe NotBW should not be so active in deProdding these types of articles. Why does EnWP want to summarize the secondary sources when they are not in English.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 21 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[82] 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)
  • From what I saw of her (?) on-wiki edits she is not simply an obvious troll. She has pointed out legitimite issues, both small and big, and has made constructive edits. She has spent significant time to improve Wikipedia. I do agree that she was certainly very combatative, and seeing many of those edits with her background was an accident bound to happen. Several editors tried to slow her down (Nobody Ent, Acalamari, Risker), but to no effect. And to be sure, I agree with WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks, the above quotes made in a semi-public forum are not acceptable, and make it impossible to work together here in a collaborative spirit.
    But in my opinion you can't reduce her edits to obvious trolling. I for one would wish this could be resolved somehow and sometime, with a sincere apology, and significantly more patience and assumption of good faith in editing. Amalthea 22:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to know

I'm just going to say outright that everything Selina is posting on his/her talk page is completely and utterly false. Not to mention the continued accusations of harassment, when s/he was the one following me to pages I edited. Anyways, if anyone wants me to clarify on something s/he's said, feel free to ask. Silverseren^C 21:52, 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)
  • S/he didn't remove the insults, s/he only removed the outing info. And our policy states that off-wiki evidence is admissible and should be taken into account. Silverseren^C 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • To be clear, only in certain circumstances, such as when outing info is posted. --Rschen7754 21:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I wasn't saying otherwise, my two sentences were meant to be separate comments. I would also consider the use of my revealed personal info to make insulting statements about people I know to also be an issue, but I digress... Silverseren^C 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Wasn't it you who posted your own info on WR? That doesn't seem very much like outing at all. Kevin (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
          • After RHMED found out who I was a year ago and posted a link to a page affiliated with me, I went ahead and posted everything else I could find, so I was the one posting it and not them dragging through the mud for it. However, Selina did not know about me having done this before (it's buried in an old thread), so she still attempted to out me, not knowing it had already been done. The attempt is all that matters here. Silverseren^C 21:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Yeah right. This is the internet. You can't stuff the genie back into the bottle, and it isn't outing if it just repeats something you said yourself a year ago. Kevin (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Er, to be logical about it, arbcom policy isn't really applicable here. This is a community discussion, it isn't arbcom, and it isn't under the same constraints that arbcom is under. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block the private information should never have been posted publicly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block: MSK's behaviour is harassment by our standards any by any standard of cyber-bullying. This is beyond unacceptable and would warrant an indef block of any user. The fact that MSK was conditionally unbanned after 5 years and has since been operating close to the bounds of acceptable behviour only makes this all the worse. Any admin reversing this would need serious justification for it thus I would suggest leaving this to the ArbCom--Cailil ^talk 21:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question - I have no opinion one way or the other having had no interactions with her, but considering she was recently unbanned, shouldn't this actually be a reinstatement of the lifted community ban? Night Ranger (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block As the admin who unblocked her, persuant to a length ANI discussion where the consensus was to unblock, she was warned that her actions would be held under special scrutiny, that she was to have no more chances, and that she should confine herself editing articles and contributing in ways unlikely to generate controversy. She did none of that from the very first minute she was unblocked. Her first (and as near as I can tell, only) actions since being unblocked have been to embroil herself in Wikipedia politics, pick fights with other editors, and generally exhibit the sort of behavior that she was told, prior to being unblocked, would get her blocked again. It seems fairly straightforward. She was told if she did this, that a block would be the result. She did it anyways, and she got blocked. It should neither be a surprise nor unexepected that this occured. For the record, I had never heard of this person before acting on the prior ANI discussion to unblock, my sole set of interactions with them was the unblock and then a warning to avoid problems. I am disheartened it turned out this way, but this is the way she wants it. Well, she gets it. I don't like it any more than you. --Jayron32 22:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about your "as near as I can tell (her only) actions since being unblocked have been to embroil herself in Wikipedia politics, pick fights with other editors, and generally exhibit the sort of behavior that she was told, prior to being unblocked would get her blocked again." I'm not happy with "as near as I can tell." I'd prefer to see an RfCU on her behaviour since returning. Not a drama-fest, but a simple diff-based summary and evaluation of her behaviour since returning. It shouldn't take long. The results of that could be presented to AN or ANI for appropriate action. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good block - From what I've seen since the unblocking, the unfortunate conclusion is that MSK is a net negative to the project - this incident is simply the icing on the cake, as it were. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question How serious is this outing? I'm not sure what was posted at WR, but when a cursory google search for your user name here turns up lots of personal information, is there anything left to out? You've even given an interview about Wikipedia using your real name. AniMate 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Pretty much anything s/he could find, as far as I remember. That included my Google+ account and then s/he linked to one of my friend's Google+ account and started making insults at him. Silverseren^C 22:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• And doing a quick Google search myself, I haven't actually explicitly linked my real name with my name here. Yes, I did an interview about Wikipedia, but that only had my real name in it. The only link I can find is that ED.ch page. Silverseren^C 22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well your twitter account pretty definitively links the two, and you've used it exclusively to discuss Wikipedia. AniMate 22:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Gee, Selina revealing personal information about another user? Who could have seen that coming? (Note to everyone who said we should unblock her: I told you so.) Endorse re-instating the community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually you were wrong then and you're wrong now. Assume good faith is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment. It is better ten disruptive editors get a second chance than a good editor remain blocked. (borrowing from Justice Blackstone a bit). Nobody Ent 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Assume good faith is a first-approximation of how we should react to others. And your own personal pontifications about its meaning not withstanding, it explicitly says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" And I have yet to see any good editors who have gottem themselves community banned. The fact of the matter is that you have to be really obnoxious to earn one. Raul654 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block - technically, a reapplication of community ban. Editor has been given second chance after second chance, assumption of good faith after assumption of good faith, and has quite deliberately trampled over each one, dropping smiley emoticons the whole way. Editor is obviously not here to edit articles, but to cause as much havoc as possible before someone catches wise and reapplies the banhammer. People have now caught wise, and the banhammer is and should remain duly applied. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The oft-cited link at NPA notes that off-wiki shenanigans can be considered as "aggravating factors" in a part of dispute resolution such as ArbCom. As this complaint is solely about off-wiki doings, there's really no basis to block at this time. Note that Silver Seren is a member of said off-wiki website as well, and this is not the first time he has come running to AN/I to complain about something or other over there. Also, there have been several topics over there in the last year or so where Seren's identity was discussed, and Seren posted in those topics repeatedly, engaging with those who posted his personal info. No complaints filed, no requests to delete or redact the information posted. I find complaints of "outing" now to be a bit curious, when in the past such "outings" were freely acknowledged. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse block - How could we have known... Aw heck, Raul beat me to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Lift block, impose interaction ban. Both parties are participants at Wikipedia Review, so they can hash out their differences there. Since SilverSeren admits that there weren't any personal attacks in Wikipedia, then a block here isn't the best remedy. Just make them stay away from each other in Wikipedia, and there shouldn't be any further problem as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That is also illogical. If there's an off-wiki attempt (of any nature) to chill the activity of a WP editor it's perfectly fine to respond to that by imposing a block on-wiki, just like we explicitly do per WP:NLT when somebody issues a legal threat against an editor (whether on-wiki or off). The threatener doesn't get unblocked just because the threatened person responds to the threat off-wiki. If someone has a problem with a WP editor's constributions, they can deal with it through on-wiki dispute resolution. If they pursue it through other means, they are subject to being required to stop editing here. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • and there shouldn't be any further problem as far as Wikipedia is concerned. - yeah, because her editing since she got unblocked two weeks ago has been so drama-free and unproblematic. *Rolls eyes* Raul654 (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• If the block is for 'outing', then it should be lifted. Kevin (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Regretful support of block, but I think 28bytes did the right thing. I think perhaps there's been one too many trips to the AGF well here, and I don't see things changing much. I was honestly hoping she would be able to edit quietly to improve articles, but there seems to be far too much drama invoked at this point. — Ched :  ?  23:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock - first, the insults or what have you happened on a different forum where both Selina and Seren are members. In fact Seren is a long standing member of Wikipedia Review and he knows full well that on WR it's much more of a "dish it out and take it" environment than Wikipedia. I could maybe see him getting upset IF HE DID NOT participate in WR so extensively (including on occasions, making "personal attacks" on others as well) but he does, he knows and it's ridiculous for him to come running to AN/I over how someone replied to him there. Basically this is nobody's business but Selina's, Seren's and WR's. If a random person in a bar insults me, can I bring it up to AN/I and demand that they get banned? Second the outing stuff. This one's tougher as that IS potentially sanctionable - regardless of where outing happens, it's against Wikipedia policy. The question is then whether or not actual took place. It is my understanding that Seren has revealed all this information publicly on Wikipedia Review, Wikipedia and elsewhere before and hence this is not actually outing. In fact, if you read the original statement at the top of the thread it does appear that he is much more upset about being called names rather than any outing - which is telling. I'm willing to be corrected on this so if this was some new and previously-undisclosed-by-Seren info then I might change my "vote".VolunteerMarek 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock You can't out someone who has already outed themselves, and you can't block someone for offsite insults in a forum where both users participate. I think an argument could be made for blocking MSK as disruptive, but this block isn't right. AniMate 00:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I really don't see any logical basis for AniMate's use of "can't" above (in "you can't block someone for offsite insults"). Should is a different question, that's more subtle and which depends on the particular situation. Volunteer Marek: if some other editor came up to me in a bar and started belligerently hassling me about my editing, that's off-wiki harassment and I certainly would report it on ANI and hope for admin action against the person. That just seems like a no-brainer and I'm surprised if you're saying you wouldn't do the same. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? I mean, ok, if that editor came up to me and threatened me or punched me or something because of my Wikipedia activity then yeah, sure. But if an editor came up to me in a bar and started hassling me about my editing, I'd probably first buy them a beer, and then if they persisted have the friendly neighborhood bartender kick them out on their ass (i.e. settle it in the bar) and not even mention it on Wikipedia. Running to AN/I with "I run into so-and-so last night in a bar and they said something mean about my Wikipedia edits" just seems so... well, pathetic.VolunteerMarek 01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would depend on the situation, as I keep saying. And yes, I considered "belligerently" to require more than just "saying something mean". It would be mostly about whether the encounter had a chilling effect on my future editing (such as if there were threats involved). Note that the effects of hassling someone in a persistent, searchable venue like WR are magnified compared to approaching them privately in a bar, and that has to be taken into account too. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This would have some credibility if Seren didn't post there all the time as well. It's like two people who work for in the same office go out drinking to the same bar night after night. One night, one person says something mean to the other. The next day the person runs to their boss and says "so-and-so said something mean to me at the bar that we usually hang out at last night! Fire her!". If I was the boss I'd laugh them out of my office.VolunteerMarek 02:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse block - one to many times. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock Let's keep WR over there, please. Suggest MSK, if unblocked, seek out editors to advise her in her reintegration into Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock per AniMate and Wehwalt; some others, too. From what I saw, MSK was referring to information Seren put out themselves and is all over WR and ED already. We gonna have this sort of Catwoman drama every week? Also, from what I can tell, MSK is on the right side of the issue re corporate marketing; who ever saw ethical marketing anyway? Anywhere? A marketing executive once told me a joke: How can you tell when a marketing guy is lying? His lips are moving. Alarbus (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn block = unblock. What happens off-wiki is of no interest to us. I see no diffs for on-wiki actionable edits. It's as simple as that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's directly at odds with what WP:NPA says. Silverseren^C 04:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• What do you make of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket then? --Rschen7754 05:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem especially relevant to me. There was no outing seeing as Silver Seren had already posted the information, and the childish insults noted here don't rise to the level of directly threatening Silver Seren's employment, to use the example from the case. Kevin (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm replying directly to the assertion above: "What happens off-wiki is of no interest to us." This is definitely not true in all cases, as evidenced by the case above. Furthermore, the "outing" information was actually wrong in the above scenario; it was the attempt to out someone that caused sanctions. --Rschen7754 06:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock. The outing wasn't outing. She called him names on WR. Oh dear. That is not to say this editor is worth the drama she generates. She's been back for what, a month? As ASCIIn2Bme pointed out recently, the format here at ANI is too chaotic to represent anything like a sound process. Could someone who has some diffs please start an RfCU? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock. If she was blocked for outing Silver Seren, then the block is not valid. It took me five minutes' work on Google to identify the user, his high school, college, and even found a photo. He has already outed himself by using the same username on various web forums and revealing too much personal info. -- Dianna (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reinstate Indefinite Community Ban...of course.--MONGO 04:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse indef ban - Letting her edit again has been a disaster. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

@Collect, Tarc, Volunteer Marek, AniMate: I'd be willing to just have Selina be under a topic ban in regards to articles about Wikiproject Cooperation (which are, I think, around 10 right now). That would require leaving both the Wikiproject and the Paid Editor Watch group. The consensus here seems to be going more toward an indefinite block, but i'd be willing to give her another chance so long as she isn't trying to insult CREWE and myself or otherwise disrupting the Wikiproject's activities. And, for the people that put endorse, if she really is a lost cause, then she'll be involved in another incident soon enough and be blocked then. No harm in giving her another chance, right? Up to you guys though. Silverseren^C 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not ready to make up my mind about this issue, but if an unblock is considered a clear set of conditions should be defined. I haven't seen the Wikiproject Cooperation stuff so can't comment on that, but I have seen MSK mention WR far too often, and I would want a topic ban on talking about or linking to WR—given the background it's just not helpful for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for her thoughts on her user talk page, so we'll see if she's receptive. AniMate 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously though, she needs to stop the insults. This is like the fifth time she's called me slimy. Silverseren^C 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm kind of uncomfortable with this--if Silver wants to drop his complaint against MSK outright, then I'd go along with it, but this topic ban proposal would have the effect of removing one of Silver's opponents from a legitimate on-wiki ideological disagreement. If MSK isn't site-banned, then (unless there's other specifically related misconduct, which there might be as I haven't followed the saga) then I'd think she's as entitled as anyone else to oppose COI editing and any proposals that would tend to enable it. A personal interaction ban between MSK and SS might be more appropriate than a topic ban. Certainly, the personal attacks have to stop. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If it was just an ideological disagreement, that would be one thing. But, in that case, we would likely almost never interact. However, Selina has gone out of her way to make comments about CREWE and myself in as many places as she can, saying things about how I and the group are slimy, unethical, and are trying to "bully" the Wikimedia Foundation. She's accused me of being a zealot and says i'm trying to "silence the opposition". She seems to think this is some kind of war and is editing as such. And a personal interaction ban doesn't make much sense, as the only way that would work is if she didn't involve herself in the Wikiproject anymore, re: the point of the topic ban. Silverseren^C 02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely comfortable with this either, but MSK has indicated that if there is consensus for a topic ban she is willing to go that route. Still, if I were in a group that was trying to gain legitimacy and show good faith, I wouldn't try to silence one of the more vocal critics. Honestly, trying to get her topic banned does make you look slimy and unethical, especially after coming here complaining about outing on a site where you had already outed your self rather extensively. AniMate 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If it was legitimate criticism, that would be fine. We've already gotten some of that, which has tailored the processes of how the Wikiproject currently works. Jimbo was concerned about any sort of direct editing by paid editors, even for noncontroversial stuff, so we created the paid editor help section where they can propose the needed changes, with references, and we would do it for them. Other criticism in terms of specific article changes are things we work with. Take Cracker Barrel for instance. There was a bit of back and forth tug of war over what the criticism section should say, with those on the other side feeling that it was being slightly white-washed, so I went ahead and worked out a compromise that made both sides feel better.

But, thus far at least, Selina hasn't been offering any such kinds of criticism. As I said above and have quoted in the Wikiquette discussion, it's all just been negativity and insults. Those aren't legitimate criticism. If you think wanting to get her to stop with that is slimy and unethical...well, I don't know how to respond to that. :/

And the complaint was about the attempted outing. If the intent is there to out someone, I fail to see how whether it was effective or not changes that. There are a number of comparisons I could make to further elaborate on this, but they're all rather hyperbolic in comparison as well, so I won't say. Silverseren^C 02:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

She did remove the attempted outing pretty quickly, and I don't see how you can even attempt to out someone who has clearly identified themselves over and over. I read the messages on your facebook group where you once again clearly and publicly and using your real name state that you are Silver seren. I agree that MSK needs to be more civil, but the more I look into this, the more I think she shouldn't be topic banned and more eyes should be on you and your group. AniMate 02:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of a difference between, say, just making one link between me and some other service I use. However, listing every single major site I use and then going after my friends is something totally different.

And what exactly have I and the Wikiproject done? We've been doing our absolute best to stay neutral in any additions made to articles. Do you have any specific problems with the Wikiproject? Silverseren^C 03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the wikiproject but if you're editing articles about company X based on input you get from representatives of company X, the first thing I'd ask is whether you're soliciting equal amounts of input from opponents of company X who spend comparable amounts of money on PR. If you're not doing that, I'd say there's a potential neutrality problem. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We haven't really worked on any companies yet. But for the stuff that we've done and what we would expect to be given if we did work on company articles in the future, we would need reliable third-party sources for the information. And, while it's true that the companies are not likely to freely give out information about controversies, through the rule of crowd-sourcing, someone will put something about it in the article eventually if there is some important negative thing about them.

No, I don't think so, if you're actively not seeking out the "oppo research" and are just taking what's given to you by one side's PR, you're basically proxy editing for shills. And there are independence-of-sourcing issues even with 3rd party publications whenever PR is involved (that's the whole point of PR). But this is pretty tangential to the MSK misconduct issue, so maybe we can discuss it some other time and place. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What we're here to focus on is to make sure only neutral, factual information gets added. If something is being omitted, it will be pointed out eventually by someone. Silverseren^C 04:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If those statements were made on Wikipedia that would be one thing. But they were made on a completely different website where both users hang out. It's basically nobody's business but WR's.

I also want to note that a lot (not all) of the "Endorse" votes above are along the lines of "I voted Oppose to her unblock so of course I'm jump at the chance to vote to reblock again" variety - i.e. by people who have very clearly NOT looked into the issue and are just indulging their standard grudges.

A mutual interaction ban though might be reasonable. Or someone could simply ask Selina not to comment on Seren on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Review anymore in the near future. VolunteerMarek 03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how an interaction ban can work if Selina is going to be involved in the Wikiproject. Nor if she is going to keep going around and try to insult the group of people we're working with. Silverseren^C 03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• No way. If there is a problem, it is with the editor's style of interacting. Shoving her off onto the rest of the project is not the solution. This smells like gaming an opponent out of the debate. (It may not be, but that's what it appears to be.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can you elaborate on how i'm trying to game an opponent out of a debate? Silverseren^C 04:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• By banning her from the debate; though I'm not sure "gaming" is what you're up to. It just smells like that. Look, if she's too awful to deal with on paid editing, she'll be too awful to deal with on images of Muhammad or policy pages or, well, everything. What's needed here is a careful, deliberative review of her behaviour since she's been back. This noticeboard isn't the place for that. The place to begin is a well-moderated RfCU. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• If Selina was engaging in a debate, i'm sure we'd have a polite conversation that ended with some sort of conclusion or compromise that made both of us happy. The problem is that what she is doing is not debating. I have yet to see a specific issue of something we've done wrong come from her responses. Just generalized statements about how the the Wikiproject existing and CREWE existing is wrong and that PR people can never be trusted. Again, there's no real sort of debate that can come from that sort of opinion. Silverseren^C 04:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• You've provided one diff, I think, to support your assertion she should stay away from paid editing. It seems like a reasonable edit to me. If you want her kept away from that topic, or if others want her permanently banned from the site, the least you can do is make a case. So far, all we have is rumor. Meta has recently been severely criticised for its poor process. Let's try and do better. We have the (albeit imperfect) mechanism, RfCU, let's use it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)confused Silver seren, I'm somewhat confused at this point. I think that the block that 28bytes did was the right thing to do at the time, (given the links and diffs at that point) and I support him on that. I've also seen some of the "unblock" comments that I think indicate a level of clue that I tend to listen to. To be honest, I haven't followed MSK, but have seen numerous threads on drama boards (including Jimbo's talk) that make me feel a bit uncomfortable in the "disruption" aspect of things. I would think that anyone coming from WR (owner of site?), would have the common sense to keep their head down at least until they had built a strong trust in the community as far as content goes. I think it is all well and good to point out things that need to be improved on WP, but there are ways to go about it without so much drama. Are you now rethinking the site ban request in favor of an interaction or topic ban? As you were the one to initially request this ban, I think I owe you the respect of listening to how you are thinking at the moment. I don't much like banning and blocking editors if they can become constructive contributors to the project. I also see that some of this "outing" stuff may be a bit overstated; as well as something outside the remit of WP in some respects. I think we owe our editors consideration to some degree to "off wiki" actions, but we can't govern the Internet either. What sort of "ban" are you currently looking for? — Ched :  ?  05:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think Selina deserves another chance, though I do think a topic ban is necessary. I don't think there's any way for someone who believes this to edit neutrally in this topic area. Silverseren^C 05:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Harrison

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

---

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 [83]. →Στc. 20:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

Wow! That was really fast! Thank you for that! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Seems like yet another local-but-never-really-made-it band, so I've begun to remove the incoming links that amount to unsourced name-dropping so far. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Samir, for closing that. However, judging by some of the IP's recent edits, help/action may still be necessary. There's personal attacks here, after the AFD was closed, and copy and pasting the deleted article here. (When the IP complained that "no one here knows about progressive rock", I mentioned I worked a lot with article related to Porcupine Tree, a progressive rock band, so that's probably the reason why he chose there.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I was worried about that. I guess that if they do another edit, their IP will be blocked? I'm still not unconvinced that the various different IPs wasn't a specific set of editors or one editor using different computers to try to sway the debate.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

User:Owain

Myself and User:Owain seem to have a bit of falling out which is turning into an edit war. I have removed some unsubstantiated fact, however he has reverted them and is now threatening to have me blocked. The articles in question are Flag Institute and Westmorland--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop edit-warring and also stop labeling edits as vandalism when they are WP:NOTVANDALISM. You should also have notified Owain of this discussion, which I have done for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You also appear to be doing a little forum shopping.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not shopping this is a results of the reverts he has made which includes removing quotes from the organisations on rules. The other question is over the validity of the Flag Institute as a source. I made the edits he reverted them. He doesn't want to talk, what else can I do?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As one suggestion, you could read WP:BOOMERANG. And WP:DEADHORSE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You could try reading them yourselves and perhaps making some useful comment rather then just casting the opprobrium.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You should raise these content issues on the Talk pages of the articles, not on the editor's Talk page. You (and Owain) should discuss the content and stop accusing each other of vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking to User:Owain is impossible.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Even assuming that's true, then obtain a consensus for your view of the content on the article Talk page without Owain (if he doesn't contribute to such a discussion). You can also continue your discussion on WP:RSN. In my view, none of this requires administrative intervention, which means it doesn't belong here. Ghmyrtyle's suggestions, particularly on the boomerang point, were well made, and your pointy response was not.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already raised the subject with WP:RSN. I added lines from the Flag Institutes rules to the article and he removed them. He is unhappy with any description that includes unofficial or no legal standing.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur on all points with Bb (including that Ghmyrtle's comments did partially address your query, even if you evidentally have some history with them). I would note the talk page of one article mention in the first post remains empty and the other one was last used for discussion in 2007. Neither of these are sign of a dispute that needs to be brought to ANI because talking to one party is impossible. Funnily enough, there appears to have been some discussion on Owain's talk page (although as noted no notification was made by you when you opened this thread as the big orange box says you were supposed to do). But the messages leave a lot to be desired. However this also doesn't support the idea talking is impossible or 'he doesn't want to talk'. (There was evidentally some discussion in another article talk page as well.) Again excessive aggression, personal attacks, accusations of bad faith or vandalism etc obviously isn't helping the discussion so I suggest it needs to stop. (You obviously can't directly force the other party to stop, but people are more likely to have sympathy to your dilemma if it's really a one sided problem and people tend to respond far better when they aren't getting that stuff from the other side.) Raising it on RSN is fine as is all the other stuff Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (linked from the header) suggests when done properly (e.g. without forum shopping). But again if consensus is reached there and/or the article talk page and Owain refuses to participate yet tries to overide the consensus, then you may have an issue which requires administrator action. Not before again. As was stated early on, the only reason to come here seems to be forum shopping. If that wasn't your intention then just drop it here and take on board all the advice you've received here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this a bit and tried to refer the matter to the England wikiproject when it showed up on the fringe theories noticeboard, without much success. My personal reading at the moment is that both of them need to back down from this edit war and let some other people edit the sections in question. Mangoe (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and administrator abuse: Stanislaw Burzynski

For some reason there has been some bickering wrt the Stanislaw Burzynski article. The article as it stands is not particularly NPOV and that is a significant problem given that it is a BLP. I recently tried to make one revision in the lead for neutrality, specifically changing

There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer ...

which is a very sweeping generalization and borders on a condemnation of the subject. I modified it to read

According to the National Institutes of Health, there is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer ...

which is a necessary qualification. For whatever reason a couple of users continue to revert this claiming that, because more than one authority has stated this, no qualification is necessary (mind you the source cited in the ref actually only mentions the NIH; no other RS citations have even been provided). Regardless, because the whole matter is controversial and because this is a BLP, it is essential that any such criticisms be attributed to specific sources in the text. Not providing a source, regardless of the refs, asserts that the statement is absolute fact accepted by all experts on the subject (see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing and specifying biased statements). When criticizing a person it is almost never appropriate to make such an absolute statement, and certainly not when the criticisms themselves are a subject of controversy. For whatever reason administrator NuclearWarfare has chosen to abuse his/her privileges to lock down the page to prevent the addition of the qualification. I don't know if this is a clique thing or what the reason for that might be. Regardless the changes are necessary and NuclearWarfare should be reprimanded.

Mind you, this one sentence is not the only problem with the article. I was simply trying to make a trivial improvement to try to bring it at least slightly closer to NPOV. Frankly it needs a rewrite.

--192.88.165.35 (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. An additional observation: the change I made was quite harmless regardless of your particular position on the subject matter. The only logical reason to object to the qualification clause would be if one was intentionally trying to attack the subject.

Given the content of the rest of that paragraph, I don't think your claim of admin abuse stands up. The American Cancer Society has stated since 1983 that there is no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer.... A 2004 medical review described antioneoplaston treatment as a "disproven therapy". Oncologists have described Burzynski's research on antineoplastons as "flawed" and "scientific nonsense", and independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you try to talk to them about it? Also - I noticed you didn't notify NW of this post - I have done so. — Ched :  ?  23:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

How is this admin abuse, exactly? There's a whole stack of controversial editing coming from an IP hopping user, with lots of reverting going on. Seems like exactly the sort of thing that needs semi-protection. NuclearWarfare is uninvolved: no admin abuse there. And there's a discussion thread on the talk page about the issue. But IP hopping user doesn't seem interested in discussing it on the talk page, nor discussing it with NW, but rather jumps to ANI with an accusation of admin abuse. I can't help but think there's a reason for that... —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• This edit summary (admins-only, sorry) should explain basically everything on how much good faith we should extend to this block-evading sockpuppeteer. NW (Talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a persistent spamming user/editor

I'm writing because the article "Nordic Walking" ([[84]]) is being constantly reedited by the user Natashadashenko ([[85]]). The statements that are uploaded by the user should, as I understand be taken as, common facts, which they are not. The true history of Nordic Walking (including it's birth) is still largely unknown to the world because of exploitation of Marko Kantaneva (the sport's creator) by his former employer. The lengthy trial periods have furthered delay.

Now being that I am acquainted with Marko Kantaneva I realize that my article might have some bias in it. And if suggested I'll gladly cooperate with a competent individual to rid it of any remaining bias. However what one can not have tolerance for is the fact that Wikipedia, being a public database of neutral (as factual possible) knowledge, is being manipulated in a propaganda like manner with unproven (though the "History" section has so far been almost entirely false) statements. Especially when there is concrete evidence to completely undermine those statements. Meaning (in the context of the before mentioned article), Nordic Walking was not a sport that developed overtime, it is a sport that was created by the individual Marko Kantaneva. His piece "Sauvakävely" was even given a copyright status, by the Copyright Council of the Finnish Ministry of Education in 2009 (statement 2009/16). [[]] (Yes I am aware that the document is in Finnish, but that doesn't make it legally unqualified!)

Since I have contacted the user Natashadashenko without response and he/she just stubbornly keeps reediting the article with largely unproven and/or false information I ask the help of a moderator. Be that in the form of a discussion (with all parties), intervention or block if necessary, but in order for wikipedia to hold on to it's integrity steps must be taken.

For any extra information about the subject I will gladly respond to questions ASAP. KMuuli (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My Original Research bells are going off: "In 1997, a Finnish ski pole manufacturer Exel, working with Marko Kantaneva, introduced the trademarked Nordic Walker poles utilizing lighter one-piece cross country or Nordic ski pole shafts plus user-friendly Nordic style straps and "Nordic walking" became the accepted term for fitness walking with specially designed poles which are now marketed by nearly all major ski and trekking-pole manufacturers." — That is unsourced. That needs a source. Glass houses, rocks, etc. Carrite (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Google6666

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

---

Someone named Google6666 has been creating the same page many times. Should someone block him? M'encarta (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but not yet. I just strongly suggested they actually read the links in the welcome message. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, between Sarek, myself, and another handful of admins, I think there are probably enough eyes on the editor for now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Removal of templates from redirects

I am having trouble with an Administrator. They are insisting that it is correct to remove templates such as {{db-g7}} and {{rfd}} from redirects because their presence makes the redirect show up on the uncategorized articles list. Unfortunately, removing such templates undermines the deletion/review process. The arguments on both sides are eloquently presented on the administrator's Talk page at User talk:Bearcat#Deletion of Maynard F Pound Crabbes. (The redirect in question has been deleted anyway.) HairyWombat 00:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're quite right that {{rfd}} goes at the top of a redirect nominated for deletion. It's been that way for a very, very long time... so, yes, I believe Bearcat is mistaken. 28bytes (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the template go below the #REDIRECT line though? So as not to stop the redirect from working? -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rfd suggests otherwise, which makes sense; if you happen to be using that redirect, you're going to want to know of the deletion discussion. The article it links to will still be linked below the RfD notice, so it's more turned into a "soft redirect" than "broken". 28bytes (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Been a long time since I have nominated an rfd but I thought I remembered reading that somewhere. -DJSasso (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wombat is misrepresenting the situation slightly. There was never any issue involving the {{RFD}} template, or at least none that I was a part of — in fact, I'm the one who pointed him to the RFD process in the first place. That template does not cause the issue under discussion, because it adds the redirect pages to Category:Redirects for discussion and thereby avoids the problem entirely. Rather, the issue began and ended with the use of a speedy deletion template, which does not add the redirect in question to any maintenance category, with the result that because you've broken the redirect the page does show up on the uncategorized articles list (where, for the record, the categorization project must deal with a page if it shows up; there is no "my project's rules trump your project's rules" exemption.)

But long story short, I'm not mistaken, as the dispute didn't involve the RFD template in the first place. And, in fact, you can't G7 a redirect anyway, so the db template wasn't appropriate for that reason either. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I misunderstood. I'm looking at the deleted history of Maynard F Pound Crabbes, and here's what I see:

1. HairyWombat creates a malformed redirect.
2. You fix it.
3. HairyWombat decides he doesn't want it anymore and tags it for {{db-author}} deletion.
4. You decline the db-author request.
5. HairyWombat tags it for {{db-r3}} deletion.
6. Another admin deletes it as G7.

If I understand correctly, you're saying an editor can't G7 a redirect they created because it makes the page uncategorized? Wouldn't just deleting it remove it from the list of uncategorized articles? 28bytes (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually since Bearcat had edited it then G7 no longer applied. It shouldn't have been G7'd. -DJSasso (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case I'm confused where the "uncategorized" enters into it. 28bytes (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Technically, placing that template between the top of the page and the #REDIRECT causes the page to stop functioning as a redirect and start functioning as an article instead — but if the template isn't also adding a category along with it, then the page shows up on the uncategorized articles list and the categorization project has to deal with it. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Which template(s) are failing to add a category? 28bytes (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

{{RFD}} does add articles to Category:Redirects for discussion, but that's not the template that was at issue. {{db-g7}}, the one that was actually at issue, does not add articles to any visible category (it does add a hidden one, but hidden maintenance categories don't keep a page off the uncats list; only visible content categories do.) Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)The editor pointed out documentation which clearly supported their action [86]; rather than look into the situation and explain that {{rfd}} was okay because it didn't crash the webserver or whatever happens if articles are uncatgorized, you gave them a curt bureaucratic answer [87] -- and Wikipedia's civility and not a bureaucracy pillars do trump your project's so called rules. Nobody Ent 00:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My response may not have been as gregarious in tone as you might wish, but it was in no way uncivil. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And I did not "fail to look into the situation", either; I'm the one who pointed him to {{rfd}} in the first place, and he didn't come back to initiate the discussion you're looking at until several hours after the page had been deleted (which was in turn several hours after the interaction over the page in question, in which I originally pointed him to {{rfd}}.) So you're misreading what's even happening in that discussion; this didn't even begin until well after the page in question had already been resolved, and I had already taken, hours earlier, the "here's what you should do instead" approach you seem to be expecting to see in this discussion. Rather, what's going on here is that HairyWombat seems to have decided to go out of his way to debate the issue so that he could prove me wrong, wrong, so very wrong hours after the matter had already been resolved, at a time when there was already nothing left for me to help him any further with. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:SMcCandlish (moved from Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance because of lack of assistance)

(moved from Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance because of lack of assistance)

I left wikipedia because of the way SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to force his view on the WP:MOS with regard to Capitalization of Organism Names using walls of text, proclaimed consensus when the majority did not agree and biased straw polls based on that. Unfortunately, this has not deterred him from continued slandering and labeling of me. Most recent, he wrote: "KimvdLinde was certainly engaging in drama for its own sake; see above for links demonstrating that any time she doesn't get her way she engages in a fit of public psychodramatics, and histrionically "quits Wikipedia" for a few days or a month or whatever, with various of flaming insults on the way out. I'd be half surprised if she wasn't the direct inspiration of the page at WP:DIVA, since it describes her behavior with exacting accuracy.". I have asked him at his talk page to refractor the attacks, to which is replied: "Absolutely not. I stand by every word of it.", followed by "You are one of the most personally poisonous, disruptive, psychodramatic and tendentious people I have ever encountered since the worst flamewars of the early-'90s Usenet." He then changed his mind a little: "Actually, I changed my mind. I redacted your username". He just left the other vitriol in place. From there it continues and after asking three times, I decided to come here and have some fresh eyes on this issue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's a honest criticism of KimvdLinde's disruptive editing behavior. KimvdLinde did not leave Wikipedia, but simply took a five-day editing break, and needs to drop the hyperbole and WP:DRAMA. Everything I need to say about this has probably already been said at User talk:KimvdLinde#Your disruptive behavior and User talk:SMcCandlish#Uncivil posts at WP:MOS and the relevant edit summaries. But, in case this is going to drag out, see also:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive738#User:KimvdLinde: Canvassing, disruptive editing, false polling, etc. (KimvdLinde was found to have canvassed and to have been incivil if (barely?) short of a personal attack against me; the poll tampering and disruptive editing claims weren't addressed.)
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 19#Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points (my good faith attempt at dispute resolution that I presented so neutrally, a DRN regular considered it exemplary of "how it should be done"; Kim derailed it by abusing the forum as a platform for character assassination.)
• [88] and [89] (Diffs of incivil, arguably personally attacking posts against me at WT:BIRDS; also further proof that what I say about her pretending to quit WP as a dishonest and fallacious debate disruption tactic is in fact a pattern; it's one that she's used several times in the past, though her complete deletion of her userpage more than once has had the side effect of making this more difficult to observe.)

WP:CIVIL, much less WP:NPA, does not require servile niceness, nor does it imply any reluctance to express honest criticism of disruptive editing behavior, of the sort KimvdLinde repeatedly demonstrates; WP:SPADE is an essay that well addresses this. "Walls of text" on the capitalization of organism names (an issue on which I set up a rather straightforward poll) is what KimvdLinde intentionally generates though the WP:IDHT tactic. How this works is covered in detail at WP:SSF. I am not the only one to observe her numerous patterns of disruptive and tendentious behavior in the debate with concern and disdain, including people who agree with her, not my, position on the poll issue. The fact of the matter is that KimvdLinde and I disagree about something, and are not going to stop disagreeing about it. Rather than just accept that, KimvdLinde decided to make this personal (check the dates). I've been having entirely civil and even productive discussions with other members of WP:BIRDS (see my current and most recently archived talk page). This is not possible with KimvdLinde, as the DRN demonstrates. We don't like each other, and we've felt compelled to say so. I'm fine with that and moving on, because I have far more important, interesting and productive things to do than argue for the rest of my life with a borderline troll. KimvdLinde needs to accept this and her own share of the fault in the matter, and get over both it and herself. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

One editor expressed the opinion that I had canvassed. He never responded to my rebuttal. That is not the same as "Found to have canvassed". This kind of exaggerations is one of the major problems. But more important, instead of honestly looking at the complaint, the response is nothing more than a counterattack. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If an admin at WP:AN/I says you were canvassing, it's a safe bet that you were canvassing (that's why AN/I exists - to report user behavior for admin analysis and determination). Do you really want to debate that? I don't think that's why we're here. I've honestly looked at your complaint. It's called psychological projection. Since you're going to pointedly ruin any dispute mediation, I think a mutual WP:SHUNning is in order. Noetica and I did that once after an unhappy dispute kind of similar to this. A month or two later we actually got along well. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To late. You make the choice to retain the attacks, now we solve those first. After that, if it can be agreed upon that the capitalization issue is left to rest, I am perfectly fine with shunning you. And yes, I have no problem debating the unresolved canvassing issue as there was no response to my rebuttal. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The canvassing doesn't matter; it had the desired effect of derailing the debate, so it's a moot point now (that's one of the reasons why no one bothered responding to your rebuttal).

This shouldn't be here at WQA anyway:

FAIL: "The specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere" (on both our user talk pages).

FAIL: "It is a request for mediation of longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties - try the dispute resolution noticeboard." That's what this is all about; KimvdLinde even opened this WQA case with her views about that long-term conflict ("...trying to force his view on the WP:MOS with regard to Capitalization of Organism Names...").

FAIL: "You have not followed the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes" (KimvdLinde outright sabotaged our dispute resolution noticeboard case.)

FAIL: "emphasise the desire to move forward constructively and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues while assuming good faith." (KimvdLinde has explicitly stated, in public, that she assumes bad faith on my part, and has not attempted to do anything constructive, only demanded a retraction of unflattering editor criticism, while ignoring my suggestion that she retract some of her own bouts of verbal hostility before making such demands.)

I think we're done here, unless there's some actual showing of "the desire to move forward constructively ... assuming good faith". If there is, then I'm willing to try again. Once. Toward that end, I'll agree to strike what I said at WT:MOS, if Kim will strike her "no good faith" comment in the earlier of the two diffs of hers I posted here, and we both explicitly state we're redacting because our comments should have been more civil and more assumptive of good faith. And she goes first, since she started it with her anti-SMcCandlish posts at WT:BIRDS. Then we agree to avoid each other as much as possible for at least a month, and that includes not making any personally identifiable negative comments of any kind on any pages (other than, I guess, we should be able to raise a legitimate issue on each other's talk page if mutual avoidance is somehow not practical on some issue). I could agree to that. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No. You already tried to have the first of my posts be labelled as a attack, and the admin in question stated expecitly to you: "That's not a personal attack. It's just plain bad faith." at the end of the section. The second is just more of the same. Yes, I do not trust you at all anymore, BECAUSE of your own stated desire to eventually force lowercaps on birds. So, I have GOOD reason not to trust you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Y'all are just talking, talking, talking....back and forth, nothing is getting resolved...how about keeping away from each other and the relevant boards for 48 hours and give an admin or outside editor a chance to discuss this? First one not to respond gets .5 bonus admin points :) Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, regardless of whether or not Kim has valid points (my personal opinion is that she does, but I'm WP:INVOLVED), your responses to her, each time, just ratchet up the tension. "FAIL - FAIL - FAIL - FAIL" - is this how a WP:CIVIL discussion is held on Wikipedia? No, no it's not. Now how about the both of you take some WP:TEA before the seafood gets broken out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a 48 hour interaction ban, during which both editors refrain from commenting on the other editor, would be beneficial. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. Just would like to know whether the outrageous labeling by my opponent constitutes an attack or not according to the admins around here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

minus .5 points to Kim Seriously, though, you have both had (multiple) a chance to make your points. Let it rest and see what other people think for a change. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 03:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Really. I retire because of this, and after a week I check in to find my name dragged through the mud, and the suggestion is to not have an interaction for 48 hours. Excuse me. If he would have let me alone and not dragged my name through the mud, I would have stayed away. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

K. Well I give up on the moderation. Support interaction ban. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 03:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

AS if that is an issue as I am in retirement already. But good to know that when you leave, people just can keep slandering your name. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• How to Quit Wikipedia - Figure out your reasons why and remember them.Moxy (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blatant copyvio by Rrrr5

Rrrr5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Rrrr5 uploaded a pic File:WantedMDH.jpg which was deleted as a copyvio after warning. He acknowledged that it isn't a federal work here. Nonetheless, he uploaded again - File:WantedMDH22.jpg and I tagged it for CSD. He blanked the page...and dropped back to using an IP at Liberty University to reinsert the copyvio with the summary "So, we should remove the image of the killer on the only source where it'll get public exposure over a minor attribution error?"

Now, he uploaded it again as File:MDHMurderSuspect.png on November 30 with flagrant lies that it was the work of a federal employee and the source was intentionally left off to mislead. It is the work of a police sketch artist and as seen in this link is the property of the Fairfax police.

Image needs speedy deleted and both the user AND IP needs blocked for flagrant copyvio.

Note: He has the appearance of socking at Ica stones also.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged the file for speedy. Calabe1992 02:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Not a major issue, of course, but it seems MiszaBot hasn't done anything since the 17th, so alternate means of clearing out the building backlog might be needed soon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Related discussion here. -DJSasso (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nudie pics

Hi all. Nudity alert. Some joker keeps inserting photographs of naked women on Jessica Biel and Jennifer Garner. I don't know those actresses, but I do know that nudie pix shouldn't go in infoboxes. I've blocked them indefinitely for BLP violations, but I could have blocked them for edit-warring as well. I'd like someone to check me. I left a note, a few minutes ago, at the Commons noticeboard about the supposed Biel photograph. If one of you is a Commons expert/admin, can you pop over there and see if anything needs to be done? Thanks in advance, on behalf of the children of the world. Drmies (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Update: blocked his pal, Pgrtse. Drmies (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• And their grandfather, User:Nymfs. Aha! That account is, no doubt, a spoof of User:Nymf, who appears to be legit. And they're probably all socks of User:User Confirmed, already blocked by Favonian--but I'll bet there's more. Anyone for an SPI? It's bedtime in Alabama. Drmies (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)