Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Concern on recent high-speed deletions by Fastily

Quickly, before I get blocked, Fastily has to be one of the worst admins I've ever seen. He'[s going around tagging images that were uploaded by the copyright holder (or files sourced to the US Govemrnent) and released either into public domain or under multilicense GFDL and creative commons as "missing permission". [1], [2], [3], and according to his deletion log, he's deleted as many as 88 pages/images in a span of about 5 minutes [4]. There's no way in hell any human being reviewed all of these appropriately. Fastily should be desysopped and blocked. Night Ranger (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment too much here, since I was a dick to Fastily the only time we've spoken, but - an edit summary of "p" is not acceptable, everything else aside. And holy cats, that's a lot of very fast deletions. Can someone who's not pissed in Fastily's wheaties like I have ask him if he's using a script? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's clearly not me then, because I keep seeing instances of clearly inappropriate deletions by him. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen at Night Ranger's talk page, Fastily recently made two pretty bad deletions of cat pages NR created, so yes, NR has a personal gripe here. But more to the point, it seems like Fastily's consistently brought to ANI in regards to bad/questionable deletions and/or overall deletion practices. The biggest concern is simply that he doesn't seem to respond to them at all—his response usually amounts to a one-liner and nothing more. Swarm ^X 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Working too fast, making too many errors, and not communicating well with others is exactly what got Betacommand/Delta blocked by ArbCom after many years of that exact behavior. I would hate to see Fastily go down that road, but this pattern of behavior is sadly close to what Betacommand used to do right up until the most recent ArbCom case. It would be nice if Fastily instead modified his own behavior and worked better on improving his accuracy in deleting files and on his ability to communicate with other editors regarding his deletions, as well as his ability to admit and correct for his own mistakes in this area. If that doesn't happen, this will not end well. --Jayron32 04:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to the above:

• I check my all the pages I ultimately delete, compile a list of pages to delete, and use a script to run through them.
• I have restored the two categories in question as a result of [5]. I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia than engage in drama.
• The tags on File:History of New England.pdf and File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg were indeed mistakes. I do, however, stand by the tag on File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg (it is a derivative work with no obvious copyright information on it's sources). I would also like to note that I transferred over 500 files to commons over the last two days while screening them all for potential copyright problems. Being human, I do, and will make mistakes regardless of how careful I am. However, I'm sad that NightRanger didn't first mention these tagging errors on my talk page (in which case they would have been promptly corrected and we wouldn't be having this discussion), choosing instead, to come to ANI seeking vengeance.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not this again. I raised a similar issue with him here and it even caused me to seek clarification of the CSD criteria and so indirectly led to change in the CSD criteria (after discussion). After all the whole point of the source tag is to help prove that the file is usable here. If this can be done another way then it is not necessary to have a source but I'm not sure Fastily agrees with / gets that idea. I've reverted the tagging of the PDF as it clearly has an appropriate release on the last page so what it's source was is irrelevant for determining copyright status.

What I found more disturbing however is their seeming lack of willingness to discuss people's concerns. Most queries are responded to with a very short link to a sub page. I was lucky enough to get a whole sentence in reply, but that was it, which is hardly in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopaedia. Disturbingly I've not seen any replies or changes in edit habits despite a multitude of recent ANI threads. I'm sure they do lots of good work, and they may even be correct in most cases but this lack of discussion is very worrying. It suggests rightly or wrongly that they are unwilling to listen to others or to change their ways if that is what consensus suggests they should do. I really do think this is at the point where an RfC/U may be appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Fastily's post which I edit conflicted with. If this was a one of then it may be wikidrama but it's not. Concerns have been raised several times both here and on your talk page. I'm unsure what better things you have to be doing than discussing your edits with editors that have genuine concerns and certainly aren't trolling - discussion is an essential part of a collaborative encyclopaedia and failure to discuss is a serious problem. Your reply also suggests that you didn't even bother to read this thread properly. You mention restoring two categories yet the original complaint was about your tagging of pages. Dpmuk (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm, funny you should say that, I haven't linked anyone to User:Fastily/E in weeks. Furthermore, if you'll look at my recent talk page archives, you'll see that I actually make an effort to discuss with users. Believe it or not, unlike Betacommand here, I am of the belief that I serve the community, and am therefore not deaf to its complaints. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I was about to expand on what I'd posted based on your reply above. To be honest I have no real opinion on whether you're "deaf to complaints" or not but it does seem obvious to me that you often come across, possibly inadvertently, as being that way. Even if you had taken the concerns raised here on board a comment like "I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia than engage in drama" does not suggest you had - it suggests (to me at least) that you'd restored the categories as the easiest way out rather than because you'd taken the concerns on board. Personally I'd have been happier to see you leave them deleted and explain why then simply restore and leave such a short statement. This was also how I felt when you replied to my comments I reference above - I was left with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you hadn't taken on board what I'd said and you'd just replied in the manner which you thought would give you the easiest way out.

Given the amount of actions you undertake I honestly don't think your error rate seems too high and I will also admit that in many of the areas you work we don't have enough admins and so it probably can be hard to prioritize replying fully to all queries versus dealing with backlogs. Bearing all that in mind I do honestly think what we have here is a communication issue rather than and significant problem with your actions (and this is why I suggested an RfC/U to try to get you communicating). If you honestly do take note of every error you make and take on board the concerns raised then it would appear that if you could give that impression as well as acting that way we may avoid many of these issues. Hope you don't take any of this the wrong way. Dpmuk (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that so many nasty people play 'no talkies' and when someone who is rather busy is brief then it looks bad, whether it is or not. The speed of editing and error rate doesn't matter. If people want to avoid mistakes the best way to do that is to do nothing at all. He seems to have a page to tell people what they want to know, and it seems more helpful to refer someone to G10 or whatever on that page than say nothing at all when deleting a page. Shrug. Unfortunately no talkies seems allowed by policy in many circumstances, but Fastily doesn't seem to adhere to the no talkies idea as much as some other editors. He seems chatty but busy. Penyulap _talk 05:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. We had a very lengthy and on-going discussion on AN that you basically made a couple of comments on and walked away while people continued to discuss you for days without any further input from you at all over several raised issues. You even went so far, in early february, to claim a complaint about you from December was "extremely old" You then further went on to self-impose a restriction that didn't remotely begin to address the concerns being raised (in that they were from entirely different areas of admin work) and called all further complaints moot. I'm not really sure how that makes you not deaf to the community's complaints.--Crossmr (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Links for the lazy, please? The archives are huge. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You took part in the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#WP:TFD_deletions_by_admin_User:Fastily. The last comment he makes to that thread is, as far as I'm considered, a lie. He walks away at that point, and people continued to discuss him for 3 weeks before it got archived with no further input from him. Look for the part where you asked me for diffs, I provided them, and Fastily's response was "all of these are extremely old", despite one of them barely being 2 months old. He then says "I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P" with a cute little emoticon no less. Despite the concerns being raised not only being about his closes, but his deletions he declares all concerns done because he's going to self-impose a restriction that he no longer does closes. Not sure how that addresses the bad deletions at all, but as far as he was concerned they were a done deal because of that. So again, not really sure how this is an indication that he's listening to the community's complaints. It looks like quite the opposite.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which it appears he's now done again. Despite on-going discussion and direct statements being made to him, he's continued to edit without returning to this discussion. I don't really see any evidence that Fastily is listening to the community's concern and instead appears to be saying whatever he feels is necessary at the time to appease the community and then walking away. As I mentioned before, the Deja Vu is very strong.--Crossmr (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just my take on the three files cited above: File:History of New England.pdf was a useless PDF ("wikibooks") compilation of existing Wikipedia articles, falsely tagged as uploader's "own work" and public domain. Could have been speedy deleted on sight as a copyvio (done so now). File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg is legit copyright-wise (obviously user-created), but has no foreseeable encyclopedic use; nominated at FFD now. File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg seems legit to me; it's a user-created, synthesized computer rendering of a song that itself is obviously PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the speedy of File:History of New England.pdf as it's nowhere close to being an "unambiguous copyright violation". I've just checked again and all the appropriate attribution and licensing information is in the pdf so this is simply a case of wrong tagging rather than a copyright infringement and we don't speedy for getting the tags wrong. I'd agree that their seems little point in hosting it given that it's just a copy of our articles but I'd suggest restoration if the user asks for it (e.g. if they want to use it as a historical snapshot). Dpmuk (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, even if the copyright had been fixed (and I agree it would have been fixable in principle), it would still fall under WP:CSD#F10, "files that are neither image, sound, nor video files, are not used in any article, and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use", so it's rather moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well true, they'd have to come up with a good reason for keeping it, and I think that's unlikely to occur, which is why I didn't restore it. Given that most of the work do is in copyrights I pointed it out as I didn't want people to think I'd missed something when I commented above. Dpmuk (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion regarding the deletion rationales of the images or the speed at which they were deleted, but I do have concerns about Fastily's deletion log entry for the two sockpuppet categories as "Attack Pages". It looks to me (at least from the comments on Night Ranger's talk page and in the block log) like Kumioko was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry, the socks were tagged and the populated categories were created. I agree that they could constitute attack pages of the accounts tagged were not Kumioko's socks, or if the category pages had personal attack language in them (did they?), but otherwise a sockpuppet category doesn't seem to be anything like an attack page. I'm also a little concerned by Fastily's responses when Night Ranger requested an explanation: basically providing non answers, answering questions with questions and then deleting the thread with the edit summary "troll". NR's subsequent response to that was not appropriate, but at least a little understandable. I'd be angry too. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

TLDR: In Wikipedia, socks are sock unless they have admin friends. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Which admin are you talking about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories are not "attack pages" if the socks are correctly tagged. If they were, deleting them under G10 is a no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

correctly tagged being the key phrase here. :-) — Ched :  ?  12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if the sock accounts were tagged incorrectly, a category is not an attack page. You could make a case for someone tagging random accounts as socks as attack pages I guess, but as far as I can tell those were confirmed socks of Kumioko. Attack pages say things like "Joey is a Nazi", or "such and such person is *insert unsupported negative claim here*". Not a category that simply populates user pages based on userpage templates. Kumioko was, indeed, blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The deletion rationales of those categories aren't correct and without condoning his subsequent behavior, I can see why NR was upset. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

CommentIn my humble opinion, if Fastily feels that he has better things to do than engage in drama then I suggest he move to the (relatively) non-controversial areas of expanding articles and editing out-dated or bad references which require minimum interaction with others. These are areas where smart scripting etc. is of good use. My point is that Fastily's behavior is borderline contempt (or maybe even full contempt) that clearly demonstrates his beliefs that other editor's are not competent enough to question his conduct or maybe he is far superior to others. I can't imagine an experienced user not being able to answer simple queries for technical or other reasons. Wikishagnik (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the view that Fastily tends to show up here on a semi-regular basis over these types of deletion things. I can even understand the concept of comparing some things to delta/beta. My problem here though is this: Some people are actually good at doing computer programming, and perhaps they're not the most "chit-chatty" types of folks. But if you try to talk to them, they can give you some very valuable information, and be very helpful in the end. You may not come away with a "warm fuzzy feeling", but that doesn't make them "contemptuous". Sure, maybe a break now and then from various activities can be good for all of us - but in the end, if you stick with what you're good at - then it shouldn't be an ABF issue. — Ched :  ?  15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the deletion logs are incorrect. Autopopulated categories aren't attack pages any way you slice it. See my comment above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I recently had an image deleted, no warning, that was a drawing made by me in the public domain?? Bzuk (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Ched, do you honestly believe that's the issue here? I can understand somebody being pre-occupied and focussed in their work and I too have met my share of Geeks (scholars etc.) but civility and trust are very important in Wikipedia. A person merely busy now can choose to reply later. A person not very communicative can make a few terse statements. We are all used to that in Wikipedia, but refusing to pariticipate in a Wikipedia discussion to me shows either contempt for the policy structure of Wikipedia or towards its editor's. Wikishagnik (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fastily is clearly working too fast/carelessly. He recently deleted [[Multimedia University|a page] with over 1000 edits and 16k of text as a copyright violation because someone inserted 200 bytes which may have violated copyright. (I have removed them, but the first admin to review it thought it was reverse copying.) The page remained deleted nearly 2 months before someone requested restoration at WP:REFUND. Errors are bound to happen, but I don't see how an error like that can be made unless someone is either 1) automating deletion without evaluating merits or 2) going too fast to properly evaluate things.

Additionally, I have read over the previous ANI conversation and find the lack of communication quite disturbing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I just took a second to review Fastily's last 10 deletions and quickly found 2 errors - both Aztec Warriors and Rhetorical Strategies were deleted as A10, when they should not have been. At minimum, both are plausible search terms and Aztec Warriors arguably expands on the topic (albeit without references). To delete good faith contributions such as these is very BITEy IMO. (I have restored the articles and redirected, so anyone can review them for his or herself.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the review to the last 34 deletions (six pages) from article space, I found:

• The X-101st deleted under A1 when it had sufficient context (doesn't fit any speedy criteria, but not restored because its clearly not notable)
• Prince Tupouto'a Tungi a redirect that had existed since 2006 and is clearly valid, but pointed to bad location b/c of a bot fixing a double redirect after a bad page move. NOte:Fastily himself deleted the implausible title it was briefly pointing to and so in theory should have known the situation even w/o checking the article history. (restored)
• W. eugene smith fund deleted as G11, but not promotional and most likely notable (restored and moved to proper capitalization/name)
• The Voice - Britain's Favourite Black Newspaper deleted as G11, perhaps validly so. However, the content is clearly written by a fan, not a business person, and is a good faith attempt at writing at article, including references. (I have not restored because The Voice (newspaper) already exists and I don't want to clean up the language and merge myself. It does, however, have unique content)
• System 12 created by a (good faith but improper) page move to System 12 (disambiguation) and then G7'ed leaving the dab page impossible to find (move undone)
• April Masini deleted as G4. While the article was deleted after AfD in the fall, G4 doesn't really apply as the content is completely different, with many references added. (I have held off on restoring for now. Restored upon request of article re-writer.)

I should note that the vast majority of Fastily's deletions are files w/insufficient source info or unused non-free images and thus are probably fine. (Although I think it is clear he doesn't check and just deletes are such pictures that has passed the "expiration" date.) However, 8/34 is a ridiculous high error rate for article space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Fastily has announced a Wikibreak saying he is burnt out. Hopefully after some time off, he'll come back more focused and make fewer errors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• COMMENT WE JUST HAD A MONTHLONG DISCUSSION OF HIS DELETION ACTIVITIES, with the strong suggestion by several editors of taking action against him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Recall that this was mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-20/Discussion report regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#WP:TFD_deletions_by_admin_User:Fastily.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Badmachine Blocked

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

---

I blocked Badmachine (talk · contribs) for a week for obvious trolling and bating of Night Ranger (talk · contribs). Badmachine's trolling only made this situation worse. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why has Badmachine (talk · contribs) been blocked here? I see "Obvious trolling and bating" (sic) in the block log but, given that Badmachine hasn't edited in some days now, it's clear that this block was entirely punitive and serves no purpose at this point. He's a long-term constructive editor in good standing here and his only failing appears to have been having penis pics on his talk page. Something which, as I pointed out on his talk page, shows the rank hypocrisy of WP, given the current state of Wikimedia Commons. Seriously - this block achieved nothing here, other than blocking a constructive editor - Alison ^❤ 05:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Badmachine has commented on his talk page and is understandably confused about the block. Frankly, so am I. I've unblocked him now, for the reasons stated here. I'm not going to wheel-war on this, so feel free to reinstate if you must, but this block is totally uncalled-for here - Alison ^❤ 05:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I replied to Alison on my talk page because I saw her note there first. It is nice to know that encouraging people to sock is OK these days. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And I've replied there. Also, BTW, I was asked by another admin to run a check on NR and, other than the one POINTy sock, there are no others. Given BM had stopped editing days ago and had already disconnected prior to this, I utterly fail to see what your block was to achieve here other than being punitive - Alison ^❤ 06:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In the diff linked I see no encouragement to sock, rather, the opposite unless I'm misunderstanding something. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• i did not encourage NR to sock. -badmachine 06:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

From the comments on NR's talk page it looks to me like Badmachine encouraged NR to NOT sock. This was a bad block and deserves a trout. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Alison. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Another issue to deal with again

Resolved

 – Both feuders blocked 2 days; I suggest blocks escalate rapidly if this problem resumes upon expiration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This time, things have gone out of hand again. I didn't know that under an interaction ban, you weren't allowed to revert another editors edit's if there's an interaction ban between the both of you. I'm now getting tired of this. This issue between me and Dave1185 will never seem to stop. First this editor threatens me to report me to ANI [6], then proceeds with an outburst over something incorrect I've done and at the same time accusing me of violating numerous things.[7] Please note that I only recently contacted an interest in Aircraft, hence my edit to the Northrop F-5 Article, and not knowing that you weren't allowed to revert someone else's edits when you are with an interaction ban with them. Point taken, and I don't need to say sorry, since we are all on the learning curve, just like I am with some other editors and some admins. As a result of this, I hereby propose of an indefinite interaction ban between me and Dave 1185 if our differences continue to clash and us hurling vulgarity and throwing silly arguments worth no value. If there's another issue, please note it. Thank you. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a positive reading of things: Abhijay acquires an interest in a big and mean fighter plane, reverts Dave's edits while his mind was elsewhere. Dave responds, to which Abhijay responds, etc. etc. I propose that Abhijay accidentally reverted Dave, that Dave hastily warned Abhijay, that the escalating responses were typed overzealously on both sides, and that apologies from both sides, in as few words as possible, here in this ANI thread, will settle the thing. And we can all move along, and no one will get blocked, and etc etc. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) There's already an interaction ban; it doesn't need to be extended, it needs to be followed. It appears you're clear on reverting now. That said, if Dave1185 continues with this ridiculous, over-the-top, almost cartoon-like aggression, I'll block him from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  p.s. I've notified Dave1185. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, I think you should just proceed with a block/indefinite block. Given the ongoing problems with Dave's maturity, he's just here to screw around, just like what happened with Spongefrog. Why should we trust an editor such as Dave who with such insolence attacks anyone for making a gentle and small error. I would have to be a complete idiot to not realize if I couldn't see I did something wrong, and yet Dave1185 feigns innocence while at the same proceeding with threats and other things. His comic-like attitude is very disturbing and has even over-reacted to other editors such as Kober when Kober spoke in Georgian. But lets put that to one side. I think a block is suitable for Dave because he's just screwing around, his maturity is a major issue and behaves the same way with other editors (including myself). Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Smell blood, huh Abhijay? Your thoughtless edit started this latest round of The Dumbest Feud In The World^(TM), so now's not a good time to try your luck at Admin Roulette. That's the last time you get to suggest a block of Dave1185, is that understood? I wish I had a dollar for every minute of other people's time you two have wasted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, absolutely, Floquenbeam is right: were I to have made an obvious blunder such as revert an edit of an editor with whom I was under an interaction ban (what exactly would that encompass aside from a ban on all interaction?), I figure my best bet would be a meek and 'umble apology, followed by slinking off for a week until the dust settled. It would not be to follow up with an exhortation to block the guy. Think of this as an analogous situation to WP:AUTO - if his current behavior is egregious enough to warrant a block, no doubt some admin will notice without your assistance. Ravenswing 05:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  In the mean time, I'll go and mind with my own business elsewhere. I will stay away from Dave1185 at the moment, and I guess it's now an admin business to take look into the uncivility he's been hurling. Floquenbeam, you carry on with whatever is it you need to do with Dave1185. Now that this matter is now in admin hands, I will not want my entire day to be ruined just because of an editor. Thank you Ravenswing, and other admins present here for your points presented, I hope this will be dealt without my points. In the mean time, I would like to retierate that it was only one gentle error made and it's been realised and dealt with. I want to say sorry for ruining your 'meals' today because of this, and I don't want to upset you guys over this, and neither do I want to ruin mine because of Dave1185. Have a nice day. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 07:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  On another note of Dave1185's cartoon-like behavior, take a look at this: [8]. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijay (talk • contribs)

  I've blocked Dave1185 for 2 days for that gem. Gloating will result in a symmetrical block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  ...aaaand I've blocked Abhijay for 2 days for gloating on Dave's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know the backstory between Dave and Abhijay (I've only had positive interactions with Dave in the past), but in my experience Abhijay has a knack of escalating minor issues into major grudges — see [9] and Wikipedia_talk:ITN#Over-nominating.3F. He claims to 'learn from it' when his mistakes are pointed out, but never seems to. I seriously believe we are dealing with a competence issue and I think we need to consider mentorship for Abhijay. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Block Review Request

[10] Dave has published a fullsome apology, like the commentator above I've only ever had positive interactions with Dave and can only see his outburst as out of character. WP:NPA doesn't require suspension of disbelief and from what I see of Abhijay's interactions with Dave eg [11] as trolling. In contrast, Dave started out with a more than polite message [12]. Whilst the admin who declined the block gives a good reason, cooling off, Dave already appears to have done so - hence the apology. Concerned that the block is now punitive rather than preventative. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the block is now moot, as Abhijay has indicated on his talk page he has retired. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is quite as one-sided as that, as both were being childish and insulting with each other despite being under an interaction ban - and I've seen Abhijay generally being very positive too. Also, I didn't actually decline their two unblock requests for "cooling off". I thought the two of them needed their full time on the naughty step to properly feel what it is like to be forced away from each other, and so minimize the possibility of their breaking their interaction ban again once their blocks were lifted (and it was in keeping with the blocking admin's suggestion on Abhijay's Talk page). But there's only a couple of hours to go now, and if anyone wishes to unblock early, that would be fine with me - I'd just ask they they unblock both editors at the same time (saying "retired" doesn't necessarily mean anything - teenagers get angry like that all the time). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all I would like to apologise to Boing! as I failed to give him notice on his talk page that I was posting here. I was about to correct that when I noticed he'd replied here. Secondly, whilst Dave has apologised and is thinking of taking a break, Abhijay hasn't responded in anywhere near as mature a manner eg [13] fuck this, i'm now going to retire forever.. Lets not forget Abhijay violated the 1 month interaction ban the second it expired. The reason for Dave's block is no longer valid and so I'd ask his block be lifted. I'm not 100% sure about the other party but happy to leave it to others judgement. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries - since I reviewed their unblock requests, I've had this page watchlisted :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Any admin who thinks we're better off unblocking now can do so without my approval, and without needing lots of discussion here first; I'm not precious about blocks I make, and my judgement certainly isn't perfect. FWIW, my opinion is that we might be better off having both blocks remain in force until they expire, mostly for the reason BsZ gives above. I don't interpret Dave's unblock request as optimistically as WCM.

  Regardless of whether the blocks are undone, or expire, I suppose if neither editor is going to see the light, then a full-blown, strictly-interpreted, zero-tolerance interaction ban should remain in place forever. But I note both editors have had similar problems with other editors (just not nearly to this magnitude), and allowing the blocks to expire might send a message that we're serious about further similar behavior with other editors not being tolerated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  p.s. note that the blocks were for 48 hours, so we're not a couple of hours away from expiration, we're one day away, in case that makes a difference. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an optimist, I'm a stubborn, curmudgeonly old cynic. The one thing I do know about Dave is he keeps his word, if he's apologised he meant it. He's not the type to weasel out of anything with a faked apology. The interaction ban is a good idea, however, you miss the point that the first thing Abhijay did when the last one expired was to violate it. I don't think continuing with the block is serving the community and if its violated again the blocks will be longer next time. Hence, I don't see the current block as anything other than punitive at this point; if anything the message is that a sincere apology is a waste of time. Do we really want to send that message? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(Oh yes, there's another day to go - I had it in my mind that it was the 19th today -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

Abhijay still commenting on Dave in violation of IBAN during block

[14] One would think that while blocked for an interaction ban violation, he wouldn't even dare to mention the person he's under an interaction ban with. But apparently not... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Abhijay's ability to edit his talk page for the duration of the block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. Concur. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that kinda validate my point that Dave didn't appear to be the principle aggressor here and given he's apologised and made an undertaking not to repeat, doesn't his block now appear punitive? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dave regards me as kind of an unofficial mentor or role model. (I'll pause here to let the snickering subside) ... I don't think ethnic labeling of other users is a wise thing to be doing, unless they bring it on themselves somehow. We disagree on other things as well. But I think it's fair to say that neither of us "suffers fools gladly." And we're both aware that we sometime step over the civility line, and pay the price for it, and pledge to do better. But we're not perfect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Will Dave tone it down? Is he aware of the boundaries of individual expression (let's call it that) in this place? I think I've seen good work from him, and I was surprised at the lengthy dramahtribes. If he doesn't see what was wrong with his warnings and reports, he's in for more trouble. Thanks Bugs, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You may find his comments on the matter this morning to be of some interest. He said his own wife told him he went overboard. I'm guessing that opinion trumps any opinions here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy's uncollaborative behavior

• Radiopathy (talk · contribs)
• Red Hot Chili Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is locus of dispute.

Radiopathy's behavior recently has been quite bothersome. The following problems need to be addressed. I first tried to handle this without bringing it to others, but he didn't wish to engage constructively, so I am seeking advise on how to handle this. The following problems are happening:

• personal attacks: Calls me "ignorant" [15] and an "idiot" [16].

• Refuses to use sources to back up his preferred version of an article, ignores sources when he is provided with them: (see discussion at links above)

• Changes comments of other people to give them new meaning: [17]

What is most problematic is the refusal of this user to abide by both established policy like WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS and refusal to provide any evidence or sources that his preffered use of language in an article is correct. When faced with source material to back up something, he insults me and then refuses to provide his own. I am fully willing to consider sources provided by him, but his stance appears be that he doesn't have to provide any. I am concerned with how to handle his beligerant and uncooperative behavior here. I am looking for opinions on what needs to happen here. --Jayron32 17:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• 3+ years experience and over 12,000 edits = this editor should know better. I left a link to WP:NPA on his talk to review. Hopefully it was just a matter of him having a bad day; but we'll see. — Ched :  ?  18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input, but the insults are of minor concern. The real concern here is his refusal to provide sources for his position, and his dismissal of sources others have provided. The issue is that he states his position on the matter is correct merely and only because he states that it is, and that sources others provide are irrelevent, because he says they are. This position is not compatible with Wikipedia's core values, for refusal to collaborate and for refusal to engage with source material in any way. Wikipedia articles are not written a certain way merely because Radiopathy states that they should be written that way. What I am looking for is outside input as to what should be done to handle his obstinancy in this matter. Calling me an idiot is of no great consequence. Refusal to accept Wikipedia's basic principles of how to solve disputes by using source texts is. --Jayron32 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The insults are symptomatic of the attitude, which is a tired "I've discussed this to death, and don't want to waste my time explaining this all over again to each successive new person that comes along.". I can understand such frustration. I can even understand the notion of using a singular verb for a proper noun that denotes one corporate entity. (It's a non-trivial linguistic point, that is subtler than the explanations that we are taught in primary school.) I can also sympathize with how badly such brush-offs are received, however. It's not good to be on the receiving end, and you have my sympathy. Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Radiopathy has engaged in similar uncooperative, beligerent behavior over the same subject at Eagles (band), disregarding sources provided to him and offering none to support his argument (see User talk:Piriczki#The Eagles). By the way, he was placed under an indefinite 0RR restriction here and I see no indication it was ever lifted. Piriczki (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Eagles discussion was one and one half years ago and the 0RR restriction went stale about a year ago. If you're going to try to divert the conversation, at least do a little research and try to stay current. Radiopathy •talk• 00:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• And continues to insist he's right over and over at Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Given the 0RR restriction and history of past problems of this exact type, is there any reason why, if he reverts again, he shouldn't be blocked? --Jayron32 18:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bzbzbzbzbzb

• Bzbzbzbzbzb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANotes&action=history

Someone please block this vandal and clean up the history of that redirect; it's fixed positioning vandalism re Jews and 9/11 and it click-hijacks all pages using the redirect. Alarbus (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Solipsism-blocked by 28bytes; that edit he made will likely be revdel'd soon. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and history deleted, but that should really get fixed in the edit filter. Thanks for letting us know about this Alarbus. 28bytes (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought this was fixed in the edit filter a few weeks back by Anomie. CU the account and your prior blockee. Alarbus (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I made the filter, but somehow code is being inserted into the edit that evaluates to nothing when the edit is parsed. Without access to the initially submitted wikicode (which is what the filter sees), I cannot block the edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You should have access to the wikicode, it's the rev-del'ed (but not oversighted) link in the template history Alarbus provided above. Just be careful and don't click anything if you don't want the target site to harvest your IP. 28bytes (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No. That is the final parsed wikicode, which does would trigger the edit filter if submitted in that form. For example, you can submit the wikicode {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} ~~~~, which the filter will check. However, you will actually see " Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)". Somehow, the code is being obfuscated, but I think I have blocked it for now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Handling this with edit filters seems like a crappy and unreliable stopgap measure. It really needs a server side fix. Is there a bugzilla ticket open? I sort of half remember one. Could someone either please find and add a note to it, or open a new one? 67.117.144.57 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit filter is server-side. I may apply for toolserver access to run a bot that will revert these in realtime, or I'll get Chris G to fire up the adminbot AntiAbuseBot again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, if this happens again, could somebody please let me know. I think I've tweaked the abuse filters to potentially stop this mess, but I'm not certain. (I'm taking potshots in the dark, here.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jouannet

Here is my notification regarding the spoiling-like edit of Thomas Jouannet (diffs:[18]), made by Bgwhite, Drmies, TenPoundHammer and other editors, notorious for their deletion activity.

They demonstratively deleted most of filmography related material and biographical details, also all the references, including the French ones, in obvious contradiction with other actors' pages. Also some similar practice on Alexandra Lamy' stub (diffs:[19]). Their "improvements", including deletion requests, were "firmly within policy".

The w-donors-IRS controversy will be debated externally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coagulans (talk • contribs) 10:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So, 3 long-time editors want something out, and 1 shorter-term one wants it in ... besides the fact that this is a content dispute that should follow WP:DR, have you read WP:CONSENSUS yet? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very good that they did so. The page was originally a cornucopia of BLP violations. Less importantly, it was an ugly, cluttered mess containing very poor English and even contained a Flash GIF, which made the entire article unreadable on iOS devices. This actor is not notable enough to have scurrilous gossip about his private life - and especially not his income!!! - bandered about on Wikipedia, even if said scurrilous gossip were sourced to reliable third parties, which this was NOT. Strongly suggest that User:Coagulans read WP:BLP and WP:MOS before editing again, because none of that was "firmly within policy". None of it. None. --NellieBly (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, not for fanpages: I have a very, very hard time believing that this would be an acceptable page on Wikipedia. --MuZemike 15:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good lord. If I knew the proper procedure for speedy deletion of templates, the one on that page would be up for nuking already as completely unnecessary and non-notable. Do we need a huge navbox template where there's only ONE bluelink in the entire box? rdfox 76 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• The real loss is this, File:Dunantanimation.gif, removed by some deletionist admin who had no feeling. The image received various interpretations on my talk page, which is indicative of the polyvalence of the work of art in question. BTW, I am perfectly happy to have the IRS monitor my activities and reprimand me for it, if that's in accordance with Wikipedia's laws and federal guidelines, or the other way around. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm really upset that the OP didn't mention my edits to the article and my comment on the talk page. What does one have to do to get attention these days? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Huh. I'd struck out the OP's hostile and soapboxy rant from the talk page, but I hadn't seen what the main page had looked like after the OP was done with his work. If ever we needed to amend WP:NOT to include "Wikipedia is not Tumblr," that would be the poster child for the change. Ravenswing 06:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think, after the second ANI post below, a block is necessary, as Coagulans is now simply not going to listen to or take advice from other editors, nor understand that Wikipedia is not a fanspace; WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comes into play. --MuZemike 13:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Jouannet

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

---

IRWolfie- tagged my notification on Talk:Thomas Jouannet as Personal attack, justified with a distorted summary of its content. Priorly, Ravenswing had tagged ("struck out") my notif as vandalism but then he overtly declared not having read the targeted article -spoiled by Drmies and Bgwhite (diffs:[20]) : "I hadn't seen what the main page had looked like ...". Finally, Edward321 tagged the spoiled article "likely to be deleted". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coagulans (talk • contribs) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

This is a bit creepy

A couple of days ago, User:Chiton magnificus misunderstood a comment I made to another editor and issued a misplaced warning [21]. This included a comment that I was being talked about in other forums as being a "hardcore falklander" or "British agent". I have asked him to explain his comments twice [22] and [23] but he has declined. Whilst the misplaced warning is a stale issue, I remain rather creeped out that my editing is being discussed on these forums and editors here are participating. My editing does seem to have been targeted by sock and meat puppets of late eg User:Abenyosef and User:Gaba p. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm suprised that you are suprised. My own experience of you is that supplying references that disagree with your view can be a pretty unpleasant experience. Tom Pippens (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I couldn't recall any interaction with you and had to resort to Google to find it. Is this it? Please could you identify why you thought I was unpleasant to you? As to be honest I'm mystified why you thought I was unpleasant to you, or for that matter what point you were making. Do you think this justifies what is going on? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The same thing happens to me. I forget about some users who, for whatever reason, remember me for a long time. Back on topic, I have a similar experience with users from a certain nationality. I doubt anything can be done here to actually help you out, but I'd recommend you to avoid placing your exact location, date of birth, etc., with your real name and your account name (Don't use the name "wee curry monster" for anything outside Wikipedia). I've known Chiton for some time, and could probably vouch for him as a generally well-intentioned person and good contributor. However, given the existence of a forum, for all we know the other people could actually be dangerous. I did a research once on this topic (internet stalking), and found a series of sad cases where people seriously got hurt (needless to say, some ended up dead). The main problem was that people did not take it seriously; one feels protected by the computer screen. However, the internet nowadays is a dangerous tool for stalkers and people with bad intentions (anyone can see whatever you post on the internet; even the best of security programs can't stop the best hackers). So, just watch what you write about yourself in the internet. Hope this helps. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect "forums" is intended to mean it in the sense of "forums on Wikipedia" - not external sites. At least that is how the comment reads to me. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The forum I mentioned exists. I shouldnt surprise anybody that some contributors to wikipedia are discussed outside it (for example many users, including administrators use IRC to discuss some users). I would have known that WCM would react this way I would never have revealed the existense of such forum. It was a mistake.

For the sake of clarification I do not engage in such forums and do not support their use (or even visit) in any case. I believe they are contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. If WCM wants to explore the shadowy WP underground I can not help him. Chiton magnificus (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Chiton wrote:

• I do not engage in such forums and do not support their use (or even visit) in any case. (00:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC))
• as it has been speculated in some forums (00:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC))

Chiton, if you don't visit such forums, how can you know what they especulate?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with that reply, if you don't visit such forums, then how can you tell me what they contain? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Need administrative help

I know this may be a subject of dislike for most of the people. But I presume that someone may have some technical help for me.

I added some information regarding "Human's similarity to herbivores". Apparently, all my sources (mostly MD or PhD) amounted to a "vegan propaganda". I am not a Vegan. I'm really in support of truth. But simply claiming that my whole contribution is a "propaganda" is not likely an adequate reason for removal of the whole section.

My question is a fairly simple one, Is calling/labelling my edits as "propaganda" a sufficient ground for undoing all my changes(~16,503 bytes diff)? Visit this history page and the talk page.

Please do something soon. They are repeatedly deleting my additions. Without actually discussing it with me or providing any reliable source that claims anything contradictory regarding human anatomy. --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 15:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your problem here seems to be compound, but I suspect that the major part of it is the undue weight which your additions gave to that subject within the article on herbivores. Pesky (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

There are also no reliable sources for the contribution, just a webpage for a vegetarian organisation, earthsave.ca. User also engaged in a edit war, already violating the 3RR rule, and deleted my last comment in the talk page with a link to a debunk of Mr. Mills article (by a vegan even) http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-humans-omnivores.html--Mihaiam (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pop-up shows only 396 edits, though, so some unfamiliarity with the way we do things here is to be expected. A bit of kind mentoring is probably the best way to go. Pesky (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I did post a message on User:Mrt3366 talk page. Looks like it was deleted as "removing needless messages" without self-reverting.--Mihaiam (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've posted the welcome-with-huge-links-list there; hopefully this editor ca\n get something useful out of it. Also a link to adoption for consideration. Pesky (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

... aaaand it's all just been summarily deleted! So much for trying to help! Mind you, the editor opens their talk page with "Try not to write anything on this page unless you're absolutely sure that bringing your thoughts to my knowledge is a necessity for me. I am trying to keep it empty (mostly)," so maybe we shouldn't be surprised. Not very open to communication. Pesky (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it highly ironic that they refer to articles they edit as "my articles" and then goes on to link to WP:OWN. Blackmane (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Their user page creeped me out a little too. At the bottom is says something like "This editor has been informed of your visit". I left with the strange feeling as if I had entered a place where I was not welcome, and that there may be consequences if I do it again. Overall the atmosphere at his user page and talk page do not appear to be conducive to working productively within a collaborative project. Racerx11 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the irony of "my articles" in such close conjunction with WP:OWN. And the generally unwelcoming atmosphere. BUT' ... the editor is still a relative newbie, and obviously isn't very comfortable with social / sociable interactions. This may change; I don't think we can just write them off. Mrt3366/DrYouMe, if you're reading, you're more than welcome to wander over to my talk page and just lurk if you like, or join in if you like. We're a slightly unusual bunch over my way (I'm a HFA myself), but we're not a bad lot, and between us we have years of experience and a huge range of skills and interests. Pesky (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure--but Pesky, you're a crumpet. You could get away with murder. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

[Pesky subjects Drmies to forcibly-applied granny-hugz and skips off, cackling merrily ...] Pesky (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like he got a sockpuppet, User:Topy1991, to reinstate his change to Herbivore page, without even bothering to comment on the talk page. I cannot reverse it due to 3RR. Some administrative action may be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiam (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Pesky (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

@Pesky

I am sorry for my delayed reply. I'm not so sociable person, I confess. As you can see here, I have changed my talk page notice. But, try to understand that I don't hate anybody.

And also I think I should clarify that User:Topy1991 is not my sock although you may not choose to believe me. On the contrary it's my speculation that Mihaiam is probably a sock. --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've warned the OP. I was particularly unimpressed by this. Continuation will result in a block. --John (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

@john

You didn't use the word "unimpressed", you rather dismissively described my action as "nonsense", but I am not demanding your apology or non-apology (seeing that you're not a very eloquent speaker, are you John?). Nevertheless, I don't like that word nor do I like people being rude to me.

Swaggering, abrasive and impolite administrators like you (not referring to anybody else!) are the main reason I'm not interested in discussing in the first place. You should change your attitude towards others in real life. Otherwise, some people may will retaliate in their own way, and you may not like that too much. In the end, I'd like to say that I hope as you grow older you'll realise certain things that you don't know now. --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

---

@Mihaiam

"There are also no reliable sources for the contribution" —and you're the arbitrator? By unreliable sources mean "vegetarian organisation" and vegetarian nutritionists and doctors of medicine like Milton Mills, William C. Roberts, John A. McDougall? Then you go on calling me a "propagandist"? Well give me one scientific report that says humans are anatomically optimized to eat raw meat or at least a source that says humans are anatomically optimized to process cooked meat without aggravating any serious health-issues (see this)? And exactly what scientific data did Mills provide that is scientifically erroneous?

Like what is the acidity of human-stomach when food is inside stomach? and then you tout "veganskeptic.blogspot" as a reliable source for high-level scientific knowledge? Isn't it a tad silly to compare a Nutritionist who has been backed by the claims of other MDs and has a doctoral degree, to a random blogger? Where is the scientific journal that says humans are not herbivores? But when it comes to question your meat-eating ways, you cling to a random person as opposed to a slew of MDs who are cogently saying that the practice of eating meat is "unhealthy", "unneeded" and "unethical" (or something of that sort). Meat-eating is at best utterly redundant.

I repeat, please show some credible scientific analysis of Human anatomy that firmly proves humans are purely naturally omnivorous (i.e. able to digest raw meat, or if not raw meat then any meat with good health), that's all it'll to convince me. I may be fully wrong, I'm at least open to that possibility, but are you? I want what's best for me. I occasionally like stew myself. :D

--DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please review my multiple contributions in biology-related articles

[New thread opened by DrYouMe ^(Talk?) further down on this page -- moving it here for sanity's sake. BTW I notice that behind the signature DrYouMe is the actual username Mrt3366.]

I need someone who could review my reverted contributions.

Mihaiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) —this user has been stalking me and reverting all my comparatively larger edits without providing enough reason. One example, just because one of my sentences contained one slightest (but I'm not too sure if it was incorrect at all) scientific inaccuracy he rashly reverted the whole edit when he could have enriched the article by simply correcting the inaccuracy with good sources.

I sincerely think he is starting multiple edit wars at once. He thinks just because I don't have many administrator friends he could revert my changes. His primary claim is that none of my sources are reliable but his/her sources are. Just look at his contributions. His contributions are mostly deletions of the edits he doesn't like. Also his activity is mysteriously sporadic. He might as well be a sock (he also claims that whoever supports my position is my sockpuppet). I'm really discouraged by this sort of behaviour. Please someone help me. :) --"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have examined the editing history here. In my view Mrt3366 (aka DrYouMe) does not understand proper editing procedures, does not understand the reputable literature on this topic, and is being continually and unacceptably disruptive. I see no serious problems with the editing by Mihaiam. Looie496 (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay Looie496, if you think that you're equipped with the knowledge to judge me then fine. I will refrain from editing for a while. And probably, I won't edit those pages again. I see you wrote, "I see no serious problems with the editing by Mihaiam." ha!! WOW! --"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 05:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I reached out to the editor here. I hope it works. --Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you laser brain for all you have done for me. I am taking your advice. --"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 05:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... it's getting a bit hard to assume good faith here.[24] - SummerPhD (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked User:Mrt3366 for this; coming on top of a number of personal attacks, forum shopping and ownership issues, and my previous warning, I thought it best. Please review the block and consider reaching out to this editor as LB has done when they return. I do see they have contributions to make but they cannot go around threatening and insulting people they disagree with. --John (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good block John. The abuse has a kind of similar feel - things like the rant about administrators, the term 'administrator friends' ... Suggests this is not a new editor. I'll try to recall who - I suspect it's someone I've blocked before in one guise. If anyone else has an idea, please chip in - my memory is like a lumber room.... (now where have I heard that before) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This doesn't look like a promising response from Mrt3366.[25] Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Baseless accusations by HudsonBreeze

HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is accusing me of canvassing [26][27] Grandiose (talk · contribs), and BoogaLouie (talk · contribs) to gain support in an RfC on Talk:Sri Lanka. I can guarantee that I have never communicated with these editors prior to the RfC and they too have rejected the accusations. He has not provided any evidence to support his claims. These baseless and continuous accusations has made it literally impossible to proceed with a discussion to resolve the dispute regarding the Sri Lanka article. It has been fully protected for the 7th time within 8 months! Worst part is that the issue which paved the way for an RfC, is not regarding a controversial historical fact, but on a structural matter. HudsonBreeze is accusing the non-involved editors who have bothered to comment are ignorant of complex geo-political issues, whereas RfC is asking something completely different; more of a common sense problem. I previously warned him of lack of good-faith dealing with issues on Talk:Sri Lanka, only to receive more accusations in return. As his comments suggest, the user has strong political convictions, and is not ready to tolerate any opposing views. I believe that without administrator involvement, we are not going to see an end to this problem. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What sort of administrative involvement are you asking for? A warning? Block? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

His whirlpool of accusations has made it impossible to deal in good faith to obtain a stable version of this article. He says he is 100% certain that these editors have been canvassed, and flatly rejects their opinions. I'm not sure what is the administrative procedure with SPAs like this. Whatever the action taken, it must ensure that this level 4-vital country article is not held hostage due to accusations of a single editor. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 04:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you expecting Admin involvement? I accused you, even from the very beginning you are trying to be a mouthpiece of so called non-involved editors and trying to protect them. So there is a possibility you might have invited them to comment and then to capitalize those comments. I asked one of those non-involved editors, whether he participated in any other RfCs before he commented on Sri Lanka RfC, and the answer is something else that he or she is with 10, 000 edits on Wikipedia. And then he is coming out that there is currently a RfC on Talk:Northern Ireland and he or she has commented there rather answering to my question. And that creates me to believe he or she might have been canvassed most probably by you on a Structural issue of a deadly Civil War which was waged by the Sri Lankan Government in the last phase with a "War without Witness" with 40, 000 killings of ethnic Tamil minority by 99.9% Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan Army under the pretext of a "Humanitarian Rescue Mission" against LTTE which waged a war for last 30 years with the prime objective for an independent homeland for the minority Tamils.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. More accusations! You accused me of being a mouthpiece of the "so-called" non-involved editors regarding this comment. But what I said there was that your reply to Grandiose was too hostile, thus inappropriate. Now, is that being someone's mouthpiece? You say you accuse me of bringing these editors to this RfC. If so, why not provide some evidence, without coming up with more speculations, to support your view? I must be asking this for the 5th time now. Your excessive commentary about political issues is irrelevant. Please focus on what we are discussing here. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 18:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, as I see it, a few things need to happen. Firstly, AstronomyInertia, try not to let yourself be wound up on ANI. Bringing the case here should allow the facts to speak for themselves. Secondly, and rather more importantly, it's clear that HudsonBreeze still believes that the opinions of me, ChipmunkDavis, and BoogaLouie have been formed on an inappropriate knowledge of the facts. HudsonBreeze has, in any case, reacted aggressively. From my perspective, I thought it was odd that my status/opinion was questioned, but I didn't mind; however, having explained my position, HudsonBreeze appears to have ramped up. This very much came across as failing to assume that I was acting in good faith. I can't speak for the others, but, if I had not thought that I knew enough to form an opinion, I would not have commented. I gave it some serious thought, identifying a mainly structural issue and put forward a reasonable response. Nothing about the other two opinions given appear to be any different: both suggested that the information itself was notable but gave balanced reasons.

Essentially this has been one big, annoying distraction. It comes across as, although I cannot yet go as far as Astronomy in saying, that HudsonBreeze has looked to downplay opinions contrary to his own by playing the man. He or she is more than welcome to constructively argue against any of the positions. Everyone provided reasons, so there's something to go on. I suggest that everything else is rapidly archived and either the points directly countered, or taken aboard. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

HudsonBreeze, a request for comment is a way for editors to solicit opinions from the Wikipedia community. RFCs are posted in a central location at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All, and editors are free to join these discussions if they wish. It is a way to attract new people to a discussion. Some of them will not have edited the article before. This is why people show up out of nowhere and comment on the question being posed in the RFC. The chances are really high, in my opinion, that Astronomyinertia did not canvass these editors; they just happened to notice the active RFC and decided to comment. -- Dianna (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(TALK) could have possibly canvased some editors (Arun1paladin (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)arun1paladin)

A SOLUTION: HudsonBreeze nor any of his followers have neither proved nor presented evidence that AstronomyInertia has canvassed users to support him. Those being accused of being canvassed have stated that they have entered the Rfc on their own will. Until HudsonBreeze does have evidence, I suggest everyone revert back to the discussion at hand concerning the structure of the article at Talk:Sri Lanka. This discussion and all subsequent discussions have been going on for long enough (six months+) and the article does not need to be held hostage, and peoples time wasted. As for the involvement of admins, I suggest they keep an eye on the discussion to see that the topic is not digressing back to these accusations, should they be, I suggest the admins enforce a warning and then a block on the user who brings up these accusations without proper evidence. This may seem harsh but I believe it is the only way to get this dispute sorted. As I said before this has been going on for long enough, and what we need is a solution not more problems and digressions.

I would like to see what the admins think, and I suggest we have a vote on this motion?--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day

On Patrick's Day, an IP pointed out that "Patty's Day" is not the correct spelling of the nickname Paddy's Day and requested that it be removed from the infobox as it causes some offence to people in Ireland. The IP was slapped down saying that this would be "censorship" but in fact it makes sense to try to explain this. It is easy to explain, because intervocalic /t/ and /d/ are reduced to an identical intervocalic alveolar-flapping in North American English. Since the status quo of the article was unacceptable, I attempted to write text about the situation. Oh no! I got accused of Original Research. Of course "common knowledge" is not OR, but you know how it goes. So a sentence, with a footnote, gets put into the lead, with a request to discuss the text on the Talk Page. The sort of edit I have made hundreds of times. Two editors, User:Murry1975 and User:Escape_Orbit, instead of discussing the text (as requested) just keep blanking it, and now the former has even thought it sensible to "warn" me about the 3RR on my own Talk Page, as though I were some sort of newbie. (I'm an admin on the Irish Wiki and have just been made admin in the Volapük Wiki). User:Murry1975 suggested I file an ANI, which is why I'm here, though I don't know whether it will do any good. This crap sure makes one despise the Wikipedia though. -- Evertype·✆ 14:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If your all of those things you should know better than edit warring a disputed addition into an article - No one cares who despises wikipedia - its irrelevant. As for the issue - all that paddys day and pattys day is just the beer drinking celebrations, the main focus of the article is on the religious festival, some people are also offended by the paddy expression and it is sometimes seen as an insult, and its better left out of the lede. - and the infobox.Youreallycan 15:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What? St. Patrick's Day is not all about drinking! It's about...well...let me get back to you after I finish this beer here. --MuZemike 15:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "Paddy" offends a very few people and only in the context of certain types of jokes or abuse. The term "Paddy's Day" offends no one in Ireland at all. And huge numbers of people are actually named Paddy. And nobody is agaist "Paddy's Day" appearing in either the infobox or the lead. The problem raised here is about the term "Patty's Day". And thanks for the levity, but I'd like this to be taken seriously. -- Evertype·✆ 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have a good Irish friend called Paddy, but I also have a couple more I Irish friends that find it offensive. - Paddy - offensive name for ...bigots ... - It doesn't belong in the lede like your desirous of. - Add a small paragraph in the body of the article. Youreallycan 15:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys havin' fun today? Joking aside, WP:BLUE is bieng misused, as it is making the direct connection between the American sounding of 'tt' and 'dd' and the usage of Patty's Day. The main point there is actually no proof that as pointed out, by certain editors, that it is a mistake that should be removed from the article, right now the weekend thats in it I can find a lot of sources stating Patty's day. We have discussed the text and it has previously been discussed User:Evertype has inserted hisown referene in the article not attributing it to a source and breached the 3RR. I am juggling a few things today and havent came across anything clear cut. The removal seems to be WP:CENSORship because of dislike of Patty, btw for the record I dont like it personally but unless I can show it doesnt belong I am not going to remove the thing. Murry1975 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no reliable sources for Patty's Day in the first few pages of a Google search. I do see a site devoted to making the Paddy/Patty distinction, so it's obviously out there, but IMO it doesn't need mentioning in the article itself. Not really an AN/I matter, but I understand you were asked to bring it here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim Patty is used widely in the North aAMerican media and some other global sources. @Strange Passerby, I dont think a block on anyone is merited other than Evertype, as the reverts I made were for lack of source which is allowed, I can not speak on behalf of Escape Orbit and I can not act for him either. Murry1975 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to cite some reliable sources for that. I see you saying that "I can find a lot of sources stating Patty's day" but I don't see any here, on the article or on a Google search for the same term. Even if there are some, to give it equal billing with other contractions such as "Paddys Day" would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you don't see Patty's Day in the results for a search for "Patty's Day" because your using google uk. I get lots of results when I search. --Onorem♠Dil 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm getting about twice as many results for "Patty's Day" as I am for "Paddy's Day" on both versions. I'm not saying they're all reliable sources...but evidence does appear to be there. --Onorem♠Dil 16:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

85+million [28] for Patty angainst 46+million [29] for Paddy. Murry1975 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont like Patty but its out there in abundance, I dont think it should be omitted or degraded without a resonable source. Thats the point of my reverts. Murry1975 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This an interesting interpretation of events by Evertype. Evertype has a theory about why some refer to "St Patty's Day" with a t, and not the "correct" (as Evertype has determined) St Paddy's Day. Evertype doesn't have any source for this theory, because Evertype came up with it as original research. After I removed Evertype's additions I requested that they were discussed, and that they were cited. Evertype responded by saying it wasn't original research, it shouldn't have been removed and reinserted it. I've tried to explain the the onus is on Evertype to support these additions, but am not getting very far. I don't believe anyone is edit warring, but it does need pointed out that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your ideas. A discussion is occurring on the talk page, but has reached a bit of an impasse. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• - User:Evertype is an admin on the Irish Wiki and have just been made admin in the Volapük Wiki with four reverts and he should be blocked for his edit warring - Youreallycan 15:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • All three of them deserve blocking for edit warring, really, imo. Evertype has clearly violated 3RR and arguably Murry1975 and Escape Orbit have teamed up to game 3RR too. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(Another) advocacy SPA at Aspartame controversy

Bigsam123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
A recent SPA at Talk:Aspartame controversy advocates for balancing of MEDRS with anything else. The editor started a section by accusing other editors of jail-worthy criminal behavior and continues personal attacks after being warned. The parenthetical "sorry but that really is the way it is" after calling the editors "publishers of lies" suggests the editor knowingly violates policy at this point.Novangelis (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, he says that Wikipedia is controlled by the aspartame industry. I think that's possible, don't you? I mean, that's what I would do if I had an unsafe product to foist on the public -- set up a free online encyclopedia with millions of articles in dozens of languages, then years later slip in an article steering attention away from my nasty wares. EEng (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, all I see on his talk page is a bunch of templates, and a welcome template that was added after he had been warned strongly 4 different times. He's only made 5 contribs, all to Talk:Aspartame controversy without changing the content. He *might* be a sock of a previous banned user (speculation only, based on his hitting the ground running after registering), but no one has offered up any evidence. Worth looking for though. He is a bit of a zealot when it comes to anti-aspertame, but I'm not seeing vandalism, just run of the mill fanboy rudeness, yet no one has approached him on his talk page. Might be a bit premature for blocking in my opinion, since he is trying to engage in conversation and change minds (quite rudely, yes), not force changes to the text of the articles. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Ratel is the user that immediately springs to mind. - Youreallycan 22:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some similarities, but I'm not an admin, so I don't have the same tools as you. Format and grammar are similar, but both styles are not particularly unique. Ratel never edited on anything aspartame related, but he seemed to like controversy. Too stale for a CU. Personally, I wouldn't file SPI with so little info. It still bugs me that no one has tried to just communicate with him outside of a template. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Correction. I'm old, but new to playing whack-a-mole with sockpuppets, so sorry for the confusion. One of Ratal's socks was very involved, [30]. And one of his socks edited [31] last month, so it isn't too stale for CU, if someone was inclined to go to SPI. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It was the TickleMeister account that started the chain of conspiracy accusations that have continued even since he stopped editing. That said, I don't believe that this is Ratel, and I'm not shy about filing SPI cases. (BTW, that edit was 13 months ago, not last month, so it is quite cold.) This is probably just another conspiracy theorist. The problem with conspiracy theorists is they disregard anyone who disagrees with them as part of the conspiracy they are fighting. I don't care if an account that has edited five times is blocked or not. Dozens have edited more times, then gone away. My goal is to break this pattern of accusing editors of being industry stooges/shills/conspirators that goes back to TickleMeister. If it can be done with a few advisories from uninvolved editors, great. Whatever methods are employed, I'd like to get it so that valid sources can be discussed civilly.Novangelis (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

dang it, you are correct, it was a year ago. This is what happens when I edit after working a 12 hour day. Still, it wasn't enough for me to file either. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It still saddens me that Ratel did bad things. Such a cool user name. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

TWO ARTICLES

Could anyone available please take a look at the two articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr._Stephan_Poen/Mariana_Nicolesco and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr._Stephan_Poen/Radu_Varia in order to make sure they comply with Wikipedia's rules. Thank you very much in advance, Dr. Stephan Poen ^Talk 23,12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hello Dr. Poen--these are living people and are covered by the biography of living people policies. This isn't really the forum for it: consider dropping a note at WP:BLPN. But at first glance I don't see any big problems (though they need copy editing and some work on the prose). But ask there, that's what it's for. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dr Poen has claimed to represent the two. I'm not sure if he actually does or not but I have been working with him on the articles. I've been very busy but it anyone can take a look at the articles and see if they're free of WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:BLPVs, that would be very helpful. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Taking into account canvassed comments

I have been involved in a recent move request (at Talk:Republic of China) where there has been widespread canvassing by one side of the debate leading to something like half of the people commenting on one side of the debate having been inappropriately canvassed (numerically something like 25-30 people in total).

In the discussion the closing admins want to count the comments of the inappropriately canvassed people with the same weight as other members of the community. As the people who conducted the canvassing weren't signed in while they did it there seems to be no possible way of preventing such actions happening in future by finding the people responsible for this disruption.

Before, certainly in this area, where canvassing and other similar disruption has occurred it has been taken into account (e.g. Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation)#Move_request) and I think the precedent these comments from the closing admins sets is that inappropriate canvassing is an effective way to get your message across in any controversial area of the project.

What do you guys think? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see why canvassing is frowned upon, especially since we're supposed to look at the quality of the arguments and not the !vote counts. So what if a good argument comes from someone who was canvassed "inappropriately" (whatever that is). Why does it matter who submitted the argument if it's the argument that matters?

As soon as you stop counting !votes and start evaluating arguments, much drama evaporates. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that in general evaluating arguments is a good way approach, and probably reduces drama in situations like this; however I don't think that eliminates the problem caused by canvassing - Wikipedia for better or for worse, has pretty liberal and laid back policies in many areas - this means that if one gets 20-30 extra people to comment on one side of a debate (as in this case) they are likely to win the given discussion on strength of argument in any case where the policy isn't clear cut (maybe or maybe not this case, but certainly this happens frequently). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing certainly harms debate. In addition to giving a false sense of numbers (which do enter into calculating consensus), the presence of lob-sided voting can discourage (seemly) minority opinions from voicing their arguments. (As noted indirectly by Eraserhead, except in the most obvious policy situation, strength of argument is going to be partially based on numbers unless you want the admin to just substitute their own belief about what is right. If both sides have policy partially on their side, it would be unreasonable to say one side "won" if it convinced only 2 people they were right while the other side convinced 10 people.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

All the sockpuppetry, canvassing, challenging of votes and challenging of challenges in this RM has produced such an unholy mess that the closing admins have no alternative but to evaluate the arguments rather than count votes. Which is great, though one can have too much of a good thing. Kanguole 00:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot continues task despite objections and without apparent consensus to support it

A bot is going around changing unformatted ISBNs to formatted ones (and sometimes vice versa). The task was approved over five years ago, but approval only shows technical correctness, not necessarily support from the community. After a long period (probably years), the bot recently restarted formatting ISBNs on 13 March (around this edit) and has since done this on thousands of pages. The bot owner has been asked by four people to stop doing this, starting by User:Eleassar and User:Robert.Allen on the 15th, by me on the 19th and by User:Noleander early today (because it made a FAC worse).

He has joined the discussion at Wikipedia talk:ISBN#Hyphenation: is it really meaningful? (a discussion which coincidentally started about an hour before the bot started this task), but hasn't stopped this task while the discussion is ongoing (e.g. [32][33]), or hasn't otherwise attempted to get or show any consensus for his changes. Since they are not urgent, and are clearly objected to, I would consider it normal procedure to stop doing this for now, but this is clearly not going to happen. The only other way to achieve this is to block the bot. Fram (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Meh; WP:ISBN says to do this; probably has for years. I do so as I go. Alarbus (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence that says to do this gets a "dubious - discuss" tag, and an accompanying discussion, and an hour later the bot restarts this task, after a long time not doing this (years?). The least it can do is wait for the discussion to finish before doing this, instead of going for the "fait accompli" with such an unlucky timing. Fram (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So anyone gets to call gridlock? It's an approved task, right? It's what isbn.org /says/ to do. It's a helpful bot. I saw the post by Noleander; it didn't make a FAC "worse" it was just against a personal preference. Alarbus (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So you call anything other than doing thousands of edits immediately when it has just come up for discussion "gridlock"? North8000 (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a stick in the spokes would be a better term. Alarbus (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion in the archives about this - dating back to at least 2009. General feeling seems to be that the policy, as worded, is fine - and that dashes are a good thing. So whilst that agreement could change, I don't see how the bot needs to stop unless there is overwhelming opposition. It's not an issue editors are likely to care much about, as evidenced by the low traffic to such discussions. Perhaps a full RFC with a notice on WP:CENT would be a good approach. I don't see any need for admin action here. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Amazing the things people find to argue about… Alarbus (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question What is the 'bot actually doing? I'd support a (correct) addition of the hyphens, but would strongly oppose auto-conversion of ISBN 10 to ISBN 13 for books that pre-date ISBN 13. If you're trying to search for old copies of books it's far easier to do this with an ISBN 10 than an ISBN 13 - very few book dealers can back-convert in their search engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Most seem to be correct hyphen additions, but there have also been cases of hyphen removal[34]. I don't think it converts 10 to 13 or vice versa. It also changes hyphenated ISBNs to other hyphenations[35], presumably from an incorrect one to a correct one. Fram (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

    The one with removed hyphens is an invalid ISBN; it's 11 digits. No link: ISBN 86844430009 — The changed ones in the other diff are correct fixes per http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp — Alarbus (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like useless bot noise, messing with existing ISBN's for cosmetic purposes (I recognize that it's in the rendered page, but still, unhyphenated ISBN's don't cause any problems requiring spewing all those edits that don't make any substantive improvements). Also, I don't see a 5 year old approval as meaningful if the bot has been inactive for the past several years. I'd support stopping it. Also, if the bot is reformatting invalid (11 digit) ISBN's, that sounds like a bug. 67.117.144.57 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This error has been copy-pasted all over the Balkan village articles. The correct ISBN for the above cite is ISBN 86-84433-00-9. We have 2,445 instances where it is incorrectly listed as 86-84443-00-09 and 667 where it is incorrectly listed as 86844430009. We also have 34 instances where the correct ISBN was used. Regarding the bot, I have no problem with the bot going around correctly formatting ISBNs; this is a task I routinely do manually on our better articles. For the majority of its edits, this is not the only task being performed by the bot. There is a script available at User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js which detects invalid ISBNs, among other functions.-- Dianna (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Block user:130.243.171.56

Please block User:130.243.171.56 for sexual content added to an article about a well-known woman, Petra Mede. --BIL (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the contributions have been rev-del'd, user warned, and has been gone for about 4 hours now. If the IP starts up again, report to the Administrator intervention against vandalism‎ page for immediate attention. Skier Dude (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Trademarkia

Trademarkia has been deleted three times (twice as a speedy and once at this AfD), and is back now. I suspect that this probably meets the criteria for Speedy G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion," but have no way of comparing it to the deleted content. Could someone with access to the deleted page check and let me know? I don't want to apply a spurious speedy. Thanks TJRC (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not substantially identical -- lots more references and information about the company. And the second speedy was a G7 -- the primary author of the current version meant to sandbox it first, but accidentally put it live, so they blanked it and it was G7ed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. TJRC (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible sock of Trumpkin

• Trumpkinius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This report is being made here as a Checkuser has certified that the technical data on Trumpkin (talk · contribs) is stale here. The evidence that Trumpkinius may be a sock of Trumpkin, which was presented as the SPI, is reproduced below:

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Please note: Trumpkinius used to be known as Reichsfürst.

• There is an obvious similarity in the usernames of the sockmaster and the suspected sock.
• Trumpkinius joined Wikipedia at 21:37 on 10 June 2011. This was just 3 days after Trumpkin was blocked for disruptive editing, including hoaxing, and sockmastery.
• While known as Reichsfürst, Trumpkinius applied for rollback rights under the name of Trumpkin here.
• Both Trumpkin (here) and Trumpkinius (here) allege a professional interest in history.
• Trumpkinius adds new photos to St John's Jerusalem here and here, after a certified sock of Trumpkin, Bobadillaman (talk · contribs) promised to upload better photos of the property here.
• Trumpkinius makes a bizarre accusation of harassment at my talk page here. It is in a similar tone, aggressive style, and content to allegations of harassment made by Trumpkin against Snowded (talk · contribs) here and Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs) here. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 16:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with article Hovergreen

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

---

I apologize if this is not the correct place for this topic. I was patrolling a few pages today and came across Hovergreen. I tagged the page with many applicable maintenance templates. I would normally just slap it with a db-G11 since its obvious promotional material and was written by a user I strongly suspect is the CEO of the company in question (robertbhart). Anyways, it also carries a template marking it as a mis-placed AfC. I was unable to move the page using the link and just wanted to see if someone more experienced could look at it and take the appropriate action. Thanks. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)\

Clear G11 and tagged accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Promotional editing going on

First off, Carmen Harra (author) should be speedily deleted, as it's a recreation of the repeatedly deleted Carmen Harra.

Second, I have to wonder what's up with Misty2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The articles he's written are consistently promotional in tone: Tony Cortes, Horacio Cambeiro, Anxo Lorenzo, Dominika Pštrosová, Pablo Contrisciani, Cecilia Lueza, Lorena Pinot, Patricia de Leon (actress), Desiree Ortíz, David Chacón Perez, Kike Posada, Julio "Jimmy" Ledezma, Kike San Martín. The last one seems to be an autobiography: clicking "Kike San Martin" here leads here. Also, note the existence of the Misty2010 account.

User notified here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC) I can not believe what Im reading! After many hours of job, someone is accusing me of doing something wrong. Those articles are not promotional: many hours of investigations leads to the articles. Is so easy to make false accusations. I'm going to support my job, and the hours that I put in something that is good in the spanish world. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty2011 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)