Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

"Keep local" files uploaded by retired editor

As Giano appears to have really retired this time, is it acceptable to remove the {{Keep local}} templates from the files he uploaded? This would apply to files uploaded by Giano, Giano II, and GiacomoReturned. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that Giano expressly asked others to look out for those images, so it's best to leave things as they are. Anyone who wants to copy them (as opposed to move them) to the Commons can do that, if it's not done already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag? What does retirement have to do with it? 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And is there a reason a notification of this discussion wasn't left on his page? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Notice posted. Nobody Ent 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As commons is out of the foundation stated project scope and apparently under the control of a really small clique of editors - we should stop moving any files there - and office action remove the ability to allow uploads to the commons and start keeping all files here so as to limit/totally remove any value commons has moving forward. - Youreallycan 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about the merits of Commons, merely what to do with these files. I don't think anyone's opinion (positive or negative) of Commons is welcome here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, no one gets to own a discussion here. YRC makes a valid point. The people who run commons are not to be trusted. But at present, it's general practice for those bots to move free photos to commons. Is there anything special about these particular photos, that they shouldn't be "shared"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of whether to move X from A to B logically would include the merits of B. Nobody Ent 23:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

His retirement (un-huh) doesn't change his edits. Among those was the insistence that those files be kept local. Lacking a good reason to change, they should be left as requested. Resolute 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The way things are done currently, there's no justification for "keep local", unless there's a question about whether they are free. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One justification I have heard mentioned is that Commons does not inform the original uploader when the files are nominated for deletion or other important changes are made to the files. There have been instances where uploaders that are not active on Commons have had their files deleted without them being informed, and some acrimony was the result. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Resolute here: the justification for keeping it locally is that's what the uploader requested. It's generally polite to respect the wishes of the uploader unless there's a compelling reason not to. I'm happy to have my free images moved to Commons but it'd be a bit rude for me to disregard the express wishes of someone who didn't want that. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, hold on thar, Baba Looey. Since when does the uploader of a photo get to "own" that photo here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say we were required to honor their wishes. Just that it would be courteous. 28bytes (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I really hate, and don't understand, everything about the way we handle "files", throughout the entire project. Not that this statement is particularly relevant here, but if youreallycan gets to rant then so do I!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• While this isn't entirely a rant, I can explain quite simply why Giano (in his various accounts) took to marking his images "keep local". Images that were uploaded to Commons mysteriously got deleted. Some got overwritten by people who uploaded a different (and usually inferior) image. Some got corrupted when there was a drive to change formats, thus adversely affecting featured content on this project. None of this was visible within this project, because it all happened at Commons. Some of the images (like floor plans) that he was revising or that were incomplete got uploaded and then deleted as being out of scope. I don't understand this kneejerk desire to strip this project of its contents just because there's something similar within the WMF umbrella. There are quite a few editors who would rather swim in boiling oil than have to log into Commons. Heck, this project downloads a copy of images from Commons when the image is going to appear on the main page - because Commons doesn't protect them adequately enough.

  This is an attempt to change the English Wikipedia policy on retention of images, done through the back door. Let's not establish a precedent that weakens the ability of this project to maintain its quality, directly or indirectly. Risker (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm less worried about mysterious deletions than I am about the active vendetta conducted by a couple of the porn hobbyists there against images uploaded by their critics. I opined in a deletion debate there a while back and first thing you know, lo and behold, the same day or the next a few old images I had uploaded were all of the sudden tagged up by one of the usual suspects there. It was a truly amazing coincidence. Since then, I'm using KEEP LOCAL on everything. Those people are out of control, in my opinion. Under no circumstances should anyone overrule the uploading editor's probably well-justified wishes regarding the keep local tag. Duplicate the piece for Commons if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What were the grounds for deletion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking back, I see it was one file deleted out on a template discrepancy; after being flagged I switched out one template for a more precise one ("PD-work of Soviet government," I recall) and Our Hero deleted it anyway, even though the template was absolutely valid. Other of my uploaded files were merely mentioned in a generally snarky and unspecific comment. It was 100% "payback"... Carrite (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: Main Page files that exist on Commons are usually protected by bot these days. {{Uploaded from Commons}} is only used in rare cases. —howcheng {chat} 17:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I never interacted with Giano much, but in general I'm not much in favor of messing around with someone else's files; especially when they're not around to address any questions. If it were a matter of improving an article - sure, but I can't fathom that en.wp is so depraved of disk space that there's a need to go about deleting things just for the fun of it. — Ched :  ?  11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I greatly disapprove of this Commons bashing. Anyway, the point here is that the uploader gets to choose whether to upload to Wikipedia or to Commons - except, that is, according to the WP:Image use policy, a gallery of indiscriminate images should be moved to Commons. These images are not AFAIK indiscriminate, so there is no mandate to move them to Commons. There's no prohibition on public domain images at WP. An editor can legitimately upload to both projects, thereby hedging their bets regarding which one will be more infected by deletionists in the future. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you study the way the Xandlerliptak case was handled, you will discover that commons has no ethical intregrity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Relevant notes: Users of an image are notified when it is up for deletion on Commons, by User:CommonsNotificationBot. Images are re-uploaded to En on request by User:Commons fair use upload bot as fair use candidates. Wikipedia has every opportunity to recover files that are deleted on Commons. I don't object to users uploading Commons-compatible files to enwiki if they find it more convenient or don't know any better, but trying to suppress a move just because Commons is better at detecting copyright violations is trying to do an end-run around the licensing resolution. Dcoetzee 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a really impressive misrepresentation of why {{keep local}} exists, which Risker summarizes accurately above. Personally, I have no problem with my images (over 400 of them now) being hosted at commons. But lets not pretend that there aren't very legitimate issues facing Commons which led to things like this. Besides, there is nothing preventing someone from copying such files to Commons, but the request that the local copy not be deleted in the process is fair and legitimate. Resolute 02:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If anyone can name one file deleted at Commons which is not a copyvio and was in use or would have been kept at enwp, I will undelete it myself. Such an outcome is unacceptable. If there is a personal vendetta going on, keep local is just avoiding the conflict so the same Commons users can go on to hurt others - it's not a solution. If visibility of changes are an issue, another bot can be set up to notify people about new versions. Keeping two versions of files will just end up doubling the work of anyone who wants to make updates to files or file description pages. Merging the divergent histories of thousands of file description pages is not my idea of fun. Dcoetzee 09:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Lets respect the wishes of the uploader unless there is a good reason not to --Guerillero | My Talk 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Frankly speaking, I do not see any problem here. An image CAN be uploaded to Commons and at the same time kept locally. This will protect it locally from possible improvement of the description which can be done on Commons but not seen here, but otherwise I see no problems (assuming the image itself is not problematic).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment First of all if users uploaded to Commons they would be notified if one of their files was changes. And you can even mark "E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed" on Commons so all uploaders have to do is to add the files they want to monitor to their watch list. You can add hundreds of files in a few seconds if you want so the argument "I do not get a notice if file is deleted or changed" is not valid. Just move all the files to Commons add the files to the watch list and then delete. Then you get a notice when your files are changed. It is easy and simple!

And why should uploads have a veto? If I create an article I can't add a "Keep your hands away from my article!"-template.

The problem with having the same file in two places (or more) is that if there is a copyright issue you risk that all versions of the file is deleted. I have found several files on lb-wiki and ms-wiki where the original file on en-wiki was deleted years ago as a copyvio. And if someone corrects the description it will not be visible everywhere. So you risk that someone reads an out dated and pehaps wrong description.

The only logic and wise thing to do is to move all free files to Commons and to make sure that there is enough editors on Commons to watch and "nurse" the files. --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• The two TfDs on the template - and the most recent was just last year - had strong consensus the template was valid and should stay. Its text "The uploader or another editor requests that the local copy of this file be kept." has already been tested by the community and found to be acceptable. It has no restriction on an image being available at Commons. The OP here gave no reason why the template ought to be removed or his wishes no longer respected, and I can see no reason to stop doing so even if the user has turned their back or simply left. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong concensus? Like a few hundred users saying "Keep it"? Or a handfull of users that do not like Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make false assumptions. I like Commons just fine, but believe we should respect the uploader's wishes unless there is a compelling reason not to. My question at the top of this thread – "Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag?" – remains unanswered. If there is a compelling reason to remove the tags for these particular images, please let me know, because I have not heard it, despite specifically asking. Again, please do not assume that everyone who respects uploaders' preferences has anything against Commons. 28bytes (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is this dicussion still ongoing? There are enaugh issues with commons to respect the wishes of the uploader. In this case our featured content should not be at the mercy of the throublemakers at commons. Agathoclea (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you remove "at Commons" and insert "from Germany", "from France", "from China" etc. you could probably be called a racist. I thought that the idea of wiki was to work together and improve and not spread hate... Please visit Commons and talk to some users. You would probably find out that not all users on Commons are dicks. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sure - and there are some fantastic contributors producing the finest work. But there is a hardcore set of editors that ruin it. In the case of the editor whose pcitures we talk about who had pictures used in featured content overwritten spoiling featured content. Also the reputation of commons is sullied by virtual exhibitionists who like flashing porn at every impossible corner. Agathoclea (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Overwriting files - with the exception of the uploader's consent - is generally against the policy of Commons and should be immediately reported.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the time, if you go looking for nudity or sexuality images, you will find them on Commons. Yes, you may even find them where you didn't expect them, because the images are correctly named and categorised to reflect their content. There is no conspiracy to "flash porn at every impossible corner", there is however a desire to not have things deleted simply because people don't like them. As for the overwriting files thing - yes, it happens occasionally, but if it weren't possible, surely that would mean all featured articles on en.wp should be fully protected, nay, globally locked to prevent ALL editing, including by admins. It's a wiki, sometimes you get vandalism, either intentional or unintentional. You revert it and get on with life. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone overwrite we can revert and we can protect the important files so that ip-users and brand new users can't edit them. We can even protect high-risk / high-use files so only admins can edit them. But we can't protect all files. Files on en-wiki are also vandalized and sometimes it take years to find out. That is how it is on a wiki. The best would be if 20, 200 or 2.000 good users would visit Commons more often and give a hand. And if you spot a problem feel free to make suggestions (blocks, protections edit filters ...). --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Keep local" is just a compromise to appease editors who complain when their images are moved to commons. If the editor is retired, the only reason for the template is moot, and the images should just be moved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons says "Do not transfer files when the uploader specifically requests that their files are not moved to Commons." What am I missing here? 28bytes (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't forbid that files are moved to Commons unless there is a copyright issue. You could equest that the local file is not deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC

Well, "moved" implies deletion here. "Copied" is fine, anyone has the right to copy any free images to Commons. (Although, of course, if anyone prefers their work not be hosted on Commons, it would be courteous to respect that preference.) 28bytes (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be the license violation. I prefer the my pictures should not be used commercially, however, I do not reasonably expect that anybody would respect this my wish since the license states otherwise. Though I personally would probably not copy a file on Commons if the file page here says that the uploader has a strong opinion on the matter, even if it is legally sound.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be the license violation? 28bytes (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To require that the file does not get uploaded on Commons. If the file has been uploaded anywhere under CC BY-SA and does not have issues, it can be uploaded on Commons irrespectively of what the uploader thinks about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Yes, requiring it is not permitted, although requesting it certainly is. I think your approach of choosing not to copy an image against the uploader's wishes is a very responsible one. 28bytes (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Resuming AuthorityTam ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#AuthorityTam Nobody Ent 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As anticipated, AuthorityTam waited for the dust to settle on this ANI, and has now resumed similar conduct.[1] (The addition in the section "RfC: Reinstatement in lead section" dishonestly quotes me; my response is here.) Now that he has resumed editing, AuthorityTam should provide a more appropriate response regarding his conduct, and the previous suggested courses of action should be further considered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This has shown a clear and on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in editing, especially in regards to several editors (Jeffro and BlackCab). As I predicted in the last, interminably long, but never-solved ANI incident, that the same case would be brought back again and again, once a month, until some sanctions are imposed. I have been involved in neither dispute, except for the ANI recaps. I therefore propose a one week block from editing Wikipedia for AuthorityTam, or a topic ban of a minimum 30 days' length from all articles even tangentially related to the Jehovah Witness religion for the same. Each incident in itself may not warrant a block, but, pursuant to "civil POV pushing" (an essay somewhere on here), all the shit together more than justifies one, as it establishes a pattern which the editor does knot seem to acknowledge is disruptive (that it is, is evidenced by being dragged to ANI ad nauseam). (Edit: this fits the very definition of a "preventative block", as it seems that this behaviour continues like the Energizer Bunny.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can not see the deal here. It is making a big case out of something that isn't. He quoted Jeffro, and wanted to use Jeffro's statement as a reason for editing the article. It could be stoped by reverting the edit, and make a ordinary discussion in the talk page, not reopening this case. I suggest to at least shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it. I am sure it will be more discussions regarded and including AutTam, but as I've stated before, the article need opinionholders challenging some of the existing one at the talk page, as it appears very few of the contributers can keep a completely neutral tone when it comes to the topic (even though, some of the users at least try). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no consensus on the last ANI and little contribution from the community at large -- just lots of squabbling amongst three editors (all of whom could improve the collegiality and civility of their interaction style). Block all 3, ban all 3, or block or ban none. Refer to WP:DR. Nobody Ent 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have previously tried simply reverting his irrelevant tendentious comments about other editors (namely, me) from user Talk. He restores them, and then complains even more. This behaviour was also mentioned at the previous ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, this is no closer to a resolution than when it started. I understand everyone has the right of reply, but you guys are just going in circles here, and making it extremely difficult for anyone outside the dispute to determine exactly what the "problem" is and what you want done about it. The admin action needed here at this point is for someone uninvolved to step in, hat most of the above, and try to keep the discussion focused. Or, even better, just close it as I don't see where any action is likely to be taken at this point. Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaand about 90% of the circular discussion has been archived, so thanks to whoever did that. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[non admin yawn] Again? - I don't watch the page, or any of those pages, but it has spilled over into non-JW topic areas before. As the last time it seems that the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors are as bad or worse than the one apparently pro-JW editor, as illustrated by the disproportionate amount of noise from the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors on the last attempt to get the pro-JW editor banned at ANI. This latest one simply has the pro-JW editor noting they tried to get him banned at ANI, and the anti-JW saying "Another lie" (¿En serio? Is that a WP:BOOMERANG I see?) If it's anything admin action shouldn't be one sided, it should be for all 3, e.g. JW-topic blocks for 1 month and warmly invite contributions to the wealth of non-JW articles on WP needing attention... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an "anti-JW" editor. I'm a "non-JW" editor; I don't consider their beliefs any more irrational that the beliefs of other religions. Aside from that, he did lie. When I said that no one had tried to have him banned, that was in fact the case. 3 days later, I did conditionally agree with a suggestion by another editor that if AuthorityTam is unable to modify his behaviour, a topic ban may be in order. AuthorityTam selectively quoted part of that statement, ignoring the order of events, to make it appear that I was 'trying to have him banned' and that I had previously lied about it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

With all the bad blood swirling around between a small group of editors, I don't see any hope for a resolution/reconciliation in that regard. The ultimate goal is the overall improvement of the JW articles, not the appeasement of certain editor's hurt egos. So I think the unfortunate result is that if you all want to continue editing the JW articles, then you're going to have to deal with each other, like it or not...or everyone is going to be looking at a topic ban in the future. Perhaps being able to provide evidence from this point forward that you did not further personalize the dispute may prevent that from happening if/when this is brought up at ANI again. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Within half an hour of AuthorityTam resuming editing (after an absence that coincided with the ANI while closer attention might be paid to his editing behaviour), he returned to the same petty retributive (and dishonest) behaviour as before. He's clearly not interested in 'playing nicely', and he simply ignored input from other editors at the previous ANI who confirmed that his behaviour is inappropriate.

It is not the case that only three editors complained in the previous ANI. Several editors agreed there are problems with AuthorityTam's behaviour, and an independent editor made several suggestions.

It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages. Other editors suggested that a topic ban may be in order, and I agree that may be suitable if he is otherwise unable to acknowledge his inappropriate behaviour and cease it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

[Jeffro77 notified me]As I have mentioned previously I couldn't still find what is so wrong with AuthorityTam's editing, other than shouting and crying for crucify him. In fact when I compared some edit history of all these three involved editors, ironically I found that AuthorityTam never used any of those type of harsh/debasing words that the other two editors used. So it seems to me that the main problem here is a long time discomfort towards AuthorityTam by the other two editors, because he have won/Wikipedia have won many of the debates involving the other two editors in those related talk pages. Also whenever these other editors express their discomfort in talk pages, AuthorityTam gives evidence of their own same mistake by posting back talk pages and then goes own silent. This may screw up the other two editors but in fact it gives the point that the accusing editors should try to improve first before accusing other. As some other editor suggested we need to shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it.--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'd be interested to see the diffs of the supposedly "harsh/debasing words" Fazilfazil (a pro-JW editor defending another pro-JW editor) is accusing me of. There is no particular 'discomfort' about AuthorityTam 'winning debates' about article content; no track record is kept of how many 'debates' AuthorityTam has 'won', but even if his views are accepted more frequently than those of others (though I'm not aware that's the case), it has nothing to do with the complaints raised here. I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs (this factor of bias is in fact the determining criteria for AuthorityTam's expressions of contempt). (Even at the previous ANI AuthorityTam again presented his specious 'evidence' [a claim based on an ambiguous edit from 7 years ago] that I'm a former member though he's been explicitly told I have no status with the organisation.) It is not the case that AuthorityTam merely defends himself at Talk rather than starting problems, such as he did with his oblique disingenuous claim that BlackCab's removal of content that violated WP:FORUM was in some way 'interesting'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to waste the time with digging out those words, I have posted some in the previous discussion. First of all although you frequently claim that you are not a former JWs, your style of editing appears to be those typical among self-claiming former Witnesses. Not only me, many other editors have expressed this implication. For one reason, it is very difficult for a common person to understand the deep teachings of JWs unless he have studied the basic Bible teachings with them. So my intuition is that you mostly use Watchtower library (for others sake: which contains all JWs publications in digital format) and come up either as a support to user:BlackCab's interpretations or being silent when he have an irrelevant point. It is not typical among an atheist to be only attacking on a particular religion. Since you and BlackCab are the frequent opposers towards AuthorityTam (in many cases I can see his arguments finally proves to be correct) it is of no wonder that he show other editors about former witness bias. Another thing is sometime you take silly things and explicitly claim that other editor lied (I believe even once towards me though I ignored it) but they might was never intended a lie. I don't want to involve in this discussion much since I feel its a waste of time and irritating. I would advice you to calm down and raise this issue if AuthorityTam showed obvious incivility towards you with a specific clear evidence. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

New user directed here re: sources for Traditional Britain Group

I write to formally complain about the activities of one particular editor who has deliberately and maliciously attacked this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Britain_Group and now seeks its removal. It is my firm belief that he has a very clear agenda, for whatever reason. His comments on my personal Talk Page are rude and arrogant and self-righteous. If this is the way you greet new users then you don't deserve them. TomTower (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: It was suggested this user post here on his User_talk:TomTower. LongTone does have an agenda; however it appears to be to maintain Wikipedia's longstanding but confusing inclusion standards. Contrary to LongTone's assertion on the talk page, he has been very mildy rude -- describing the newsletters as "completely ignored" is unwarranted. Nobody Ent 13:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You need to...

1. Actually tell us who you are complaining about.
2. Notify them of this report here. (See the orange banner when you edit that says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so"?)
3. Specifically identify this allegedly bad behavior. (See where it also says "Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors"?)

As an aside, I've had a look at your Talk page, and I see nothing remotely "rude and arrogant and self-righteous" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

He's a new user (unless SPI concludes otherwise). LongTone incorrectly said 'go complain here' with a link and he followed it, and banners are invisible. So now he gets bitched at. Nice. Nobody Ent 00:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Taking a look at the article history and talk page, it looks like both of you have been making good faith edits, even if you disagree on several points. The exchange on your talk page is a bit snippy for my tastes, but neither of you is outright attacking each other and certainly nothing I would want to see anyone blocked for at this point. The conversation seems to be on topic. The AFD has been opened, and he has been pretty forthright about his edits to the article. Wouldn't it be better if we all focused on the merits of the article there, instead of here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• And thank you Nobody Ent, for placing the ANI notice on TheLongTone's page, as TomTower failed to. TomTower, you are obligated to do this when talking about an editor, even if you don't mention their name. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, User:TheLongTone told him to come here after their exchange, and even provided a link. As a new user, would it make sense to notify the person who just told you to come here, despite what the orange banner says? I know that non-notification is a pet peeve of many (including myself) but in this case it really appears kind of bitey to harp on that, and Tom has had quite a bit of mild biting already in his first attempt here, being referred almost immediately to ANI after not understanding one of our more confusing policies, and having the page in question put up for AFD equally as quick. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 13:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if it looked like harping, my timing on edits made it so I didn't see Boing's point first, or I wouldn't have repeated it. I've struck mine as to not labor the point. Even though TheLongTone told him to come here, it was said in an off the cuff manner, and I wouldn't expect him to know that TomTower really was going to, so Boing's point still holds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It was just the repeating of Boing's point that made me cringe. Thanks for striking it :) Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 13:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have anything to say that isn't already on the complainant's talk page or the afd discussion, other than that I don't think its particularly rude to say that the press releases have been ignored, given that these people have had no press coverage., an I don't think the afd is bitey, since Tom Tower has had bag of time to address the issues with the article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the tone of Tom Tower's posts and his editing interests, in particular ones only relating to a certain British "politician" (and I use that term loosely) it looks like David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Sussexman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

On one hand I hope you're wrong, b/c I just went out of my way to defend/provide reassurance to what I believed to be a new user. On the other hand, I kind of hope you're right, b/c if not, then we can add a sockpuppet accusation to the list of things new user Tom has learned about today. :( Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm reviewing, but I will be the first to tell you that I'm not an expert at SPI. If someone smarter than I am feels there is a connection, then they should fill out an SPI. My spidey sense was tingling with the passive-aggressive nature of the initial report, but in the interest of good faith, I don't want to pick the person apart here without an SPI or clearer evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'll file an SPI later on, I'm more than familiar with this sockmaster due to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the OP (Tom) originally posted his complaint incorrectly to the end of the above discussion without a header. Other editors (myself included) corrected that for him. That's a pretty common newbie mistake, though I suppose it could also be a clever tactic by a sock (though one I have personally not seen used before). I have a feeling we might be chasing duck-snipes here. I'd really like to see this SPI expedited since the possibility exists that we could be dealing with a good faith new user. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 15:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Lauder. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• After digging around the IPs and previous cases, I am hearing a loud quacking sound as well. I've also said so at the SPI, which hasn't progressed yet. From the looks of TomTower's last edits, it would appear he has left us. Nice memory and catch 2K. I would bet money on this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So, a checkuser has apparently declined the case. I generally stay as far away from these things as possible, so could someone in the know explain to me, and more importantly, to User:TomTower, (in plain English please) what this means? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 18:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• The decline at SPI was a technical decline, due to the reluctance of CU to link names to IPs, and the previous name being too stale, so the refusal to act wasn't based on the merits. Additionally, my own (albeit inexperienced but detailed) look into the previous sockmaster's activity led me to believe that the claim had merit, and in fact, was possible if not probable. No admin has taken it upon themselves to block via WP:DUCK and the editor in question has already indicated in their contribs that they have no intention of staying at Wikipedia, which renders the situation moot at this stage. If the editor does come back and edits, then the edits can be examined and compared to make a case for blocking under WP:DUCK at that time, in a separate report. I recommend taking no action at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The SPI remains open; the CU simply declined to perform a technical check for reasons. One of two situations exists; either TomTower was a sock and we have somehow "protected" Wikipedia from something (not exactly clear to me what that is), or he was new user who has been found Wikipedia an unwelcoming environment. Would it really have cost very much to actively apply good faith in case the latter case is true? (In case it's not obvious, quack quacking a user is actually rude -- if there was a question, could no one have simply posted a polite query on their talk page if they had ever edited under another account?) Nobody Ent 19:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't tend to find socks of community banned editors answering "yes" to questions like that, to be fair.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I'm a little put off by the whole thing. I thought the point of AGF was to, well, do that. But as I said, I try to stay far away from SPI's and the like, so I'll AGF that I am missing something in the above case. No one seems particularly concerned that the user, new or or sock, is gone now anyway, so I will move on with my Wiki life, and most likely avoid involving myself in helping newbies in the future. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 22:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately (it seems to me) that ani admins deal with so many vandals and edit warriors and socks and just general jerks -- and the 10,000th editor who doesn't post the ani notice -- it's easy to lose track of what a horrible place this is to the non-wiki savvy. LongTone's suggestion TomTower post here was one of the worst things one could do to a new user (I'm not familar with LT so I have no reason to think it was done out of malice -- struck me as just frustration with a clueless newbie.) In self-honest hindsight, I fucked up, too -- I should have just iar reverted TT's post off of here and had a chat on their user page before the ANI feeding freenzy started. So while I share Quinn1's frustration I encourage them to redouble, not abandon, their efforts to help new users. (Understanding every once in a while we'll get "burned" by a clever sock -- but I'd rather waste time on ten trolls then let one new editor get chewed by the system.) Nobody Ent 22:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My quack didn't come until he made it clear that he wasn't editing here anymore. I'm not exactly known for being trigger happy with blocking or issuing sanctions. I didn't pass judgement lightly, and not before researching and comparing one hell of a lot of contribs and logs, including his exit, the methods used when starting the ANI, perfectly pocketed edits with the named and IP accounts (which match the geo location of the puppetmaster, btw), starting the article near complete with proper wikicode, and the hit and run nature of the ANI itself, with no replies to legitimate questions by Boing. You might not be looking close enough at the little tell-tale details to get the full picture. Any one or two, or three alone is insufficient but adding so many together (along with 2k's personal experience and the sock data) paints a fairly vivid picture. Additionally, comparing he or I to "ani admins" in a generic fashion is simply stereotyping and not particularly helpful. If you want to comment or question any action I made, I will always answer them, but I would ask you be more specific in your claims so that they could fairly addressed. I would suggest reading through the previous sock investigations, comparing IP addresses, tone and timing of contribs and the same data that is available to all of before judging, however, so you can judge my actions based on the same data I used. I'm always open to constructive criticisms, but less so to sweeping generalizations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Given you're not an SPI expert, why not simply file a SPI? No discussion of quacking required.

If the editor had, in fact, stopped editing, why not simply put a close tag on the discussion? (Not every editor who declares they're leaving ends up staying away -- no need to take additional actions to ensure that result). Nobody Ent 02:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I read most of Long Tone's comments on the AfD and the OP's talkpage and found them civilised and to the point. Not even snippy. Greglocock (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider it good advice to refer a new user to ANI in a circumstance when clearly no admin action was taken. Nobody Ent 02:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nobody Ent: I now realise I should have directed him to Wikiquette assistance. And , yes, I was simply frustrated because Tom Tower was refusing to address the real problems with tha article & treating it as an attack on him or the page.TheLongTone (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Incivility from Hearfourmewesique

Someone needs to inform User:Hearfourmewesique that edit summary comments like this violate WP:CIV. This comes on the heels of a number of similar comments that aren't exactly in the spirit of CIV, as when he reacted to my removal of material plagiarized from another website without compliance with that site's license by citing citing WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, and telling me that I should've paraphrased the material myself, even though I had already told him that I hadn't seen the episode. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much more concerned about the editor's understanding of copyright than I am about some prickly edit summaries. Nevertheless, that particular issue has been resolved (the material lifted from Wikia has been rewritten), so unless there's evidence that Hearfourmewesique makes a habit of this then this is basically just a case of two editors who don't get along (and, based on the ANI last week, are both partially to blame). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've simply had it with certain editors, some of whom are veteran and some of whom are even admins, that think that their job consists solely of sending other editors to "do their homework", forgetting that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I apologize for overstepping the WP:CIVIL boundaries, though.

• Side note: as noted on my talk page, I paraphrased the "lifted" text mainly by looking at it and using basic rewriting skills, something Nightscream could have done as well – the Wikia description is so detailed that it can suffice without having to watch the episode. Just more excuses, causing more frustration. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter whether Nightscream could have fixed it (and paraphrasing a huge chunk of someone else's text is not the easiest skill in the world, nor the most ethical in many cases). Editors should not be introducing text with permission / copyright problems in the first place, under any circumstances. While attracting and keeping contributors is vital, failing to respect copyright to the letter can kill the project and has to take precedence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So what is Wikipedia if not a collection of paraphrased chunks of other people's text? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of faulty geographical templates needing deletion and edits reverted

Maxtremus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has created hundreds of geographical templates based on Wikis and other non-reliable sources that are being spammed into too many articles for any one editor to revert, cleanup, remove and AFD. This editor is also removing data from articles to replace it with this new "default template" (which are not "defaults" at all, they were just created, and they aren't based on reliable sources). A massive revert, delete, and cleanup operation is needed-- I don't know where else to take this. Here are two samples only:

• {{Largest cities of New Mexico}} is sourced to a German site citypopulation.de, here is the contact page, which reveals it to be a personal website.
• {{Largest cities of Venezuela}} is sourced to Geonames.org, which is a Wiki, not a reliable source.

In multiple instances, Maxtremus has removed local and correctly cited data to replace it with these non-reliably sourced templates, hundreds of which need to be deleted, and these edits reverted. There are messages at Maxtremus's talk page about the non-reliable sources going back to April 8, so the continued insertion of these templates is disruptive. It has also resulted in at least one deletion discussion so far, {{Largest cities of Saint Lucia}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for any incovenience, i'm doing hundred of templates and i don't have enough time to search individually for each source in each official sensus in each country or state, even because i don't know all languages spoken in the countries. So I used a general source and anyone is free to modify to official sources in the templates. I'd like to, please, do not put the templates for deletion. Instead of it, try to search for more trustable sources. Thx. Maxtremus (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You used general non-reliable sources, and the problem is not only in the creation of and spamming of these templates into articles; it is that you are deleting reliably sourced information to replace it with these templates, and adding it to Featured Articles in ways that disrupt the flow and layout of articles. Have you created a single reliably sourced template? Having seen how many of these you have done and inserted, it's unclear to me that there is any way to repair the damage except via mass deletion and reversion. In many cases, the information is not only not reliable, but irrelevant (ten largest cities of Saint Lucia, indeed-- how about Aruba?) In Featured articles, text of this nature is covered in prose. I'm unaware of any article where these templates are useful, or correctly used. Open to ideas, but for now, I hope I've at least removed it from all featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely out of my element here, but I'd still like to put in my 2₵ worth. I noticed Maxtremus's template first at Illinois, and as I noted on the Saint Lucia deletion page, I do generally prefer prose, but at Illinois, Maxtremus's template replaced another table, providing the same information with an aesthetic improvement. I also agree (as I stated elsewhere) that it might be a bit unnecessary to have such a template for say, Nauru (cue the smiles), but for larger entities, many of which probably have home-made tables as Illinois had, perhaps this isn't such a bad thing. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously if the data Maxtremus is providing is inaccurate, I would not support what he is doing. But that simply means there are two issues here, the template itself, and the data. I rather like the template, which is what I have been defending. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I strongly disagree these templates are an "aesthetic improvement" (they aren't to any article I've seen-- they are disrupting prose, flow and layout, and in some cases, adding useless information). Second, even if they were an improvement, please review WP:RS-- every one of them I have checked is based on a Wiki or a personal website. Third, please moderate your tone in edit summaries, and review WP:3RR. If you had inquired on talk, you might have avoided the revert war and the insult via edit summary. Fourth, please see WP:V-- it's policy. Text must be verifiable to reliable sources. Finally, how are we going to cleanup this mess? We have perhaps hundreds of templates based on non-reliable sources added to as many articles. I've asked Maxtremus if he intends to clean up after himself; otherwise, I'd like to know if they can all be admin deleted, and I'd like to remind you both to review WP:OWN#Featured articles and gain consensus before dropping something like this into FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I ran into this today at Nevada. The template itself is problematic. It appears to require at least 10 entries, it does not appear to deal with cases in the US where a city is not part of any county, it may not correctly handle images for the first entry, does not allow for a title on the source link, poor documentation, no footer for comments, poor management of column widths and probably a lot more. So there is the issue of what to do with the template. The issues of sourcing can be fixed, and clearly replacing data which may be better sourced with potentially unreliable sources should end. So I suggest that Maxtremus abstain from adding this template to more articles until the issues raised here and elsewhere are resolved. In the meantime, Maxtremus can work on improving the template in case the consensus is that it is a good tool to keep in the toolkit. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The meta-template that Maxtremus is using, {{Largest cities}} was created in February 2011 and was only designed to list the largest cities in a specific country. It was not designed for states, provinces or other sub-national entities, especially where a different table or list may be more appropriate. I put the one created for Hawaii on TFD because there is a lack of cities in that U.S. state per se -- most are unincorporated places or census-designated places. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) There are several ways this is going wrong, and Maxtremus might adapt. First, {{Largest cities}}, like {{Weather box}}, provides a blank template that users familiar with the data sources and conventions can fill in: Max tried to do them all him/herself with generic, unreliable data, not knowing local regulations regarding cities (see the AFD on Hawaii above). Second, he spammed the templates into articles where the format often disrupted flow, layout, etc. Some of the articles already had templates in formats that fit with the article and with reliably sourced data, and a section of "Largest cities" alone isn't warranted (he might have suggested these on talk rather than adding them to every article without discussion, particularly FAs). Third, he removed reliably sourced data in many cases. Fourth, he assumed the ten largest cities was relevant to every article (it's not to a small island.) My suggestion is that he delete all of these templates (to save the community the cleanup, he can db-author them), revert all of his additions (they *all* added non-reliable data to articles), and let users familiar with the articles and the data decide if they want to use that master template. I'm not aware of any article where I would find them useful, and the images add clutter. I suggest all of this work needs to be reverted, there are already two AFDs up because the format and data is faulty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, really unfortunate situation, combining overenthusiasm with lack of consensus, lack of accurate data, and undue haste. I agree with Sandy, I hope the good-faith editor in question will agree to delete his own good-faith work. This was unfortunately a personal enthusiasm that got out of hand; I think this sort of enthusiasm and haste/speed is better expressed on a personal blog or personal website/endeavor, not on Wikipedia, which needs to be accurate and needs to be a group/consensus endeavor. It's unfortunately a bad fit for Wiki because of the bad data, lack of comprehension, and poor design, etc. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The addition of the template has been reverted on quite a few country pages before this AN/I (a couple by me). SandyGeorgia is right that it created formatting problems and messed up TOCs. There's no reason to have a header just for one often undue table. While I doubt it's Maxtremus' fault, as some articles had this already, the propagation does mean a lot of cleanup needs doing, which is often quite a problem when editors decide to change many country articles. CMD (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Sandy; I hope the editor will revert these before they're reverted. The only proper answer to Maxtremus' response that he doesn't have the time to source these templates properly is "Take the time or don't make the changes in the first place." We are not in a race here. Ravenswing 21:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Cut and past move

Cut and paste move from John Marquez to John Márquez at 01:07, 30 April 2012. Kauffner (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You could have, you know, asked him to undo the improper move, telling him it was the wrong way to do it. Or just undone it yourself and told him the same. Anyway, I've undone the edits. Also, you failed to tell the user in question that you were bringing up one of his actions on ANI, as required by everyone posting complaints to this board. (I let him know for you, by the way.) Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The man spells it with the accent and one single user keeps insisting on removing it, even though the man's bio and the ballots use the accent. Its common for the media to omit such accents but how he spells it is most important. The user then insisted that was all right but it could not have the accent since the title didn't. Since the move button didn't work and one person did disagree I did a request for move and per consensus I moved it, I spose I did it wrong.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fresh admin eyes to review talk page access for KW?

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

---

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have grave concerns about the way we are heading. I'm all for civility (to the extent where I have a Civility Police label …) But … and this is a big "but" … "The Civility Policy is not intended to be used as a weapon." Silencing the critics is not good. Even when we use the excuse / reason that the criticisms were voiced in an unacceptable way. Fine, we call them on the way they asked, but we shouldn't then also fail to address the questions. I have attempted to get KW's talk page access reinstated, and expressed my concerns relating to this here. (Please note: I've left a note on SW's talk page to let him know I'm asking this here.) Others have also voiced some concerns about the whole situation on the same page. And, to me, the atmosphere feels … retributional. That may be my deep misinterpretation of them. I'm not at my best, at the moment.

Does any admin feel able to reinstate KW's talk page access, at all? I am trying to work on better and more humane ways of dealing with one of t'pedia's most deeply-entrenched problems (civility / unequal enforcement / injustice / communication), and I would like to have the chance to communicate with KW (two-way communication!) openly, on-wiki, on his talk page. That can't be done if he can't respond to me there. I hope, I sincerely hope (and I feel, too) that KW would not disappoint me or let me down, here, if his talk page access were reinstated. But, whatever, I'm prepared to stick my neck out for him and be made to look like a complete pillock, if it goes wrong.

And I feel that even bringing this up puts me at risk … From that article: " … it was one of the few days of the year when the average Romanian put on a happy face, since appearing miserable on this day was too risky to contemplate." (Sebetsyen, Victor (2009). Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire. New York City: Pantheon Books. ISBN 0-375-42532-2) I feel … how long will it be before I too am labelled "disruptive", just to stop me from asking uncomfortable questions? Pesky (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence would seem to suggest that in actual fact you are "all for civility" right until such point as it actually comes to sanctioning anyone for breaching our policy on it. Indeed, you've opined on at least one occasion that actually acting on CIVIL is grounds for desysopping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've possibly misunderstood me, there. But never mind. Adding: in fact I very recently left a politely-worded message on a user talk page about name-calling; said editor both stated that we are far too lenient on civility (after having been name-calling), and refused to apologise, instead giving a justification for the name-calling. Sometimes it's very hard to know what to do. Things are so unequal. Pesky (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The provided diff does not support the allegation. Nobody Ent 09:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been in email contact with Kiefer.Wolfowitz (something which surprised me, given the nature of our past) - and I have to say that I wouldn't object to his talk page being unlocked for the purposes of 1) requesting an unblock or 2) responding to queries. It should not be unlocked to complain about other people, grumble about the state of wikipedia or edit by proxy. KW himself suggested that if his talk page was unlocked, he would "agree to drop discussion of Sarek's block and BHG, unless [he is] responding to a comment left on [his] page and [he is] responding in a decorous civll [sic] manner". Worm^TT · (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd really prefer it if my communications, trying to guide KW (lol! He may trout-slap me for that remark, if he wishes!) were open and visible. @Thumperward: where I;m coming from is that civility is important, but sometimes we're oh-so-heavy-handed with some editors. I'm sure there must be better ways of dealing with incivility than being so heavy-handed, jumping for the big weapons, overlooking kinder responses. I've done an awful lot of animal-rehab (behavioural problems), and beating them up is never a good method. Getting some decent lines of communication (a two-way thing) going works better. Slower, but much better. Less loss-by-destruction, less having to put them down, and so on. Pesky (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

People are not horses, or any other animal. Similarities may be drawn but...they're just not problem animals - they're people. Not that I think beating people up fixes them, but giving them everything they want when they have a pattern of speaking abusively to other editors isn't too great either. I'm getting a bit sick of all this. KW does great content work but, and this is an important point, I don't feel like I could ever approach him about a dispute, whether a content one or otherwise, without getting my head ripped off. On a collaborative project, that's not the kind of image you want to present. Still, I would support giving back talk page access if he's agreed to be civil in his discussions. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Support restoring KW talk page access -- revoking was an overreaction to typical post-block venting. Nobody Ent 09:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose revoking KW's talk page access was discussed here and should not be restored without consensus. It was revoked for good reason. KW was abusive in his conversations, and I see little likelihood he has has changed that. I disagree with Pesky: Kindness is not the answer here. There is no doubt in my mind that KW was trying to diminish other editors in his posts. That should not be tolerated, and the fact that we lack effective means for deterring that does not mean that KW should be coddled. If he has anything to say to the community, let him email it and someone can post it for him. Then we'll see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate everyone's points here, but I can understasnd KW's frustration, too. Particularly about the accusation of canvassing; I honestly can;t accept that a neutrally-worded message on a talk page which has hundreds of watchers (of various persuasions) can seriously be called canvassing. For example, I myself gave a support vote in the RfA, not an oppose. Pesky (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I did comment here, but since this is about opening the talkpage and not the merits of the block, I've moved my comment to User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner#On CanvassingWorm^TT · (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I commented too, but that's a good idea to save this getting derailed. Moving my comment there also. Let's try keep this about whether or not KW should have talkpage access, not the canvass question or original block. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 11:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reply to Pesky: Does any admin feel able to reinstate KW's talk page access, at all? - the short answer is no, I'm sorry. I think quite highly of KW as he is obviously an intelligent man who chooses his words carefully. If WTT has correspondence to share, then I'd most certainly be willing to read through it and any replies, but at this point I fear that restoring talk page use would go against too large a contingent of the community. Now, having said that - I will also say that I do indeed have some very strong concerns in regards to many of SW's actions recently. I don't know if it's a matter of feeling emboldened by his recent RfA, or something else - but I do think there are some issues which I suspect will eventually come to a rather unpleasant head in the future. I love the tools he's created, fantastic work there - but I am concerned about the "He needs to understand, and I'm going to teach him" approach I'm perceiving. That said, I'm open to reading through anything posted in this discussion. — Ched :  ?  11:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think I have much to share beyond what I've already shared. KW emailed me in response to this comment, we discussed the events leading to his block and he remained perfectly civil throughout. He did ask at the time that I talk to Scottywong re his talk page access, with the quote above - though further correspondence has rendered that moot. I'm sure he'd be receptive to anyone who does choose to email him. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just my tuppence: while silencing those who criticise Wikipedia is certainly wrong, the fact that a person is a known critic should not be used to give him carte blanche and excuse his violations of policy, claiming that every block is just retaliation. The rules ought to apply to everyone, no matter his stance regarding Wikipedia's problems. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the length of the talk-page access revocation just feels like "That'll teach him a lesson!" kinda punitive, retaliatory, and so on, rather than constructive. Adding: and bearing in mind the long history of bad blood between KW and SW it just feels ... wrong ... Pesky (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's exactly as long as any other user who had been talkblocked for the same reason would have gotten (duration of block). It is neither punitive nor retaliatory, and banging that drum against all evidence to the contrary is precisely the problem here. As for bad blood, show me an admin who doesn't have either a covenant never to block KW etc. or "bad blood" caused by some poor interaction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's practically a meme now, but we have 730 active administrators, I have interacted with less than 10% of them and I expect KW has interacted with a similar number. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's "practically a meme now" for good reason: "you've got history" is usually the first thing that gets uttered in these discussions, and it's no less ugly simply because it's being repeated by a (self-described) member of the civility police. Either the block was cromulent and should stand, or it should be overturned and SW cautioned for it. Hand-wringing about how "wrong" it is simply smears a good admin for taking what appears to be a broadly-supported and fairly routine action. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward, I appreciate you're probably not meaning to do so, but I'm feeling that you're directing an awful lot of aggression towards me, here. I'm trying to work a way forwards, I'm doing the best I can (in probably too many stressful areas of t'wiki at once, maybe), and I feel attacked. I don't feel that I deserve to be attacked. Pesky (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Since part of the reason for KW getting blocked was his overreaction to something I said at his ANI (which has only been reinforced by this entire event), leading to much drama at my RfA, I feel I need to pipe in. KW putting the RfA on Malleus's page was not the best judgement, but it was neutral in tone, and I think Kim Brown probably best summed it up as "quazi-canvassing" rather than overt canvassing. It was pointless anyway, as I am confident that Malleus can make up his own mind and putting more eyes on the RfA doesn't guarantee success or failure, just more !votes. I would have been more surprised if Malleus had supported me, to be honest, regardless of KWs actions. KW's comments since the initial block have been less than flattering, but I'm much too old to be offended by reactionary comments by someone who clearly doesn't know me, and I didn't consider them personal attacks, just uninformed mischaracterizations. I'm a bit more tolerant than some, I suppose. I've refrained from discussing "the event" until now because it would only have made a bad situation worse. I don't hold any ill feeling against KW, even while disagreeing with the choices he made. If he were to come back and become disruptive, the situation could be revisited, but I'm not convinced that continuing the talk page block is useful at this point, and I would be willing to assume good faith and allow him access to state his case for unblocking (if he chooses to) or simply to talk with Pesky, who I trust to handle the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Awww, hugz, Dennis! Thank you! Interestingly, my first major interaction with KW wasn't good, but we kinda realised that we could understand each other and communicate with each other despite that. I will carry on keeping the lines of communication open for as long as possible. And he has improved. Still a long way to go, but the trend is there. Pesky (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is genuinely my hope that we can help each other. I could learn a lot about editing from watching him, and perhaps he can learn something from me. Even when both are equally effective, an olive branch is a much better tool than a big stick. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• He doesn't need to commit to not discuss my block, as he suggests above -- he just needs to commit not to insult my honor, rational abilities, etc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. Normal restrictions should be in place and nothing else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've decided to restore talk page access. My explanation is on KW's talk page. This thread can probably be safely closed. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

user:Doktorbuk - removal of cited content and 3RR violations

Please see the history of Sandwell Council election, 2012. User:Doktorbuk keeps reverting sourced, neutral content without discussion in violation to the 3RR policy. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Instructive indeed. Bear in mind that Doktorbuk has been editing in good standing for eight years when you read the following interactions:

• revert vandalism, made NPOV
• Please stop removing referenced material from the Sandwell article. Please read WP:VANDALISM.
• Undid revision 489936321 by Doktorbuk (talk) vandalism

This, for a trivial little spat whereby Doktorbuk removed a Daily Mirror-referenced bit of local drama where the local Labour party accused the Tories of "sabotage" for running a candidate with the same name as the Labour one on grounds of wording and weak sourcing. Note no talk page interaction at all: straight to declarations of vandalism and then off to ANI. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to identify any other recent interaction malfunctions between Lugnuts and the rest of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Tumperwad isn't applying a neutral point of view towards me, due to a recent discussion he's raised. I urge another admin to look at this, and ignore his bias. Lugnuts (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The thing is, Lugnuts, I really don't think you should have brought this here. Have you spent time looking at United Kingdom local elections, 2012 ? You will see "Details" linked to individual articles. Not one of these contains links to the kind of stories you are trying to include in Sandwell's article. You will also note that, despite your best efforts to create stub articles, they all include full candidate details for each and every ward. This is because, after an AfD process, the community ensured that any article has to contain enough encyclopedic material to justify its existence. I fear you are not after creating these articles to contain full ward-by-ward details with each and every candidate, and therefore are creating more work for the UK politics community than is necessary.

With regards to the article itself, I note you were probably vandalising Wikipedia in the first place by creating the article. If we go to the history, we see this - [2]. The article is incomplete - with only one ward and the 'trivial' story linked to it, which I contend to be against RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and NPOV, as I have said in each and every edit summary. You have ignored my edit summaries. You included a blank Liberal Democrat candidate - against the processes carried out by the UK politics and election community. You did not bother to seek the other nominated candidates - I contend you did this because you ONLY wanted to include the trivial news story. I suggest that you have no interest in the UK local elections, as your contributions show you don't, and therefore started the article just to make some kind of 'point' about the candidates or the comedic nature of the story. Are you a member of the Labour or Conservative parties? Why did you include the words "election sabotage" in the article?

I am one member of small team of UK politics and election community members who are very proud and protective of the work we do each year to ensure that the Wikipedia articles on each and every British election is to a high standard. I asked you on your talk page to point me to any other article which links to this kind of campaign event or story. I doubt you will answer this request, or find an example. The community strives to keep these articles NPOV. You are striving to do the exact opposite. I am not guilty of vandalism. I spent this morning typing each and every candidate into the article to make sure it reached the minimum standards expected by Wikipedia - you have spent the day causing minor acts of vandalism, creating stub articles with no intent to fill in the details of candidates nominated or complete the 'index' article at United Kingdom local elections, 2012, and submitting a vandalism request for WP:POINT-y reasons,.

In summary, I am trying to avoid UK election articles having links to POV material, RECENTISM/NOTNEWS stories, and general trivia. I therefore do not agree that I am a vandal as charged doktorb _words^deeds 12:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I included the term "election sabotage" as that was the term reported in the press. I wont insult your intelligence by explaining that one. Hardly trivial at all - this is just the sort of hook that DYK would cream for. Lugnuts (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• We cannot accept "election sabotage" from the Daily Mail. Also, maybe Doktorbuk broke the 3R line, but so did you. This minor content issue is not for ANI, and I have removed the content in light also of Thumperward's notes above. Such claims need rigorous sourcing, not tabloid articles. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the word "sabotage" as that was giving Doktorbuk such a problem and it's cited from multiple sources. Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There was an election in California in 2006 where two people named Kathy Finley both ran. Though that election was for an at-large position, and they weren't really running "against" each other since there were enough open seats for both of them. The news stories were amused about it at the time. This one seems to have more potential since it's possible that it was done on purpose. ☮Soap☮ 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Soap. Lugnuts (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also note that Doktorbuk, despite having "8 years of experience" on WP, is now removing references from articles without any reason why. See here and here. How is that acceptable? The correct answer is that it is not. Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Lugnuts, it is worth noting at this point that you have not answered any of the direct questions I have put on your talk page. You have conducted yourself on my talk page with uncivility, goading and sarcasm. I spent this morning finding ward details and candidates for the forthcoming election, including finding a direct source to the specific council's SOPN - what constructive work towards the project have you done? doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I've started all those articles you couldn't be bothered to do, for one. I don't respond to bullying demands from you on my talkpage. Please be more civil. Please explain why you are removing references? This vandalism is not acceptable and you should know better. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are showing signs of not reading my comments on your talk page. I explained why there were so many gaps - we prefer to source all wards and each and every candidate, following an AfD process at which a stub article was considered not encyclopedic material. Hence the project (with only a limited amount of editors and resources) prefers to spend time on getting an article right, and doing it slowly, than getting dozens of articles wrong, quickly. As for this claim of removing citations, I have to point out that I REPLACED, not REMOVED, providing the article with the specific link to the council's SOPN. doktorb _words^deeds 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you REMOVED the references. Is the ref there with your edit? No. That's removal. Disgusting that someone who claims to have 8 years worth of experience on here can't grasp that. Lugnuts (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I replaced one reference with another - my replacement was the specific council's SOPN, which is relevant to the specific article. doktorb _words^deeds 10:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Block needed

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

---

Username issue and two edits...both vandalism.MONGO 14:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have been of service. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Block review, please

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

---

I have no doubt that User:Distributor108 is going to start a jeremiad about the indefinite block I just applied to his account, which is why I'm bringing it up for consideration here. In brief: user harassed others with vandalism warnings, and after a lengthy process I unblocked him to give him another chance. He returned to his old pattern immediately, and the evidence is on his talk page under the block notice. I gladly submit to your scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support indef He was provided the chance to get a WP:CLUE, and enough WP:ROPE ... and decided to use the WP:ROPE instead (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I get the impression that this person is not a native speaker of English. If true, this may be contributing to a poor understanding of his tone in dealing with others. -- Avanu (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support At his RfA [3] he seems to have an adequate understanding of English and a clear agenda. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block for an entirely predictable return to the same battleground behaviour - I've already commented at User talk:Distributor108 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Very good block, especially considering this edit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  Oh dear, that was nasty -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  Holy moly I hadn't even seen that. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) Looks like a sane and sensible block to me! Pesky (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support this block as well. Baby, bathwater, bath tub and floor tiles all out the window please. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Nobody Ent 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Good block. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support and now the wider editing population knows why Sri Lanka articles are such a war zone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Good block. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 16:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Sarek's link and what happened to Ecoleetage after a similar email. Nyttend (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support, and I am wondering if this is a sock of User:Ecoleetage/User:Pastor Theo. --MuZemike 17:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Was Ecoleetage ever a jerk on-wiki? I don't recall that. Ecoleetage and Distributor have me and Bwilkins in common, that's it. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Ecole was exceedingly good at not giving that appearance on-wiki, even more so when he re-emerged as the good Pastor. I've little real doubt he's got more socks, but this account exhibits pretty much the opposite behaviour to Ecole and not in a way which would make for useful socking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  It was done by him and User:Astronomyinertia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.117.82 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support because of the diff Sarek provided, and because anyone who says "Holy moly!" deserves our support,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas ... Seriously, we're starting to be able to pick out at a casual glance those who Do Not Get It, never will, and only say yas'm-I'll-be-a-straight-shooter-from-now-on-sheriff for long enough to get unblocked the first couple of times out. Ravenswing 21:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I like to hope against all hope. I wouldn't be surprised if every single editor I've ever unblocked (with one exception) gets indeffed again soon, but I don't really mind. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Distributor108 has posted (yet another) unblock request, which (I know I'm ABFing here, but hey after that many warnings and blocks...) pretty much reeks of "I'll say sorry if it will get me unblocked" Blackmane (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support, 'nuff said. Bmusician 10:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• If no one minds, I'm going to close this as (unanimous) consensus reached regarding the block and Distributor108 remains indef'd Blackmane (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Arkellproductions

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

---

Please be on the lookout for User:Arkellproductions and his friends and sockpuppets who originated from YouTube where they posted a retarded comment on my video taken from a boat off the coast of Maui and thought the sound of a boat hitting a large wave with some ocean water splashing at me, was a sound of me sneezing. I explained what was REALLY going on but there was no sign of understanding and they not only continue to think I sneeze, but also they decide to escalate the situation and then comment on other videos and move to Wikipedia to vandalize my userpage. Once Arkellproductions got blocked, he apparently had a sockpuppet (or another friend) to continue vandalizing my userpage. This ongoing obsession with believing that I am a sneezer, happened two weeks ago so I thought the situation was over but a new sock recently showed up on YouTube when I got a comment that reads "maybe you sneezed and scared him off". NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 15:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What you're looking for is page protection. Blackmane (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've protected your user page indefinitely from editing by new and unregistered users. Should you want your user talk page similarly protected (doubtful as it may prevent genuine editors from contacting you), contact me. Regards, --RA (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but if I was purely looking for page protection due to excessive vandalism I'd go to WP:RFPP. But in this situation I am talking about a sock farm that originated from YouTube (and eventually reached Wikipedia). NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 16:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they have all been blocked with the last instance being over two weeks ago. Page protection will mean that if they re-appear again here they will be less able to vandalise your page. We can do nothing about here about the comments on YouTube. --RA (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Third AfD is showing a pattern with an article

(Note: I added this the other day, self-rv'ed, and have since discovered more about the situation that I think merits re-addition.)

I have come across Martin Faulks the article recently. I have actually had discourse with Martin Faulks the individual on Masonic articles well in the past, at which time he was basically interested in promoting himself on WP. All his edits had to do with himself wrt Freemasonry. I happened to be looking at an article we have on Robert Lomas, and lo and behold, Martin Faulks is bluelinked!

Having looked at the page, and being aware of past behavior, I have cause to believe that he wrote his own article yet again. I don't have access to the old articles, but a major point in both previous AfDs was that the info had to come from Faulks directly because there were no sources to verify a single thing other than Faulks himself.

As a summary of the latest article's history, the article was created by a redlink account User:Curt henning who put a comment on talk, and has no other contribs previous or since. Article is further added to by User:Wong fu hung (SPA, no other contribs). Article is prodded, and prod is removed by a redlink user User:Billmcelligott (6 contribs in six years, 4 to this article). Also note one edit by User:Marymidge (1 contrib) and some IP edits. It was apparently a high draw article for new users, especially since it hasn't been touched, aside from minor things, in over a year. In short, strong evidence that Faulks creates multiple throwaway accounts to edit his article several times.

I tried to CSD it, and it was declined. On AfD, my suspicions on having done this before were proven right, because the article was AfDed and deleted twice before in 2006 and 2008. I'm pretty sure this will be deleted again, but is there anything that can be done to verify the pattern of behavior, or prevent it, even though the edit history is stale? MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• If the article is deleted at AfD, a possible concurrent remedy may be a consensus to WP:SALT the article, which would inhibit future creation. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Continued AfD on MMA articles

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

---

I'm sure plenty of admins and editors are aware of the ongoing disagreement regarding MMA (specifically UFC) articles. Thankfully, the likes of admin Dennis Brown, editor Anna Frodesiak, editor Hasteur, etc. have been working hard at coming up with a compromise toward a RfC rather than dealing with multiple AfDs (per Scottywong in the close of the UFC 142 discussion). Unfortunately, new user Newmanoconnor didn't get the memo and recently nominated 9 more UFC pages for deletion today. Whether it is a Deletionism agenda or something else is not for me to determine. However, it is time wasting and detrimental to the aforementioned work being done to sort things out. I hope an admin will take note of this and revert his nominations. Udar55 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with your notice, as I was posting one of my own about bundling AFDs. I've left a note asking them to consider withdrawing in favor of whatever consensus is emerging at the RFC - but note that "There'll be an RFC at some point" isn't sufficient criteria to simply shut down or revert a set of AFDs. Do you have a link to an Active RFC, or a discussion approximating one? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. The only discussion currently is the one I linked to in my previous post. It is a mess right now, obviously, but the building has been going extremely well. Honestly, seeing as Newmanoconnor has only been on Wikipedia 16 days or so, I don't think they really know what they are doing. In the end, it is just opening up a salvo for more I hate it and I love it arguments (not to mention wasted energy), which end up getting nowhere and the fine folks in the MMA notability section are trying to avoid. Udar55 (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My length of time as a registered editor has nothing to do with my ability to interpret policy as any other editor has the right to do,like I said I notified Scotty and am trying to notify Dennis, though I'm busy here and on my talk page at the momentNewmanoconnor (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a deletionism(sic) agenda against anyone, other than UFC articles that fail current notability guidelines. I also notified Scottywong about what I had done, and stated (if he or anyother admin thought I was wrong to close them. I also limited it to FUTURE events that fail WP:FUTURE. The last I checked Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability,Hasteur, and Dennis Brown had spent the last few paragraphs fending off useless and baseless attacks.Not tomention the agreements so far, would still have all of these pages deleted or merged to the Omnibus until notability of at least one source that passes WP:RS( I.E. not Sherdog or MMA websites could establish notability other than general sports coverage.

That said, I did not see all of the work Dennis Brown has been doing, nor did I see that he made it through his RfA ( Congrats Dennis, I think you deserve it). Had I been aware he was the admin defacto handling this stuff I would have gotten his opinion. I have no issue if he wants to reverse any of this. Or if they want to protect them until they are done....with discussion ( however long that takes ) If thats even possible. You will get no argument from me.

I think it's important to have all sides represented, and considering how beat up TreyGeek and MTKing have been from this thing, I'm just stepping up and doing what I believe is bet for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm entirely too involved there to serve as an admin here, so as a fellow editor let me say that I think it would be in the best interest of everyone if we held off from nominating articles for a while. Let me be perfectly clear: I don't dispute your right, your logic, or your good faith in doing so, and in different circumstances I would likely agree with some of your points, but I would humbly ask that you consider voluntarily withdrawing the nominations for now, not because they are in any way defective, but because it would be helpful while we prepare for the RFC and find a larger consensus. Call it a personal favor. We are making progress, albeit slowly, but it is indeed progress. Regardless of your decision, I invite you to join the the discussion and help us find a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I just posted this on all the AfD's, **NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit I should have read the Notability discussions more thoroughly, but it appeared the latest stuff was backsliding. I have other questions, I'll move to the MMA notability discussion or your talk page for them.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. Since you have already talked to Scottywong and he is sufficiently removed, you might ask for his assistance in closing them. I appreciate your open minded attitude and look forward to working with you at the MMA notability page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Thanks for the cooperation, Newmanoconnor. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 19:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like Ultra's got it covered. I'll close the thread. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Disruptive IP editor

90.218.255.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

A couple of weeks ago I reported this IP editor here, who I suspected was deliberately adding false information or at best just guessing, and was advised to keep an eye on it. Since then the dubious additions have continued and all messages have been ignored (I tried asking them to just reply on their talk page to confirm if they'd read them and got no response), the only reaction to messages is that they stop or slow down for a day or so and then gradually pick up and continue exactly as before. This latest edit appears to be false (explained why in my revert). The persistent style errors have continued too, although these are less harmful they are also an indication that this editor is either wilfully ignoring or unable to understand the messages they are receiving.

This is a long-term problem, I think this person has been editing like this for over a year across various IPs (see here and here) but even taking just the current IP, they have over 1,000 edits since February. Even if I AGF that the errors were not deliberate, an editor who cannot understand or will not even acknowledge concerns about their edits is disruptive and I think at least a WP:COMPETENCE block is necessary. January (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am a proponent of blocks for incompetent editors who are highly incommunicative. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• I would agree with Drmies perspective, although I'm a failure at blocking. I've been in many ANIs this week and have yet to block anyone ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Go to AIV. Or ask Sitush for someone who needs to be blocked; I think he has a hit list. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not enough vandalistic edits to be considered a vandal. Plenty of legitimate edits. Doc talk 03:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how we can allow them a few vandalistic edits because they also make edits which look legitimate. As with the edit I highlighted above, it sometimes takes a bit of research to tell which is which and I'm concerned that some of the false edits are going unnoticed because they look innocuous at first sight. This, which I'm pretty sure is false (Ross King describes himself as "from Knightswood" in this interview stayed in the article for a week. January (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that edits like this are not good, as they introduce things into referenced material where the reference does not support it. Doc talk 06:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats from anon IP

This appeared on my talk page this morning:

• If possible I would like the user information for Avatera as his statement is false and I plan to pursue a defamation suit. I have never had any criminal record and would like this statement removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.141 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC) this edit

The request relates to User:Avatera and, judging from the discussion to which it was appended, refers to some AFDs from last September, likely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Gumo, a nightclub DJ; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2greendollars and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac (3rd nomination) may also be related. Since I have no way of getting contact information and wouldn't hand it out to an IP editor if I could, I'm not particularly concerned; just passing it along. Notifying Avatera for the sake of ritual purity. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you also notify the IP? I have blocked for NLT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That too has been done. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have info on how dynamic this ISP is? 1 month may be too long, as their IP would have already rotated by then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The IPpage says it is shared and may be widely shared (Singapore). Rich Farmbrough, 04:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

User:Handcuffed - inappropriate image gallery?

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

---

Resolved

 – Images removed by User:Drmies no admin action required at present. Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

I'm never sure which way the pendulum is swinging on questionable images on user pages, so rather than remove the images myself, I thought I would ask for opinions here. User:Handcuffed has, among other things, images of a man being anally penetrated by a strap-on dildo, a woman in a small cage, a bound woman wearing a ball gag, and a penis in some kind of clear plastic chastity belt. Are such images appropriate for a user page? I believe that I could remove the images per WP:UP, but I would like to avoid a back and forth on exactly which images there are appropriate and which aren't, so it would nice know how the community feels about this particular case. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with their removal, per the Foundation's recent statement on avoiding shock value. There is no expectations of visiting a user's page to find explicit/extreme images, even if they are hosted at commons and used legitamately in articles about those specific topics on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think UP is quite clear on the matter. I have removed the entire gallery. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

None of those look very comfortable at all! 140.247.141.142 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I took absolutely zero offence at any of these images. I visit a user's user page to learn about that user, their choice of images tells me a lot about their interests. If I'm dealing with them I do it solely through their talk page, and I'd be surprised if I was the only one. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

UP is also there to prevent all kinds of mishaps. Say there's an educational project, and for one reason or another they run into that user page. Try to explain that, as a teacher. "Yeah we're working on an encyclopedia, and indeed he's getting it up the ass while rimming another woman. Now, we were talking about reliable sources..." That's not censorship, it's common sense, as far as I'm concerned. IP, for all we know the pegging lady was quite comfortable. She could put her beer down on the guy's butt and watch TV, or knit. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on it, but I think images can be added to a list that limits their use--preventing their use on user pages (I think that was done to irritate 4chan a while back). Might be a good idea to do that with some of the more, uncomfortable, images our cuffed friend had on his page. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be more like censorship, given you aren't considering the circumstances? And who gets to decide which images are automatically not user page friendly? There might be circumstances where one image, for instance, is justified on a user page but a gallery is not, or inclusion may be dependent on the context in which it is displayed. I'm also no expert, but that just kinda triggered a reflex in me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Who gets to decide? We do, in the form of the community. We vote all the time on whether someone's actions are egregious enough to warrant site or topic bans, and these are based far less in rigid standards than in our subjective opinions. Ravenswing 01:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the list is at MediaWiki:Bad image list, I guess images are supposed to have been used for "widespread vandalism" before they're put there--so not sure if these would qualify. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not strictly required and I have added a couple of pics there. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• the images do shock me, and I knew exactly what to expect from their descriptions. They have a valid place place on appropriate subject pages, pages where one would expect such images from the page titles. They would probably shock a large majority of our users, and they would not know what to expect from the page title on which they were used in this case. User pages are not for unlimited self=expression, but a service to users in general, and nothing which would make reasonable users uncomfortable is suitable there. Reasonable users does not include extreme prudes--by now, extreme prudes can be expected to know enough to stay away from Wikipedia, which is not designed to accommodate them. I will never compromise by removing an image however extreme that is used for an encyclopedic purpose, The use here was not of that nature. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. What an interesting group of censors-in-denial we have here. Do stop kidding yourselves. Of course you're censoring this stuff. It may be justified. (I'm not totally convinced.) But it's still censorship. I just hope that your respective moral compasses have not been totally destroyed by having to view material you have deemed unsuitable for others to see. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if the word "censorship" didn't have a tendency to drive people hysterical, folks would be less cautious in using it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Let's talk about Ervin Zádor...

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

---

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

nice bloke, wasn't he?

Anyhow, earlier today I reverted a death claim on his article as I couldn't find any evidence of it (and it was added by a rather suspect user). Then later I see an IP added the claim, and I have now found some news stories - all in Hungarian, and all in the last couple of hours - and seen it updated on Hungarian wiki (at the time of my original revert, he was still alive on that). So I've updated the article and "dead"ed him.

So why am I bringing this to ANI? Simply because - I don't speak hungarian, and google translate barely does. This could be a hoax given the original user - I've no idea. So... some more eyes would be helpful. Egg Centric 21:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you request that the claims be properly verified before updating the page? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If you can't verify it, don't claim it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Give the guy a break, he's trying to do the right thing. Having said that - wrong forum - no admin action needed. Village pump might be better. Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

I don't speak the language but the linked Hungarian articles have enough recognizeable words to look like obituaries to me. You can generally get language help at WP:RDL pretty quickly. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Tendentious and disruptive editing by Jimbo1qaz, Part 2

This user has been making tendentious, disruptivue and POV edits for many months, vandalising articles, and ignoring all the countless warnings he got (see his talk page history). He has been brought to ANI before ([4]), and the admins, while they agreed that this was not acceptable and that he should stop doing it, decided to give him one more chance, saying that if he does it again, he would be blocked from editing. Of course, as expected (and, might I add, it was really obvious to anyone having any sort of experience on Wikipedia; I consider this second ANI case a silly waste of time), he has been doing it again since then, for example by changing the title of the linked article ([5], changing "Copyright is Even More Right in the Digital Age" to "Copyright is Even More Wrong in the Digital Age": I really consider this unambiguous vandalism, too, not only a POV edit, as the article title is not a matter of opinion, whether we agree with it or not), or by forcing his POV into the article ([6], [7]). Furthermore, has has not been doing any "normal edits" anymore, basically everything in his recent history is driven by his agenda.

This user has made it repeatedly clear that he has absolutely no intention to change anything about his behaviour in the future and that he will keep doing it forever no matter what, even after an admin personally explained to him that this really cannot be tolerated [8], [9], [10]. A direct quote from the message by Drmies: "next time you will be blocked". I really cannot see how anything else than a block would make any sense whatsoever this time.—J. M. (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Did I say that? Well, I guess I did. I was just looking at the original ANI report, wondering again what we're doing here. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes and he did it again Nobody Ent 22:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ent. That leaves me little choice. 1 week. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The editor appears to be a single-purpose account, that purpose being to argue against copyright protection. His early edits were blatant vandalism. I'm surprised he escaped the block-hammer until now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So am I. (In fact, for me, the handling of this case was one of the most inexplicable things I've seen on Wikipedia.)—J. M. (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If you had user more words before you started the first ANI thread we wouldn't have had a second one. Simple. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Precision and format are factors. The edits in question are not vandalism, they are POV pushing ... using correct terminology produces greater confidence that an editor knows what they're talking about. Likewise, fewer words and more diffs are usually more effective. Nobody Ent 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, I guess this might be a subliminal "POV push". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't considering edits from last July in the set "edits in question," just the ones relating to DRM. Nobody Ent 02:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

my user page

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

---

Resolved

 – The dick pic is gone and the page is unprotected. The ban ain't happening and some people need to get a grip. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

hello. my userpage has been locked by user:salvio giuliano, who claims that an ornamental userbox and cock picture is disruptive. i find this claim disingenuous, since at least one administrator has a "Big Schlong Barnnstar", complete with a picture of a nice chunky cock, on his userpage. the user box is ornamental and refers to an encyclopedia dramatica policy known as [[ED:SATAN]], and was removed under a claim that it is disruptive. the userbox is humorous, and i fail to see how it is disruptive. i believe the userbox was removed because it alludes to satanism, which not a lot of people care for. as for the cock, i do not see how my fifty penis post, a reference to the "fifty hitler post" internet meme, is considered disruptive, when the "Big Schlong Barnnstar" is not. it is my opinion that my userpage was under special scrutiny due to my off-wiki activities, which should have no bearing here. while i am here, i would like to request that all deleted revisions of my userpage be restored, so that people can see how harmless it is/was. i requested their deletion because one of the revisions links to my doppleganger account, which was done by accident following a sockpuppet investigation, but there is no point now in hiding my identity. :\ -badmachine 01:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You were informed before that the userbox is easily offensive to people who follow the religion, since as you say, it was intended as a joke rather then a serious declaration of a religious affiliation. What they do in other places doesn't concern us. The fact you still don't seem to understand this, or at least acknowledge it as a concern doesn't speak well for your behaviour here not being disruptive. Nil Einne (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

that is a nice excuse, but i believe one of the primary tenets of satanism is "do as thou wilt". i dont think there is a single documented instance of any satanist being offended by my userbox. in addition, from wikipedia's own article on the Church of Satan: "Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.". i do not see any credible claim that any satanist would be offended by my userbox. -badmachine 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, the first illustration you mentioned could be retitled, "As thou do wilt." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

wut? -badmachine 02:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• oh god it took me waaaaaaay too long to get it. :D -badmachine 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

i am seeing the term "low level trolling" thrown about. to me, this looks like a euphemism for i don't like it. as for the claim that a fucking My Little Pony userbox and a userbox stating that i endorse the activities of the GNAA is 'prima facie evidence of trolling' (paraphrased), that claim is absurd on its face. -badmachine 03:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think there was an argument there, not just a dislike. Statistically, the combination of a GNAA and a MLP user box is likely to end up in an indefinite block, that seems to be established. I hope you're the exception. Dr "Rainbow Dash" mies (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't really "not like" anything you've posted to your page. I don't find Satanism offensive in the least. I'm no huge fan of looking at dicks, but I wouldn't say they offend me either. This is purely about the apparent use of such things to provoke an emotional response or otherwise disrupt. The presence of the Gay Nigger Association of America logo seems to support that assessment of your choices, being an "organization" that promotes trolling. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected, with note to user. Let's not use any more time on this one. Rich Farmbrough, 03:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

thank you. there is nothing on that page that would offend anyone. i still wish i could put that "big schlong barnstar" on my page, but i have no proof. :( -badmachine 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for User:Badmachine

I don't feel particularly offended by the boxes this user keeps trying to put on his page, but the Gay Nigger Association of America one seems to indicate that he's just here to troll, and even if you want to say it's a draconian approach to say this based merely on a box, he actually seems to have demonstrated a remarkable job of it regardless. I think he should be banned. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. The signal-to-noise ratio may be relatively low compared to bona fide high-efficiency editors (such as yours truly, of course), and personally I detest all that GNAA BS (I'm putting it mildly), but I don't see a reason to ban. Look at their contributions--it's not all about user pages and penes/penii. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not a huge fan of the signal-to-noise argument in general. If a user trolls, they shouldn't be here. It's not a question of volume of good vs. bad contribs. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • But I don't subscribe to the trolling argument in the first place, though that's a matter of opinion. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't agree with the statement that he's "just here to troll". A casual glance at his contributions shows mostly productive edits. Maybe we're all being trolled and one day Badmachine will become a steward and the main page will be raining penises, but for now I think there's not much of a case even for blocking. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm the rat who originally turned him in for his userpage penises. I think his userpage should be unlocked (he can't even add me to his friends list!) and he should NOT be banned. For one, permanent protection isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. For another, GNAA and Satanism userboxes aren't really disruptive and a dick pic isn't even that bad (if you don't believe me have a search over at commons, or even our own article on male genetalia. Badmachine is utterly harmless and I feel that he's being set upon by a mob just because he's got a GNAA userbox. Night Ranger (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Well, saved by the bell I guess. I edit conflicted with Drmies (and Equazcion, and just now, Night Ranger and before him Laser Brain; jesus, i type slowly); I was going to explain why I was about to indef block badmachine. What I was going to post is this: I have previously expressed the opinion that users with a GNAA logo and a My Little Pony userbox on their user pages should be blocked indef, as such a user page is prima facie evidence of trolling. A glance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#indefinite protection of userpage over userbox solidifies this; we've seen this show before. I am going to block badmichine indefinitely for continuous, low-level trolling. When you continually test the boundaries to see how much you can get away with, eventually you find out.. Out of my great respect for Drmies (if you disagree with something, I'm inclined to triple check to make sure I'm not in the wrong), I will hold off blocking badmachine, but I strongly support it. We suck at dealing with continuous low-level trolling, and he is a gigantic timesink. I anxiously await a more complete rationale about why this editor shouldn't be banned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No, no, I'm always wrong: look up the page, at "Block review, please". Block badmachine indefinitely! I'm kidding, a bit, but as you may know I am very much inclined to a positive outlook, usually to a fault, but I hope I'm right this time. Sorry about making you edit-conflict; that's real irritating. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Nope - Personally, I think if WP adopted an "anything goes" mentality with user pages, we'd have a lot more editors (granted, and a lot more rubbish, but, hey, take the good with the bad). Yeah, yeah, I know WP is "not Myspace/Facebook" but, you know, those websites are pretty popular. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If you think that turning WP into a "popular" social networking site would be a good thing, I think you lack a fundamental understanding of what an encyclopaedia is. We're here to build content, and a user whose dominating concern is being able to make a kawaii personal userpage can hardly be called an "editor" at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• i feel compelled to respond to the assertion that editing my user page is my "dominating concern". i have made about 3500 edits, if i recall correctly, and i believe less than 50 of them have been to my user page. -badmachine 05:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I made no comment regarding you. I responded to Quinn's (over)generalised rationale. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• oppose - trolling means going for an emotional response. i only want my userpage unlocked. i went thru the proper channels, and added template:edit request to my talk page, and my request was denied, and i was referred to the admin who locked it. he said lolno, so i came here, which i believe is the proper channel. wrt Floquenbeam, who said i was a "time sink", that is absurd. if you do not want to listen to contributors, then why are you a sysop? i am going thru the proper channels here. that's like a supervisor getting mad at his employees for working. :\ -badmachine 03:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No one suggested you should be banned merely because you want your user page unlocked. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• your suggestion that i be banned based on MLP and GNAA userboxes is baseless, and seems intended to intentionally start drama. i could suggest that you, yourself, be banned, but that would be pointy. -badmachine 03:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, no one suggested the boxes alone were the reason for this proposal. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• oppose - as Equazcion states; "even if you want to say it's a draconian approach". Well yes, it is a draconian approach and we don't block (or worse - ban) editors based on their affiliations. Badmachine is a long-term and productive WP editor on the whole. People here are focusing on the guy's userpage and his liking of penises/penes, while ignoring his good contributions. Seriously - leave him to edit in peace and let's all focus less on the drama - Alison ^❤ 05:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with penises, nor with those who care for them. People should indeed be able to like penises without being banned. But, then, liking them isn't actually his reason for posting them, now is it. As I've stated, the materials themselves are not the reason for this proposal. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • And my point wasn't about the penes but about the unnecessary associated drama, as well as the heavy-handed approach - Alison ^❤ 05:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I think trolling (defined as something intentional) warrants a heavy hand. Trolls like to incite the light-handed kind -- as that's what trolling is. Better to get rid of it once and for all. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Then we'll have to agree to disagree. There's far too much "ban the troll" going on on WP these days, IMO. It's too often used to take out those whom we simply don't understand/like/agree with. This project needs more tolerance, not more bannination - Alison ^❤ 05:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Perhaps Wikipedia could use less "ban the troll" mentality when it comes to lumping in someone whose opinions we dislike with those who actually engage in trolling, but it's not being used that way in this case. There's little reason, if any, to think this user is simply being misunderstood. I think we all understand quite well what he's trying to do with this content. If you think actual trolling should be overlooked in the face of good contributions, then yes, we will most certainly have to agree to disagree. I just want it to be clear what exactly we're agreeing to disagree on. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Normally, if a user is being generally productive and the only thing they're trolling is their own userpage, I would oppose something as serious as a ban. I'm not going to oppose it in this case, as I take a dim view of people who toss around the "N" word for lulz. Wikipedia needs less of that. Actually, the world needs less of that. 28bytes (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• what the world needs less of, is people taking offense over things like words. and penis pictures. i mean honestly, wikimedia commons is practically on par with slutload dot com as far as content. in fact, i doubt that even slutload has a video of a dog eating out the pussy of a woman in a nun's habit, so in that regard, wikimedia commons wins. -badmachine 06:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Commons is full of porn, so it's OK for you to use racial slurs. Got it. 28bytes (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Morten Lindberg certainly seemed to think so. And there's an article for that (which is where the other crowd got their name from). Just saying ... - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• not every single use of that word is a fucking slur. see reclaimed word for just one example. jesus i wish some of you would take the sticks out of your asses. -badmachine 07:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• How thoughtful of the GNAA to "reclaim" the word on behalf of black people. And here I thought they were just using it for shock value. 28bytes (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• are you implying that the GNAA is all white? -badmachine 07:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not implying anything. I'm stating flat-out that they are using racially charged language because they think it's funny. 28bytes (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd also like to point out that we would probably get rid of someone who repeatedly placed a phrase like "gay niggers" on his userpage just for display purposes. The fact that an "organization" exists along with an associated logo/article shouldn't serve as an excuse for inclined users to slide by this standard. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• So, what you're saying is that he should be banned based on his affiliations, yes? - Alison ^❤ 06:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, I never said anything of the sort. A mere affiliation would not merit banning a user. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• So it's displaying those affiliations that's the problem then? - Alison ^❤ 06:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not exactly. If this user's choice of userboxes and images showed, overall, a mere wish to display the organizations with which he was affiliated, I might sympathize, and say it's not problem in itself -- although aside from it being plain to see that this is not the case, the display of the "Gay Niggers Association of America" logo is itself problematic, since we wouldn't allow such a phrase (or reference to it) on userpages just for display purposes in any other scenario. Its existence in the first place is an admitted attempt to troll. If a user has a purely off-wiki interest in the group, he should find some other way to advertise it, or indeed not advertise it at all -- but not because it states his affiliation. We just don't allow that kind of thing on userpages, in a superficial sense. But, in this case, since that alone doesn't seem to be his intent anyway, it's something of a moot point. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously - is this going all the way down the line? You have a problem with the GNAA logo being displayed? Have you any idea who created that? He's pretty respectable - Alison ^❤ 07:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I do, for the reasons 28bytes does (it doesn't matter who created it). Although, I did also happen to mention I thought that was a moot point in this case, not my primary concern. I guess you must've missed that. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• In that case, you should try taking up the issue with that organization, instead of beating up on one of its affiliates, no? I see he's got a MLP userbox, too - do you also have issues with My Little Pony? Clearly it's disparaging of diminutive equines - Alison ^❤ 08:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (is this is starting to sound ludicrous yet?? Seriously!)

• In what case? My specifically not taking issue with statements of affiliation with those groups should cause me to complain to them? You can keep mischaracterizing this as a problem you have an easier time arguing against, but as I keep saying, that's not it. Am I stuttering? Equazcion ^(talk) 08:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Abloobloo bloo bloo this user has a bunch of stuff -on their userpage- (which I am compelled, nay, FORCED to look at every second of every day) that I don't like, even though it falls within policy. BREAK OUT THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS, CLEM! Jtrainor (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose You've been trolled if you rise to the bait and take offense or respond to it in any way. If we all just ignore this and move along, badmachine is just another user with boxen on his user page with letters in it that have very little meaning if you don't give a crap. Short of them spouting racist/nationalist/yada yada crap that incites this crime or that, we should just move along. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• I should expand on this a bit more now that I think on it. This is not to say I condone trolling of any sort. badmachine contributes and productively, which we should take into account. Sure his boxen may offend some and not others, but as his activities and affiliation, or lack thereof, with the GNAA, are not their sole purpose here I don't see why such a big fuss is being raised. Blackmane (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'd agree there if we were dealing with a single case of trolling. I've seen this user troll before, but have never actually addressed it. A troll who has made it clear he's attempting to test the boundaries of user page allowance by eliciting reactions and will continue to do so in the future is another story. As to the second part of your comment, I've made my thoughts on that clear above, but trolls should be handed their hats whether they've contributed productively or not. There are certain things that shouldn't be tolerated regardless of other positive behavior. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If there are limits to be tested, then perhaps a trip to the Village pump to discuss ways of tightening up the restrictions would be a better way to go about it. We've all seen people banned for various infractions over the years (hell I even got bored for a period and read about every user on the shit list) and even if badmachine is low level trolling, this doesn't warrant a full blown community ban. Blackmane (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban: the modem will be reset and the user will be back anyway. Just look around and you will see pretty much everyone is doing non-serious stuff. Deal with it and ignore the perpetrators (unless they're similar to Pinktulip, but even then, fat chance). >Sunglasses< Anne Clin You're Beautiful (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

RFP

The Protection section could use some help. All these requests are giving me RSI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Witty vandalism

It's surely worth passing on that this clever spoof edit, which stood in the article for over a fortnight, made it to a suitably inane gossip column on page 2 of The West Australian newspaper today. Alas, because it had appeared for so long, I was unable to jeer at the paper for reporting an overnight flash of vandalism. Yes, I can supply a pic of the coverage if required. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say, but for vandalism, that actually is pretty funny and well beyond the league of the usual rubbish of puerile penis jokes etc. Blackmane (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I take issue with the insinuation that penis jokes are puerile. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP strikes again with vandalism

Sorry to both the admin team, I appreciate how busy things can be around here. I previous notified ANI about an IP who went on a disruptive escapade, vandalising articles, refactoring talk pages, and posting personal attacks/harassing users for no reason. Discospinster (talk · contribs) issued them with a 31 hour block on April 29. However, since the block has expired, the IP has continued to post attacks. Firstly by telling Discospinter to "go to hell - fuck you", and also blatant vandalism on Snow White and the Huntsman by changing the word huntsman to "cuntsman". I think its time someone dealt with this one severely. And if possible, as a precaution, would it be possible to semi-protect my user page, as I have an inkling that the IP may go on a rampage and start vandalising that too. Thanks folks - Wesley☀Mouse 10:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Just remembered Dennis Brown informed me the other day to report this to AIV next time it happened; so done just that. Wesley☀Mouse 11:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Greg Bahnsen

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

---

There's obviously someone out there with a problem. For years, anon IP's regularly add a name to this article, probably a breach of BNP. It's low level - probably one attempt every couple of weeks. I seem to be the de facto custodian of the article, reverting the addition over and over. Previously this article was protected from editing by anon IPs but the protection has expired. Given that this problem hasn't gone away in years, can this article be protected again please. --HighKing (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Socking and edit warring at Saint Thomas Christians

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

---

Over the past few days there has been a spate of edit warring from clearly connected editors: Jogytmathew ( blocked for 24 hours on April 29), TomGeorge55, and now the IPs 117.196.142.146 and 117.196.134.214 have been instating the same types of edits. As the accounts appear to be socks hopefully dealing with them will take care of the problem, otherwise semi-protection may be needed. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been informed that another editor made a request at WP:RFPP, which I didn't see.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Semied for a week. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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