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

Nationalistic disruption

Masanori Asami (talk · contribs) has been disrupting Ryukyu Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in an attempt to push a Chinese nationalistic point of view. The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco is constantly being brought up by the editor when challenged, and it is this Treaty that Chinese nationalists have been using to try to say that they have claims over the embattled Senkaku Islands and other parts of Okinawa Prefecture. Masanori Asami has also been disrupting the Chinese Wikipedia, forcing the administrators there to lock down the Ryukyu Islands page.

It is clear that Masanori Asami is not here to constructively build an encyclopedia anymore and will only try to push his/her point of view on the Ryukyu Islands and their relation to China.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

By what reason, did Ryulong (talk · contribs)(琉竜) labels me a nationalist? I'm afraid Ryulong(琉竜) lacks the ability of reading, and I think I am far from a nationalist or a patriot of Japan. After I had requested Ryulong(琉竜) to show the reliable source on the talk page of Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ryulong(琉竜) began to make actions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 4 and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here. These must be the bothering tactics of Ryulong(琉竜), Ryulong(琉竜) must show the reliable source that my definition of Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is synonymous with "Ryukyu Islands".(Masanori Asami (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

Ryulong stated that you were pushing a Chinese nationalist PoV, not Japanese. – Richard BB

WP:DISCSANC may be applicable here under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands, though there has been some confusion as to how the wording of the remedy applies. This may be WP:AE material. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so. For I have not classified the Diaoyu Islands(Senkaku Islands) into the Ryukyu Islands of Japan. I think Diaoyu Islands(Senkaku Islands) belongs to Taiwan China.(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

But my nationality is Japanese, so it is not correct that even if Ryulong(琉竜) had called me a nationalist for short instead of a Chinese nationalist. (Masanori Asami (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

I find it odd that someone who claims to be a Japanese citizen believes that the embattled islands belong to the Republic of China rather than their own nation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

But Masanori Asami can communicate in Japanese Does that erase your suspicion? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Strangely enough, there are in the world some non-Japanese people who can communicate using the Japanese language: there's even this thing called "language classes" that non-Japanese can use to improve their abilities.. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion on MA's ethnic background is irrelevant to the case at hand. One's ancestry is not the determining factor when considering if behaviour is disruptive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia article of late Professor Kiyoshi Inoue who was a Japanese but clarified meanness of the Japanese Government about Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute. (Masanori Asami (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

The definition of Ryukyu Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ryulong (talk · contribs)(琉竜) is same to an article of People's Daily in 1953, and is almost same to the arrticle of Baidu(百度百科) edited by the Chinese nationalist in Mainland China. They want to make Ryukyu independent from Japan, and classify Ōsumi Islands (大隅諸島) which have never belonged to Ryukyu Kingdom into Ryukyu Islands, such that to make the area of Ryukyu wider. For they think the land of Ryukyu belongs to China. If you can understand chinese, please see "琉球群岛" in Baidu(百度百科) below.

http://baike.baidu.com/view/68665.htm

(Masanori Asami (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

Masanori Asami, the definition on Wikipedia is the common definition for the English speaking world. The Americans referred to the entirety of the chain as the "Ryukyus" during their occupation. Up until sometime last year, the article was solely about the islands that comprise Okinawa Prefecture, but upon further research several editors discovered that Encyclopedia Britanica and other publications refer to everything in the "Arc" as the Ryukyu Islands. You have for reasons unknown seen fit to disrupt the page on not only the English Wikipedia but the Chinese Wikipedia. You removed valid sources, removed anything regarding the Osumi and Tokara chains, removed content regarding Japanese rule, the Japanese name for the whole chain, and some other nomenclature information and a free photo. On top of that you have been fighting over the content fork at Ryukyu Arc as well as insisting that content be added to the main page that the Amami Islands are not part of the Japanese definition, even though that information is already covered. You are not here to constructively edit. You are here to push a point of view.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Be bold. --(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

This really does seem like AE material to me, but the wording of the WP:SENKAKU remedies are vague enough in their scope that I'm not sure if bringing it there would be the right course of action. I have a mind to file a request for clarification on the matter, unless anyone can give me a definite answer on the matter short of that process. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on my misgivings on the general wording of the remedies as well as how applicable they are here, I have opened a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Senkaku Islands. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Masanori Asami is now repeatedly calling into question my qualifications for editing all of Wikipedia because of a message I have posted on my ja.wp talk page that hasn't been changed in like 5 years. Also he saw fit to edit WP:SENKAKU to post the same screed against me he posted on the AFD for Ryukyu Arc.

I believe that Masanori Asami lacks the competence that we seek of editors for this project, and will only continue to disrupt Wikipedia in its English, Japanese, and Chinese editions so long as one project uses the common English definition of the "Ryukyu Islands" which encompasses everything the Japanese call the "Nansei Islands", rather than a portion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

He posted the screed a 3rd time now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong(琉竜) named this claim "Nationalistic disruption", so Ryulong(琉竜) must make it clear that Ryulong(琉竜) think me (user:Masanori Asami) as the nationalist of China or the nationalist of Japan, to avoid the "chameleon tactics" in the future.(Masanori Asami (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

Ryulong(琉竜) made my nationality a problem substantially, so Ryulong(琉竜) should disclose own nationality.(Masanori Asami (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

It must be paid attention that, even if I(user:Masanori Asami) had been a nationalist of China or Japan and my editing had been perfectly correct, then there would have been no problem. So, the title of this claim "Nationalistic disruption" is not suitable for wikipedia, such labelling is a technique to evade investigation.(Masanori Asami (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

I am an American national currently residing in Okinawa Prefecture. I may have been wrong to label your disruption as nationalistic, but it is most certainly disruption at any stage. Why else would the Chinese Wikipedia have seen fit to fully protect their page on the island chain had you not been disrupting it there? You have clearly been disrupting both the English and Chinese Wikipedias with your attempts to make the definition of the "Ryukyu Islands" your own.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I think it would be most helpful if someone instituted an interaction ban. That doesn't resolve the content dispute, though. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  09:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would an interaction ban be necessary when I'm a regular editor with several hundred thousand edits and Masanori Asami is a WP:SPA?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think editing limited to one very narrow area or set of articles is bad, but I create Daikon Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in 2007. Daikon Island is a volcano, so I edited the article of Volcanology of Earth Science. Please see my abstracts about "Daikon Island" in the homepage of "Japan Geoscience Union" below. So, Ihave some knowledge about the "Ryukyu Arc".

http://www2.jpgu.org/meeting/2003/pdf/v055/v055-p030_e.pdf

http://www2.jpgu.org/meeting/2004/pdf/v055/v055-p026_e.pdf

(Masanori Asami (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

Asami continues his personal attacks.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

They were not personal attacks.(Masanori Asami (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

"How could you graduate an elementary school?" is most certainly a personal attack.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Even an elementary school child of the average ability is different from "1,046 km (650 mi) " and "650 km (400 miles)" . (Masanori Asami (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

I didn't read the numbers and only paid attention to the text. A simple mistake that you want me to pay for so you can be in the right.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong(琉竜) began to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc

Ryulong(琉竜) began to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc after had made the page of (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryukyu Arc) . The editing of substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc contradicts the proposal for the article deletion. That means the withdrawal of the proposal by Ryulong(琉竜).(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

(notice) After Ryulong(琉竜) had begun to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc, User:EauOo moved page Ryukyu Arc to Ryukyu arc.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Ryulong(琉竜) should apologize to me in having proposed the article deletion.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

There is no rule saying "thou shalt not improve the article after nominating it for deletion" - especially as the edits were not "substantial contents" - and there is precisely zero requirment for anyone to apologise, especially for AfD nominations done in good faith. Strongly reccomend this subsection be closed as spurious and specious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The rule system of Wikipedia is incomplete. Thus the incomplete part must be complemented by "the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations" and good sense. Estoppel is one of such general principle of law recognized by civilized nations, especially by English speaking nations.Please see Estoppel.(Masanori Asami (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Please see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:VNT. Also please see WP:THETRUTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Ryulong(琉竜) does not understand the definition of Ryukyu Arc given by User:EauOo at 16:23, 6 October 2012‎. In fact, Ryulong(琉竜) added "It comprises the entirety of the Ryukyu Islands chain. ", but that means "Ryukyu Islands" do not include Daitō Islands(大東諸島) nor Senkaku Islands(尖閣諸島), for according to the definition of Ryukyu Arc given by User:EauOo, "Ryukyu arc" do not include Daitō Islands(大東諸島) nor Senkaku Islands(尖閣諸島; Diaoyu Island, zh:釣魚台列嶼). Please see the history page of Ryukyu arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Masanori Asami (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

So, the title "Nationalistic disruption" lose the meaning. (Masanori Asami (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

While my initial labelling of your disruption as nationalistic in nature may have been wrong, it is certainly clear that you are disrupting regardless. You unilaterally changed the content of one article to fit your whims while creating another poorly written article that is finally being looked at by people who know more about the subject than either of us do to create a proper page where you could not and where I was probably wrong in dismissing it as a stand alone article. However, I am under no requirement to apologize to you for anything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong(琉竜) and Chinese people think same islands belong "Ryukyu Islands"

The islands written by Chinese people belonging to "Ryukyu Islands" by online encyclopedia of Hudong was the same as the view of "Ryulong(琉竜)" in Ryukyu Islands of English-Wikipedia until I changed the article of "Hudong". (Masanori Asami (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)) http://www.hudong.com/wiki/琉球群岛

Please click and see the history page "历史版本" of "琉球群岛" of "Hudong". And compare the version of "历史版本42" by "下自成奚" and "历史版本48" of "浅见真规". (There is no direct link url to the history page.)(Masanori Asami (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Asami, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I am an American citizen with absolutely no Asian heritage who along with User:Nanshu and User:Kwamikagami decided that "Nansei Islands" does not exist in English usage to describe the islands between Kyushu and Taiwan, while "Ryukyu Islands" does. Stop accusing multiple people of some sort of systemic bias because the common Chinese and English definitions of "Ryukyu Islands" and 琉球群岛 are the same and more extensive than you want them to be. The fact that you have just now blatantly revealed that you are going from user submitted website to user submitted website to change the definition of this subject just shows you are here to push an agenda, and that is not welcome.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we had a long and somewhat contentious discussion over this, and decided that the preponderance of English sources trumps usage in Japanese. This is WP-en, after all. We accommodated the Japanese by adding a section on just that. — kwami (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In your discussion, "English sources" mean encyclopedias and dictionaries. When the editor of Wikipedia use an encyclopedia about the core part of the definition, the editor of Wikipedia must obey the rule of the copyright, but untill you (kwami) changed Ryukyu Islands yesterday there had been no "quotation" of encyclopedias and dictionaries in the definition part (top of the page) of Ryukyu Islands, it had benn illegal. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

You (kwami) had already known that, so you changed Ryukyu Islands and added the source of definition yesterday. And you hid that and referred to "English sources" here. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

And the editor must understand the definition given by encyclopedias and dictionaries, this is more important. For Wikipedia threaten the existence of encyclopedias and dictionaries. Do you understand the definition given by encyclopedias and dictionaries? -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

So, please explain under your definition how can you understand the article 3 of "Treaty of San Francisco" to me. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

Right now I'm trying very hard not to block you for nationalist disruption; you're pushing your luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do. This is getting ridiculous and this should have been stopped days ago. He's now accusing everyone of violating copyrights just to get his way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What? Hudong and Baidu are never reliable sources. And from the history I've seen, they are edited by Japanese. And Masanori Asami please refrain from making personal attacks.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• This screed (diff is of its removal) made up my mind. Masanori Asami (talk · contribs) is now blocked for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and not showing evidence of the competence required to be a Wikipedia contributor. Any admin may unblock if he shows signs of the Cluehammer 40000 having had an effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP-violating edit summaries by Argopelter

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

---

The article in question is Im Yoona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Argopelter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps insisting in his edit summaries that Im Yoona is his quote: "Waifu". After I warned him not to do this he came to my talkpage and left me a personal attack. Now he repeated his claims about Im Yoona being his "Waifu" even after my warning: (just a reminder that YOONA IS MAI WAIFU :3) These BLP violations, and tendentious editing to match, need to stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What does "waifu" mean? Minorview (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's Japanese for wife, but more often is used as an e-term for an imaginary significant other. Maractus ^talk 00:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're complaining about the edit summaries, not the edits themselves, right? And what do you think he means by "mai waifu", putting aside the issue that the edit summary is unrelated to the edit? Based on a quick Google search, it seems to have different connotations, although it apparently literally means "my wife". I kinda doubt that's what he means. My guess is he means he's a big fan, which, if true, is clearly inappropriate in an edit summary but not a BLP violation. And I think he only called you a "jerk" because you accused him of vandalism. I would think he just needs a warning to limit edit summaries to a description of the edit and keep his personal fan-related feelings out of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his talk page. We'll see if he behaves better.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be the editor is literally suggesting the subject of that article is his wife, occasionally we do get people who to seem extent appear to genuinely believe in some of of fantasy they seem to have invented. And saying some celebrity is their wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend isn't an uncommon issue whether or not the person saying it believes it. In any case, hopefully the warning will be sufficient. Nil Einne (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier but I was out. Anyway I think "Mai Waifu" means "My wife". As Nil says he may be declaring some crash or other wishful thinking regarding Yoona. Syntactically speaking his declaration: (just a reminder that YOONA IS MAI WAIFU :3) denotes that "Yoona is his wife" not that he is a fan of Yoona. "Yoona" is the subject of the verb and "waifu" the object. A clear BLP violation and a violation of the edit-summary system. Whatever it is I don't think it is proper for a user in any serious enterprise to use the edit-summary field to advertise their feelings or imaginary relations with the subjects of the articles here. I checked also his latest comments and he still insists on the "waifu" theme. His prospects for complying with Bbb23's request don't look that great and I think a block is past due. He cannot keep violating BLP this way. Regardless, thank you all for your comments and advice and especially Bbb23 for his advice and actions as an admin, Nil for his insightful comments and Maractus for his input. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

AIV is not responding. Now he is edit-warring on my talk. Can anyone block this guy? Thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Says the one who just vandalized my talk page repeatedly. Argopelter (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone also please remove Twinkle use from this editor as he used it to warn me for removing a BLP violation from his talkpage: 2012 (edit) (undo) Argopelter (talk | contribs) (Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User:Argopelter. (TW))

I used it to revert your vandalism. Argopelter (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"mai waifu" is a term of endearment. Cool it, man. Argopelter (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for expressing your "endearment" for its article subjects. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for you to be shoving your foot up my ass. Argopelter (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you explain the "This user loves Beagles." userbox on your page, then? Argopelter (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Knock it off. Argopelter, stay away from their talk page. One more revert there, one more templated warning, and I will block you temporarily. And both of you, stop it here as well. This isn't worth the electrons: dinosaurs gave their life so you could post this stuff here. Enough. I'm closing this right now. Argopelter: mind your manners please, and be more careful. Bbb has given you decent advice on your talk page; listen to it. Dr. K., I understand your anger (a bit), but this isn't worth the effort. Also, that use of Twinkle isn't much of a violation, and as far as I understand TW isn't a right we revoke. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert his talk page. Argopelter (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, whatever. I will close this now. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, enabling this user this way simply emboldens his serial and clueless violation of BLP. This is simply wrong. Nothing to do with anger. He simply must be stopped since he cannot treat BLP subjects this way. However if you disagree, I respect that, although I don't share your evaluation. As far as Twinkle he can be blacklisted. It has happened before. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not for this, yet, Dr. K. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

76.189.121.57

This IP user, 76.189.121.57 has been deleting sourced material and threatened to report me for reverting their edits. I do believe this was a personal attack on me because I do put the sourced vocal ranges on non-opera singers pages, and the user has something against that. I don't like edit warring, but the user has been doing it as well for some reason. Tribal44 (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44

To the admin handling this, please see my talk page and the message I just posted to admin Mark Arsten. Tribal's user page clearly explains why she will not stop inserting vocal ranges into articles. Hopefully, we can put an end to what Tribal44 has been doing. Many editors have reverted her, but she just goes right back in and reverts it back. Thanks. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

While vocal ranges may have some place in the article, provided they are sourced, they probably do not belong in the lead section. However, the overarching issue in this discussion is the ongoing incivility between the two editors that can be seen at the IP's talk page, where the two have been "going at it", for lack of a better term to characterize the disagreement. To me, this is part content dispute, part incivility...Go Phightins! (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not mad at Tribal at all. :) Just frustrated. I'm sure she means well, but what she's doing is totally inappropriate. I gave clear edit comments and explained to Tribal why what she's doing isn't right, but as her user page shows, her mission is to put vocal ranges into as many singer's articles as possible, regardless of whether it belongs there or not. Many, many editors have reverted her since she started doing this and she just reverts back, so I'm surprised this hasn't been reported before. She can't go into to Mick Jagger's article and change "Mick Jagger is a rock singer for the Rolling Stones" to "Mick Jagger is a baritone singer". ;) That's just a made-up example, but that's what she's doing in many, many articles. Or she's just sticking the vocal range somewhere else in the lead. Her user page makes clear why she's doing it, but an admin needs to educate her about why she needs to stop. My apologies for anything taken as incivility, but I see this process Tribal's been doing has been going on for a long, long time. Someone really needs to stop it. I appreciate her passion for music and, in particular, vocal ranges, but what she's doing is wrong. Thanks. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Tribal's userpage says that "if it's annoying you, let her know". So I think a reasonable expectation would be an explanation. Though I'm honestly not sure that ANI is the proper venue for this discussion. It should probably be worked out on user talk pages...Go Phightins! (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)To the IP: Is there a reason you are making threats of blocks and shopping for admin on Mark Arsten's page? Your tone and actions outside of the reverts is questionable here, and you speak with an air of authority that exceeds the reality of the situation. The IP has left one rude warning[1] on the user's talk page and has been threatening reporting for disruption and getting Tribal44 blocked. At a minimum, this is very incivil (and a perfect case for the non-existing WQA). As to whether or not Tribal should or shouldn't be adding vocal ranges, I have no idea. Doesn't seem so bad, but this isn't DRN and you don't threaten someone who is obviously making good faith edits. If you were as well versed in policy as you claim to be, you would know that since this covers multiple articles, you get a third opinion, go to WP:DRN, or start an WP:RFC, or go to some venue, but you don't threaten someone because you disagree with them. 76.189.121.57 is being disruptive at a minimum. Again, no comment on the content, but if the IP doesn't seek a solution rather than badger, I will be inclined to consider a block for being disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that so many editors have reverted her "vocal range" edits made it very clear to her that what she's doing is inappropriate. But she just reverts every single editor that reverts her vocal range content. And she continually puts edit comments like "Stop doing that" or similar. Btw, even IF putting vocal ranges into every singer's article was appropriate, a lot of the sourcing isn't even good/reliable. But it shouldn't be in the articles anyway... it's inappropriate unless it's an opera singer. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Again: Take it to dispute resolution. Do not threaten good faith editors. Period. I shouldn't have to repeat this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto Dennis Brown I was going to post the same thing, but when I clicked edit, it'd already been said. You don't threaten good faith editors with blocks, or any type of sanctions for that matter. See WP:AGF, please. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, this has been going on for a very long time (many editors reverting Tribal for adding the vocal range content and then being reverted by Tribal), yet apparently it hasn't been reported. That is very disruptive and an administrator needs to be aware of it. So I wrote Mark for help rather than filing a formal report. I wanted to see what Mark advised. And this issue IS about the content. It's not isolated. It's happening in many, many, many articles. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you don't get to threaten editors who are acting in good faith. I understand your rationale for pinging an administrator to take a quick look before you formalize a discussion, but that's not the problem in this situation. Incivility is the issue and very little effort, it seems, has been put forth trying to get the user to explain herself. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I never said I could implement any particular action. I said that I would report what she was doing if it continued. Nothing wrong with that. My language may have been a bit harsh and I apologized for that already. But this isn't a new problem. It's been going on for a long time, with many editors reverting Tribal. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And an administrator, me, is giving you a solution right now. The anticipated response is "Ok, I won't be incivil any more and I will take this to WP:DRN" so we can just move along without further action, and maybe edit an article or two. It isn't the ONLY option, just the best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, to be clear, yes there is a problem with saying you will report someone who is making good faith edits. Even if they are, I'm not going to block them for being mistaken. You don't "report them", you go go DRN WITH them, and let uninolved people help find a consensus. Just because you disagree doesn't make it the wrong edit, by the way. Threatening to report is incivil and if the threats (which have a goal of intimidating other editors) continue, you will be blocked. I can't put it any more plain than that. Stop it. Go to DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All right, this is the last time I'm posting tonight, I may check again tomorrow, but what specific editors have reverted. Please show us some diffs. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DOZENS of editors have reverted Tribal over a long period of time. And here's a typical example of what Tribal does ([2]). For a long time, the opening sentence was "Vibeke Stene (pronounced vee-beh-keh) (born 17 August 1978) is a Norwegian vocalist who was in the gothic metal band Tristania." Tribal changed it to "Vibeke Stene (pronounced vee-beh-keh) (born 17 August 1978) is a Norwegian spinto soprano[1] singer." So we have a singer for a metal band and Tribal changes it to say she's a spinto soprano. Totally inappropriate. Editors have reverted these types of edits repeatedly, but Tribal just goes back in and puts back the vocal range version, usually with an edit comment that says something like "Stop changing the vocal range", or no edit comment at all. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

See? This is a personal attack. I don't know why the user is doing this, but it is downright inappropriate and annoying. The user is trying to bully me out of not reverting *any* edit anymore. I say let the actual admin decide on the whole senerio. Tribal44 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44

I already gave my opinion. If the IP wants to debate, I'm not interested as ANI isn't a debate forum, we don't decide what is the best content here. Ever. It is an incident forum. You can choose to accept my advice, or you can continue along the same path but now informed of the consequences. But 76*, you can do what I recommended or you can wait around and maybe some nicer and more patient admin will come along with a different solution. But I'm off, so good luck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You said "this" is a personal attack? What exactly do you think was a personal attack? I simply pointed out evidence of the type of edits you've been doing for a long time. This isn't personal. It's about your inappropriate editing. I've already said previously that I think you mean well, but what you're doing with your vocal range insertions is wrong. That's why so many editors have reverted it. But you just keep ignoring every editor that reverts you by simply reverting them back, and then put an edit comment saying to stop doing it. That's not how Wikipedia works. I know vocal ranges are very important to you, but that doesn't mean you should go into every singer's article and put it there. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting way out of hand. I don't and will not listen to some IP user who thinks my edits are labeled "inappropriate". That is for the wiki admin to say, NOT you ok? I edit different pages as well. Are you going to feel all "superior" and revert them too? Ohhh wait, I just made another different edit...and another one... and now this one. You going to revert those too??? Tribal44 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44

Tribal44, you've got some real misconceptions here. (1) IP editors have a perfect right to edit here and the fact that they are unregistered, cannot be used to negate the value of the edits per se. (2) No, this is not for a "wiki admin" to decide. Admins do not decide content issues, editors do. And where there is a dispute, the appropriate thing to do is to take it to the article's talk page and discuss it with other editors, and possibly seek a third opinion. Both you and 76.189.121.57 have been edit-warring and mildly incivil to each other. Neither of you has the moral high ground. Tribal, without commenting extensively on the dispute, I will say that some of your edits could be construed as inappropriate in that they involve synthesis and original research and at times less than ideal sources. This one, for example, is sourced to a fan forum, in which the singer is participating: "The only thing I can say, from the classical theory, is that I'm MezzoSoprano.". Nowhere does she say that she "Her vocal range is spinto soprano" (a different voice range from a mezzo-soprano and a voice term which applies only to operatic singers). It is inaccurate and misleading to use it for other genres. This one is referenced to the singer's blog. She says: "I really dont know my range anymore since its been so long since we checked it. But I am a soprano and if I would use the classical singing more I would be lyrical I think." Nowhere does she say that "her melodic range is typically in the soubrette soprano range" (again a term used for opera singers). Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

PS Although it neither detracts from nor enhances the validity of what I'm telling you both, I'm not an admin. Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Being an admin is meaningless here, as you point out, it is a content dispute, which is why I keep saying to take it to the proper venue. I would imagine the IP is probably right on much or most of the content, but again, the constant insulting tone and bullying to a fellow editor, which is ironic since he has been on my talk page calling me a hypocrite, a bully and a liar simply because he has trouble understanding plain English. So for a final time, he needs to take it to some type of content dispute resolution, as his constant rudeness and aggressive behavior will get him blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again Dennis, you are being a total hypocrite. I don't say that to be mean. I say it because it's true. You have continually characterized me as being uncivil, have claimed that I made "threats", and have called me a bully. Yet what have you done? Exactly what you are accusing me of. Repeatedly. From the beginning, you spoken to me in a condescending manner, and have made threats about banning me. I have acknowledged that some of my words to Tribal may have been a little harsher than necessary and I apologized for that, but I NEVER bullied anyone and I never made any threats in the way you are attempting to characterize. After I made good faith edits, with full edit comments, explaining why it is inappropriate for Tribal to go into every singer's article and insert detailed content about their vocal range (in the lead, no less), Tribal reverted all of them, even putting back other content for which there could be no dispute whatsoever (such as redundant content, or content that was either unsourced or unreliably sourced). Because of this, I indicated to Tribal that the matter would be reported if she didn't stop what she was doing and that she could end up being blocked for inappropriate editing. That is NOT a threat. If anything, it was a courtesy to let her know what would happen if it continued. This is not a minor issue. It is a major editing issue because it involves thousands of articles - every article about a singer, whether the singer is famous or relatively unknnown. Tribal's own user page even acknowledges exactly what she is doing and what her purpose on Wikipedia is: "I might as well create this page, and the reason why I add vocal ranges onto pages. I was a part-time vocal teacher for 4 years. That is why I post the ranges of the singers, with reliable sources of course. I don't do it to be annoying, if it is annoying to some people, let me know." So mistake one is that because vocal ranges are important to Tribal, she assumes it's important enough to put not only into a Wikipedia article, but into every singer's article. The second mistake is that she has the gall to put this vocal range content into the leads of the singers' articles. Sometimes she will even go further, by changing the opening sentence of a singer's article and instead of saying the person is a rock singer for such and such a band, she'll change it to the person is a mezzo-soprano singer, for example. And we're not talking about opera singers. We're talking about pop and rock singers. The third mistake, and this is huge, is that many, many of these content insertions about vocal range are unreliably sourced, as Voceditenore began alluding to above. Tribal will simply link to clearly inappropriate (unreliable) sources, or even just link to multiple videos on YouTube as proof of the claim. This needs to stop. Because if it doesn't, Tribal will continue going into hundreds of articles of singers and putting in this vocal range content into the lead. And editors will continue to revert, and she will revert right back. And she will, as she has done so often, try to put this content into many articles that are rarely edited, so it is unlikely to ever get noticed or not noticed for a long time. We, as editors, simply do not have the right to simply go into every article within a particular category to add a specific type of content just because it's meaningful to us personally. It needs to be content that is worthy of inclusion into an encylopedic article. And further, it most certainly needs to be lead-worthy if it's going to be put into the lead. I imagine Tribal has been doing this for years, so I don't know yet and can't imagine how many articles of singers she's done this to. All I know is that I did a quick check of her edit history going back a year or two, and the vocal range content was reverted by many editors, yet was put back by Tribal, with edit comments such as "knock it off", "stop removing the vocal ranges", "stop doing that. good lord" etc. I'm sure she was well-intentioned when she came up with this idea years ago, but she obviously knows that many editors have opposed it through their reverts, yet she continues to revert all the reverts, and put the vocal range content into other articles. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All right, 76.189.etc., calling a good faith admin who happens to be one of the most respected ones on the project a hypocrite, is probably not a good idea when trying to resolve a problem saying that you're the good guy. As has been said a million times (it seems), this is for an article's talk page as a content dispute. Dennis suggested, and I will echo, seek a third opinion. But ANI is not the place for this, and soon this thread will likely be closed because it's not serving the purpose of ANI. Thank you--Go Phightins! (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And one more thing, the diff you provided above was of you making a revert. You claim "dozens of other editors have" and I want a diff of one of these dozens of others. Go Phightins! (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

GoPhightons, your opinion of the admin and what is a "good idea" is just that... your opinion. His comments and actions here and in other talk pages show a different story. He implied I was a fool by alluding to a "fool's errand", threatened me with blocks and said, just above, said I have "trouble understanding plain English." Do you call that civil? That is not the behavior of someone who deserves respect. And you obviously don't understand how huge/widespread this problem is with Tribal44 or else you wouldn't have made the suggestion to deal with this on "an article's talk page." This problem is not about a single article, or even a few articles. It's about hundreds, and potentially thousands, of articles, where Tribal wants to insert the vocal range content, even though it's not worthy of inclusion and most certainly not lead-worthy. These are not opera singers we're talking about. They're pop and rock singers, etc. And it's interesting how you completely ignored what Voceditenore said. And if you want to see all the times Tribal44 has been reverted, all you have to do is simply look at her edit history, like I did, and do a word search for "vocal range". You will see all the reverts of other editors who have reverted her for the vocal range content. This has been going on for four years. And be sure to read Tribal's edit comments when she reverts all the editors who reverted her. Look, the vocal range content doesn't belong in those articles, the sources in most cases miserably fail the reliability test (or the content is put there completely unsourced), and even if the content were worthy of inclusion, Tribal clearly does not understand that the content is in no way lead-worthy. And amazingly, she will even put edit comments like this one,[3], which says "I may be wrong, but heard the role was a contralto one." This is what it's gotten to after all these years of doing this; she'll simply enter content even though she openly admits that she had no idea if it's accurate or not, and do so with no sources. All of this has to stop. And it needs to be addressed as an overall editing issue because it involves every singer's article. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you were being rude, you are refusing to take the content dispute to the proper board and are instead threatening another user. Yes, if you keep doing that I will block you. This isn't a threat, this is an admin telling you your behavior isn't acceptable and what the consequences will be if you don't use other options. Too bad, as you are probably right on the content issue, but you don't get to be the sole arbiter of content, it requires a consensus which doesn't currently exist. The answer isn't to keep reverting and threatening the user. At this point, I would ask another admin to look at this for action. Since he has been busy calling me a liar, a bully, someone that shouldn't be an admin, etc. in the hatted portion of my talk page, and refused to consider WP:DRN, another set of admin eyes is appreciated since I don't want to hear cries of "involved", no matter how unaffected I really am by these comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:76.189.121.57 for 24 hours for continuing with the insulting/attacking/battlefield behaviour (both here and on Dennis's talk page) rather than listening and taking it to WP:DR. In response I stand accused of abuse of admin tools - I'll leave it to others to decide that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I say the block was correct. I would've done the same. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not handled well

I'm not seeing evidence of inappropriate threats by 76. Compare You need to stop or you will be reported for disruptive editing. with the standard wording of {{Uw-disruptive3}} Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. The forum shopping statement is a stretch as a) 76 explained they were in process of posting on Mark Arsten's page when the ANI was posted, and b) they didn't post the ANI. I'm seeing an unfortunate back and forth spiral of 76 and Dennis as much talking past each other as to each other. While I won't say the block was wrong -- certainly not any abuse or anything like that -- a timely close tag on this thread -- with positive comments on 76's page on how to proceed with the content issue -- might have been a better approach. Nobody Ent 16:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Both parties were seriously edit warring (5 reverts each on one article alone). 76 receives edit summaries calling him a troll [4], [5]. When contacted by the other editor on his talk page, responds abrasively but to call it a threatening personal attack is a stretch. Asks an admin for advice and assistance. Another admin comes along instead and tells him it looks like he's forum-shopping and he should discuss it at ANI, where unbeknownst to him, he has already been reported. There, he's given some alphabet soup, called a bully again, and told he shouldn't discuss it at ANI after all. I had entered into a dialogue with him on my talk page, but he was blocked in the interim. Yes, he should have dropped the stick, but he could have been helped to do that, so much better. There was way too much indignation all 'round in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this was a simple content dispute that could've and should've been discussed on an article's talk page to reach consensus, but it was blown way out of proportion. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Update - I've added some further advice (very close to Nobody Ent's advice) on 76's talk page. I've also offered to unblock immediately if they'll agree to drop the insults and follow WP:DR - I've suggested WP:RfC and have offered to help with a review of the content dispute. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant to add that any admin can, of course, unblock if they think it would be appropriate - no need to ask me first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• 76's last edit seems to indicate the usefulness of a block has passed -- Drive by unblock requested. Nobody Ent 19:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree - done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Content discussion

Started discussion of underlying content issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#Vocal_range Nobody Ent 19:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

NPA and edit warring block needed

I've been having a content dispute on Anti-Japanese sentiment with User:71.94.7.228. After finding more sources to satisfy xyr concerns (and after having had to remove some BLP infringing material on the article's talk page--see my redaction here). Unfortunately things have become a bit worse, because now he says (to me) "You've got autism you cold retarded fuck" and recommends that I perform some sexual behaviors on his talk page. The editor has also crossed 3RR on the article. While I'm inclined to think a block is appropriate, I'm WP:INVOLVED and thus would like someone else to look into it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. That said, all "Anti-X sentiment" articles must burn in hell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a static IP, you might have been too generous, considering his homophobic comments above on his talk page. I suppose we can see, but I'm betting a few months off would be more fruitful as nothing useful has come from that IP, and searching around the web shows nothing of value would be lost with a longer block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Amanbir Singh" IP

Yesterday, 117.199.109.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who signed as "Amanbir Singh" was blocked for disrupting the talkpage of Anders Behring Breivik and for repeated removals of the block notice on User:Meowy's talkpage. I was the first of two admins who declined his unblock request.

Some of the postings this user has come with seem like threats of violence [6] (he will argue he is only warning of dire consequences from others, but I am quite certain that a defense like that won't work.)

Another IP came back today as 117.220.144.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), also signing with Amanbir Singh, and I have blocked that one as well. Apparently the person here is IP-hopping, so please keep a eye out. Also, the threat above is of the type where I would seriously consider the Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm process, even if I am 90%+ sure that this is simply a troll. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I too have had the pleasure to be visited by 117.199.109.150 117.199.105.177 [7] but I decided to ignore them. Given this new development I'd advocate a range block. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

See also 117.199.105.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Meowy's user page. De728631 (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this has been going on for a quite while, starting at 21 March 2012:

• 117.199.99.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [8]
• 117.220.147.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [9]
• 117.199.111.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [10]
• 117.199.99.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [11]
• 117.199.111.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [12], [13]
• 117.207.152.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posted a faked unblock request and this spat. I've now blocked this one for real (1 week) including denial of talk page access.

De728631 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This guy seems to be on a global trolling mission. 117.207.152.91 has also been disrupting the Breivik article talk and Tournesol's user talk page at the Swedish WP: edit history. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Has Sv.wp been informed of what's been going on here? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have informed Tournesol on his en account. He's an admin over there. De728631 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bettina Wulff

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

---

Please note that 95.33.9.54 is spreading libel at Bettina Wulff. I suggest that his IP be blocked and that the article itself be protected. Regards, MountWassen (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, hope 3 months will be enough until the vandals have lost interest in that campaign. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So do I. Thanks for your prompt response. Regards, MountWassen (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

AfD Closure of Thulasi Nair

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

---

The article didn't had any refs when it was nominated and during the first three votes at the AfD. I added three references to the article ([14], [15], [16]) from Times of India, India's largest National Newspaper. Then I voted 'Keep' in the AfD. The AfD was closed and the article has been deleted. I contacted the closing admin Mark Arsten and asked for a relisting. The admin asked me to ping the three other voters to ask whether they would change their opinion. I did, but unfortunately none of the three voters have replied to my message. I am not appealing against the admin's action. I respect Mark Arsten for their actions and their reply to me. I just wanted an uninvolved admin's opinion on whether the article satisfies notability with the three references that I added. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anbu. The proper venue for this kind of issue is WP:DRV. Would you be ok with taking it there instead? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I searched for such a notice board before posting here, but couldn't find. I have made an entry there. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User:The "good guy"‎ redirecting talk and user page to IP page

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

---

Can someone else chime in and tell User talk:The "good guy"‎ that he cannot redirect his user and talk pages to the IP pages? He is claiming that the registered account is a legitimate sock account used for maintenance and thus he is able to redirect to his "main account", the open IP. Thanks-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

A possible problem with undiscussed moves

Hi all, I'm reluctant to start a thread on the drama-board about this, but... people have tried to discuss some concerns about Gryffindor's mass moves, and Gryffindor has carried on regardless. What should be done? Here's a summary - I'll try to keep it neutral (others may disagree, of course)

• Earlier in 2012, Gryffindor started moving articles about government bodies, typically along the lines of like Senate of Trinidad and Tobago -> Senate (Trinidad and Tobago). A lot of the moves are over redirects.
• Some editors have disagreed with the moves and tried to start a discussion; [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] etc. Gryffindor just keeps on moving pages regardless.
• Personally, I believe that some (not necessarily all) moves are flawed, on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. In many cases Gryffindor's edit summaries seem bizarrely unrelated to the actual moves (for instance, "per constitution" even though the relevant constitution doesn't use the new name, or "proper name" even though the new title is not used by any source). Gryffindor didn't reply to my latest query and instead moved some more pages.
• I only noticed this because I watchlist Burkina Faso; in the wake of one of these undiscussed moves, an unrelated editor came along to "correct" National Assembly of Burkina Faso to National Assembly (Burkina Faso). The former title is used by far more sources than the latter. I queried on the relevant talkpage but Gryffindor did not reply.
• One particularly worrying example is on Senate of Pakistan: Gryffindor moved it, Green Giant disgreed and started an RM, the RM was closed as "page returned to original name", then Gryffindor moved it again anyway.

What can we do to get things back under control? If many of these moves have met with disagreement, shouldn't we be using RMs? (and respecting the result of the RMs) bobrayner (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-communication block to get them to respond. Lack of communication isn't acceptable Blackmane (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Editor has communicated. Nobody Ent 13:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In that particular case, Gryffindor commented on the RM requestor's talkpage and then moved the page anyway, contrary to the RM which had been closed by an uninvolved admin. In this case they responded to another editor's complaint with a comment that simply doesn't mention or justify the new title Gryffindor had chosen. In this case, Gryffindor tells another complainant that they moved to the WP:COMMONNAME, but the name Gryffindor actually moved it to was neither the official nor the most common name, and like the other cases it's a highly improbable search term (Won't somebody think of the readers?). However, these responses only account for a tiny proportion of moves; hundreds of other moves were undiscussed and other objections have gone unanswered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by bobrayner (talk • contribs)

• I note that Gryffindor appears to be an administrator - since 2006 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason to block pending explanation? dangerouspanda 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)True -- why do you mention it? Nobody Ent 13:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• He has replied to one of the concerns, but on the other users talk pages [25] as Ent pointed out, but he needs to stop and come here before doing any more since that is a reply, not a discussion. And Ent, I understand why he mentioned it. Rules are different now, some old school admins do things differently. This may or may not be that situation. I left a message. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• I mentioned the fact that he's an admin from way back a) specifically for the reason Dennis suggests, and b) because admins are expected to set an example and should be held to higher standards of behaviour -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on wikipedian and BLP subject

User:ShowTimeAgain is a WP:SPA, edit warring to insert attacks and soap boxing against the Wikipedian and BLP subject William M. Connolley User:William M. Connolley : [26], [27] [28][29] (milder but still focussed on Connolley: [30][31]). The editor believes himself to be defending a deceased non-notable climate change denial scientist [32]: "If you'd care to read the reason why this file was uploaded, you'd realize this was the only way to defend the reputation of Professor Leroux against an unjust attack. ". Considering the accounts attacks on Connolley and knowledge of wikipedia, it seems a likely WP:DUCK as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• CU found no links[33], but it isn't magic pixie dust and can't rule out meatpupptry. I do see some disruptive behavior, let me take a closer look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Pointy behavior like adding to an AFD talk page after it closes[34], likely meatpuppetry at that AFD (I did the SPI investigation, BTW, which is still open). His combative and single purpose intent is obvious here [35], as well as his soapboxing at the AFD itself. (first link). Like most SPAs, he isn't here to build an encyclopedia, that is certain. Many SPAs serve a worthwhile purpose, and just have a single interest, thus pose no problem. This editor doesn't appear to be one of them. The question is: has he passed the threshold for WP:DE? If he hasn't, it is certainly within his sight, if not his crosshairs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI header states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Not seeing that on User_talk:ShowTimeAgain. Suggest this be closed pending completion of that step. Nobody Ent 13:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically, Nobody Ent is right. I suppose I worked the SPI and saw all the disruption that was taking place, including likely meatpupptry, leading me to conclude a positive resolution isn't very likely, but that is just my opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be pointless Bureaucracy. It's self evident that an editor shouldn't go around attacking other editors (which constitutes about half his edits). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur -- we have the {{uw-npa}} series specifically to point this out to users on their talk page.

The thought occurs to me that inviting a new user to ANI for attacking other editors is like putting someone in a prison in the US, at least -- just as likely to learn better ways of attacking other editors as they are to be rehabilitated. Nobody Ent 13:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If the rule to discuss at a talk page before posting at ANI is "pointless Bureaucracy", let's amend the rule. While it may be "evident" to regulars that one shouldn't attack, but different places have different rules, so I suggest it is not "self evident".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Marcel Leroux is notable, and new citations from paywalled French newspapers have been found to further support his notability. User:IRWolfie- is a participant in this singling out scientists skeptical of some aspect of global warming for non-notability claims, and in the case of Marcel Leroux initiated the attack with either a bad faith or incompetent google scholar search.

Regarding the dismissive "pointy behavior" characterization above, it should be noted that User:ShowTimeAgain has "respected" the prohibition on editing the closed deletion article itself, despite a precipitous closing of the deletion discussion by User:WilyD while work was still being done.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that editing the talk page of a closed discussion is just as pointy as adding to the closed discussion. It is closed. I also agree that you shouldn't have been dragged into an SPA tag, but none of that changes the fact that there is a battleground mentality at work with ShowtimeAgain/Showtimenow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that sticking to the talk page is showing respect, and if anything makes it clear that you should always have a battleground mentality when WMC is involved, it is the fact that he was in a revert war on the talk page.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but after the close is putting it there where no one will see it, which is pointless, or WP:POINTy. Taking it to the talk page of the editor or another venue is the proper response. As to the article or merits of the AFD, I have no clue and not interested. My focus is on behavior. And now I see that a large amount of off-wiki canvassing took place against Connolly, which appears to be ShowTime's "enemy", so to speak. When SPAs take a battlefield mentality, as demonstrated by the totality of edits (and not the validity of any argument), then it becomes a problem for all of us. It is entirely possible to be 100% right on the merits of an argument, but to be so disruptive in how you present them that you get blocked. I see it regularly. It isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see User:StillStanding-247's behavior over the last 2 months to prove this point. Search these archives for one of his 15 or so visits to this board. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was surprised at the precipitous closing of the deletion page, the talk page is the first place I went to look for a discussion of what was going on. Even experienced users like myself, aren't necessarily experienced at page deletions, and a different talk page standards once they are closed. I was far more shocked that someone was reverted on a talk page than that someone was posting on one. I had only seen reverting on talk pages before when vandalism or namecalling vitriol was involved.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm, the closing notice even mentions that discussion should take place on the talk page:

"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page."

--Africangenesis (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

AFD talk pages are for procedural issues, which is why it is pointless to use them. Like it says, DRV or the article talk page if it had been kept. There is a laundry list of places off-wiki that this AFD was canvassed at, leading to this whole mess and the SPI investigation. Again, my concern is behavioral, in particular, ShowTimeAgain's behavior. I have no idea if they are the one that spammed the canvassing off wiki, but they have maintained a battleground attitude ON wiki, and that needs to stop if they expect to stick around. It is fine to disagree, we all do, but Show's comments indicate he has trouble not being "disagreeable" at times. Several have noted this and brought it to his attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving a final note of sort on his talk page. If he continues to act in a disruptive way to make points, he is likely going to be blocked. Hopefully he will be wise and consider this, and find a way to contribute without the drama, soapboxing and grandstanding. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I just read this and wish to contribute, while I still can: IRWolfie is mistaken. My knowledge of Wikipedia's process is "beginner" and it is obvious: it took me a while to even manage to upload the image of the certificate. I even accidentally duplicated it. Notwithstanding how to include a link in the conversation. So much for knowledge...
• Connolley's reputation as a Wikipedia editor had reached beyond Wikipedia and it is fair knowledge to anyone watching the climate debate. His bursting in the deletion discussion with inflammatory "delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)" accusations were not an aggressive characterization perhaps? No ANI there. I argued that IRW and WMC had little knowledge of Leroux's works and WMC acknowledged having not read Leroux. He should. When in good faith I showed proof of Leroux's title as Chevalier de l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques, its authenticity was immediately rebuked. Is that the attitude of people wishing to see information shared in a free encyclopedia or is it the attitude of people with an agenda?
• As for my interventions: Did I go on modifying pages from those I disagree scientifically with? No. I posted on talk pages as I promptly discovered that the conversations were moved over various multiple pages. Aren't these talk pages for discussion? I had not intervened on Wikipedia for a long time as there was no need for me to. But the reputation of Prof. Leroux had to be defended against what became, especially after WMC's intervention and his endless hunt to delete every bit of Leroux on En.wikipedia, including the Palmes certificate used in other pages, a clear biased process. Notability was an excuse. Opinion was the reason, as adequate Google search results by another poster have demonstrated, the notability of Marcel Leroux is among the 1% of scientists [36].
• I notice in this discussion that IRW is advocating a swift banning process against me. No surprise. To me this confirms that the Leroux deletion was a premeditated action and that these two editors hoped for a quick, eventless deletion of the Leroux page. Tough luck. On a final note, I have made my point so anyone can read our exchanges and draw their own conclusions.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Only two have brought editing complaints to Show's attention on his talk page, and one of those was IRWolfie. I doubt there is any harm in putting the notice on Show's page, he shouldn't sweat it. Show and Lucy are vindicated. I've made an open and shut case for reversing this totally unnecessary deletion at WilyD's talk page. Did IRWolfie, WMC and even WilyD really not know what the real criteria was for academic notability? Why should this deletion and an injustice to this scientist's memory, have been allowed to go through in peace? [37]--Africangenesis (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• As the person who did the investigation, I completely understand why IRWolfie brought it to SPI, it did look very suspicious (with the exception of Africangenesis, not sure why he was in there). I will vouch for that. One new user. One user who hasn't edited in over SIX YEARS, magically show up? Coincidence? Maybe, but the amount of canvassing off wiki combined with those coincidences certainly does qualify for someone at SPI to look at it. And I did. And no one is blocked. And I did find ShowTimeAgain's old account from 2010 (which isn't a problem since they aren't both being used at the same time). Now, I've left Show a message, and the best thing anyone can do is help him understand how things work here a bit better, so his actions don't look as disruptive. He came here and it looks like he did in good faith. I don't want to block him and don't expect to. I was hoping to get his attention, which it seems I did, and hopefully he will tread a little less aggressively in the future so we can avoid ANI and the like. Just back the tone up a little, try to cooperate more, ask questions instead of accusing people, and you will be fine, Show. This is expected from all of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, I created this profile in order to defend against the Leroux page deletion attempt in September 2012 as I thought my original handle from 2010 was not working anymore. So much again for my supposed knowledge. Since you investigated, you therefore know that my first ever contribution to wiki in December 2007 had nothing to do with climate. It however involved someone of immense talent that may be lesser known to the masses. Since my 2010 interventions, there have been many improvements to Leroux page which I did not object to. I came here in good faith and informed, about Leroux's work and publications. Africagenesis was even more informed than I was, and more computer literate (easy...). I was also informed about some of those who worked and pushed for this deletion, who seem to enjoy total immunity despite serious incidents[38]. I have no quarrel with you and find your demands reasonable in an environment of good faith, which in this particular case, on this subject was not the case [39]. Again, a properly executed Google search reveals another picture of Leroux's notability [40].

• I will leave the discussion of whether or not he is notable or not up to you and the other editors who are involved. At ANI (here), we just deal with short term issues like behavior, not content. Admins shouldn't decide content, interested editors should. You can take the deletion to WP:DRV if you so choose, but it is something I'm not familiar enough to have an opinion on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• As I've also closed the SPI with no action, feel free to archive this. I'm thinking we are done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Found footage (genre)

User:Track100 is repeatedly removing content from this page without explanation or discussion.

diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. Serendi^podous 18:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted his last edit and left him a 3RR warning, if he reverts again he should be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits Made by JohnDopp in Re: Douglas Anthony Cooper

I bring to the noticeboard a complaint about the conduct of JohnDopp (and also that of his alter ego, “Qworty”) and ask that he be refused further access to the Wikipedia entry for Canadian novelist Douglas Anthony Cooper.

JohnDopp has repeatedly vandalized and tagged this entry; and certainly not because he can’t stand writers being compared to Milan Kundera or Italo Calvino.

It is because of something else entirely. When that conflict of interest was made plain by several editors on “talk” and “articles for deletion” pages, JohnDopp squawked that his privacy was being compromised.

So, let me give you an example without blowing JohnDopp’s cover.

Douglas Anthony Cooper has recently written a series of essays supporting “apples.” These essays have been published in a high-profile news site. JohnDopp is notorious in this community for his obstreperous attacks on “apples”.

Now Cooper has announced that he's about to write a series of scathing articles about “oranges”.

JohnDopp is outrageous in his constant trolling in support of “oranges”. He's perhaps the most pernicious “oranges” shill on the web. In fact, some people say you can't talk about “oranges” without JohnDopp showing up to spout the party line.

I’ve made no pretense about my identity or position in defense of Douglas Cooper against these baseless attacks. I post and edit under my real name. While Cooper is just an acquaintance, I am also involved in the “apples” community, and I too have been attacked and pilloried by JohnDopp, including but certainly not limited to these Wikipedia discussions.

JohnDopp insists that he's neutral and knowledgeable enough to comment—always negatively -- on Douglas Anthony Cooper. But on what basis? JohnDopp has no special expertise or experience in literature. His only argument is apples and oranges.

When the woman who actually wrote the Wikipedia entry about Douglas Anthony Cooper joined the debate on the “articles for deletion” page and announced that fact, JohnDopp still insisted that that the entry was "self-promotion." Even after he knew better.

Even when Cooper’s entry was overwhelmingly deemed a "Keep", JohnDopp still laced the talk pages with as many negative things as he could about Mr. Cooper, a last ditch attempt to smear. He did this in tandem with editor “Qworty,” whose writes with a remarkable similarity of syntax to JohnDopp. (When confronted with this fact “Qworty” suddenly went silent.)

JohnDopp is trying to destroy Cooper's credibility for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with literature: he wants people involved in this debate of apples and oranges to dismiss Cooper as a lightweight, not notable, a self-promoter.

JohnDopp and his alter ego Qworty should be permanently blocked from discussing Douglas Anthony Cooper. (They should probably be banned from editing anything in this whole field of apples and oranges.) All of the comments about Cooper should be removed; inspired as they were by JohnDopp, acting in bad faith every single step of the way. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just at a glance, I sense an incoming WP:BOOMERANG here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, should that be the case, so be it. It's worth the risk to bring the machinations of this editor to light. I've been honest from the start. One has to ask, finally, why it would be of so much importance to someone to delete or hack the entry for a novelist, if there wasn't in fact, some subtext. (It's my own opinion that perhaps Wikipedia should not allow for anonymous contribution or editing, and instead ought to verify all users; as anonymity lends itself to such shenanigans.) Larkin Vonalt (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This will be fairly obvious on review, but I'm going to state it for clarity and convenience here.

• I have neither "repeatedly tagged" nor "vandalized" the article in question. I placed a notability tag on the article, which was removed without explanation by one of Mr. Cooper's supporters, who then accused me of vandalism. I replaced the tag and attempted to explain that it was not vandalism; it was deleted again, without explanation. At this point, rather than engage in edit warring, I requested dispute resolution. At no time have I sought to undermine the processes or policies of Wikipedia.
• I am not Qworty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), nor do I have any association or contact with Qworty outside of Wikipedia.
• Mr. Cooper's original article was rife with WP:COI, WP:SPIP, WP:SPS, and WP:PEACOCK, and the sources did not support the subject's notability. My edits were in good faith and were based solely on content, not my "literary expertise" or alleged "trolling" on behalf of any variety of fruit. As demonstrated by the AfD discussion, there were valid concerns about the subject's notability. And when the numerous problems with the article were corrected, I promptly withdrew my objections and voted to keep the article.
• It was in fact Mr. Cooper who sought to vandalize and delete the article and was subsequently banned. It was Mr. Cooper's meatpuppet who initiated the AfD on his behalf, not me. I would always prefer to see an article improved rather than deleted.
• Larkinvonalt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had no interest in Wikipedia until Mr. Cooper asked his meatpuppets to target me for personal abuse and harassment.[41] In her one week at Wikipedia, Larkinvonalt has not contributed to improving the article in any way; her only contributions have been harassment of other editors and unexplained, disruptive reversions of their work.[42]
• In contrast, I have never had a dispute of this kind in my history on Wikipedia, and I have always sought to retain neutrality and balance in my edits. -- JohnDopp (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This issue has nothing to do with me to the exception that I have brought this matter to the attention of those who might be able to do something about it. JohnDopp has failed to explain why he was insistent about the changes made in the entry for Douglas Anthony Cooper, or to answer the charges that he is neither neutral nor knowledgeable as to the subject at hand. Still, JohnDopp cannot resist name-calling and other unpleasant behaviors here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. (As for my own history with Wikipedia, it began so long ago that one didn't even have to be a "user" in order to make contributions or edits.) Larkin Vonalt (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I was afraid this might end here. Hopefully it ends with this venue. I was involved in the AfD discussion as well as (marginally) the COIN post. There were some issues with the article, and the AfD showed quite a high percentage of accounts with few to no edits outside of the topic area. I tagged accounts there with {{spa}} based on contributions, including both Larkinvonalt and JohnDopp.

• JohnDopp contacted me on my talk page (now archived) in disagreement with the tag. (Note that he did not remove the tag himself, but contacted me, the one who placed the tag, instead.) While his edit history was closely tied to animal cruelty-related articles, and this author had written concerning animal cruelty, he seemed less single-purpose, and less tied to this article and a related POV. I modified his note accordingly. We also discussed some ideas for him going forward so he could productively edit without accruing such a label in the future.
• I had no interaction with Qworty, but the duck test seems to have JohnDopp as a different person. A CU might disagree.
• My interaction with Larkinvonalt was that of him reverting my productive edits (including combining identical refs) with the summary "restored text." When I pointed this out to him, he simply determined that if I continued to contact him, it would be seen as harassment[43].

I don't know what Larkin is trying to push, but it seems he is trying to push something. I'd rather him topic banned, if a ban is to occur, to prevent the POV he wants to push. --Nouniquenames 01:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm pretty happy with how the deletion debate turned out. Even JohnDopp voted "Keep" when he saw he couldn't win.

That doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem here. This is the situation you're dealing with:

Let's say there are these two writers named Woodward and Bernstein, and there's a Wikipedia article about them. An editor comes along whose name is RichNix, and he flags these writers as "not notable," and tries to delete the article. So these writers protest that RichNix is in fact a man named Richard Nixon, and that they're in the middle of exposing him and his friends as really awful people. RichNix screams that his privacy is being infringed on, so all of the complaints and information about him really being Richard Nixon are erased.

We're not dealing with presidential politics here, but we're dealing with a pretty important political matter nevertheless. It involves over 100 million dollars, and the lives of millions of animals, each year. So it's not just fluff.

I'm saying maybe privacy isn't such a great principle in this case. People should have to own what they say. That is why I, like Larkin, use my own name. It sure isn't helping Wikipedia, in this instance, to allow an editor to hide his agenda and identity. Someone like JohnDopp should lose his privacy privileges in this kind of situation, and then let him defend himself once everyone knows who he really is, and what he's done. CandaceWare (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare

Comment: It should be noted that in retaliation for this complaint, JohnDopp has opened "sock puppet investigations" against Candace Ware and myself, indeed against everyone who disagreed with him in the matter of Douglas Anthony Cooper. In his "investigations" material, he provided screenshots of Facebook conversations that he should not have been privy to, as he is not the Facebook friend of anyone involved. Facebook has ruled repeatedly that they construe this misuse of screenshots in this manner to be "theft of intellectual property," and JohnDopp knows this, because he has gotten in trouble for it before. Furthermore, because I have blocked JohnDopp on Facebook, he should not be able to see ANYTHING that I have written there, and yet he provides a screenshot of it! Clearly, he has multiple accounts everywhere! And all because he wants to question the notability of a Canadian novelist. Right, nothing else going on here. Right. NoUniqueNames must also be connected with JohnDopp, as there was no reason for him or her to be called to this discussion. I did restore some punitive edits that NoUniqueNames had done in the spirit of overzealous editing. Like JohnDopp, NoUniqueNames shows no previous affinity for literature in his or her Wikipedia career. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Larkin, extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof. If you have the proof that JohnDopp, Qworty, and NoUnique names are the same user, take it to SPI. If you do not have that proof, I would HIGHLY suggest you stop throwing around these accusations. This whole situation stemmed from what appears to be a good faith notibility tag on the Cooper article, and JohnDopp voted keep for the article. This whole discussion seems to be retalitory and should be closed as such. Ishdarian 02:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And Candace, you stated Even JohnDopp voted "Keep" when he saw he couldn't win. JohnDopp was one of the first editors to vote keep. I think you should avoid making false statements such as this one. Ishdarian 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks JohnDopp's notability tag was done in anything remotely akin to "good faith" simply hasn't followed the issue (and your comment regarding JohnDopp's 'keep' also reveals that you haven't been following it, Ishdarian). Douglas Anthony Cooper is in the midst of writing a series about a highly controversial organization. JohnDopp is the WEBMASTER for the apologist/propaganda site that protects this organization. The fact people are so obtuse when it comes to recognizing this blatant COI just drives me NUTS. People, please -- wake up!!!! 75.142.17.148 (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare

No, it really was done in good faith. At the time he tagged it, the article was horribly sourced. A handful of editors worked on it and brought it to a much better state. He tagged it to get it help. JohnDopp did vote keep after some work had been done on the article. I looked at the contribs, and I'm not seeing any malicious intent on JohnDopp's part. Other parties, however, I can't be as certain about. Ishdarian 03:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Larkin, I'm here because I watch this page. It can be an interesting barometer of the community, and simply watching has taught me some interesting policies, procedures, and best courses of action. More to the point, though, I chimed in because I was involved in the AfD and the COIN and had discussions on my talk page with at least two of the other editors involved in the Afd at the time. Everything I posted was out in the open for anyone (admin or not) to see. Editors have other things to do, though, so I posted what I could to help along with my personal opinion. I honestly wish you had said something on a talk page to any of the non-spa accounts at the AfD, as I cannot imagine that any experienced editor would have advised you to go ahead with this. It's also interesting that when a SPI case was opened, you didn't disagree with the accusation. Your only contention was that he shouldn't have those screenshots of facebook that show he's correct. --Nouniquenames 07:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Ishdarian", how would you know what edits were made in good faith, unless you are indeed JohnDopp? In fact, "Ishdarian"'s edit was reported to me through Wiki mail as having been made by JohnDopp. Go figure. Sometimes you forget to cover your tracks, John. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh, that's interesting. Proof?

Simply looking at the contribs for the page, JohnDopp's first edit was a simple notability tag. Nothing more. It doesn't seem like a far stretch to beleive that a person trying to build an encyclopedia would perform an act that would further the project. Ishdarian 04:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

... Larkin, stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being a sockpuppet of JohnDopp. As you are making these accusations on no other basis than "they all agree with each other and disagree with me" it is uncivil and, indeed, can easily be seen as a personal attack. In fact, your claim above regarding "Ishdarian's edit was reported t me through Wiki mail as having been made by JohnDopp" is, in fact, blatantly untrue as the edit history of this page shows. I would strongly reccomend you retract that statement immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Al-Hakam II

بابيلون (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on removing a sourced section in Al-Hakam II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). He has been reverted by me, Cluebot and at least another user in the last few days. No other contributions by him. José Luiz ^talk 20:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I issued a warning to User:بابيلون that he may be blocked if he reverts again without getting consensus for his change. He is trying to remove a well-sourced claim about Al-Hakam's homosexuality. The claim is backed by three references to what appear to be reputable historians. This editor has tried adding the following to the *article text*: "All stories about Al Hakam II homosexuality are pure nonesense, these stories come from non Islamic soureces and there is no mention whatsoever to it in the Islamic history books, so they cant be taken seriously." EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989 and DrKiernan

• User talk:Fry1989#Request and (I think):
  • User talk:DrKiernan#Your absolute insistence on GDR flag and coat with gold instead of black
• User:Fry1989/Unblock conditions and
• Fry1989's block log

DrKiernan is well known to be rather mild; Fry1989 not so much. Fry's talk popped up on my watchlist and he's in it pretty hot and heavy with DrKiernan; called him a troll, on commons, for example. This seems to be about fictitious flags, which Fry does rather a lot of. I had some dispute with him about a made-up image of a coat of arms some six months ago, which is why his page is on my watch. The talk is pretty messy and will have rolled along while I've been typing this. I think Fry's unblock needs reconsidering. I've seen very little constructive participation from him. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done anything on Wikipedia that broke my editing restrictions, I've barely made 30 edits this past week alone and none of them had anything to do with Drkiernan or pages he has worked on. Everything he is complaining about happened on Commons (how can my English Wikipedia restrictions apply to Commons???? That's not even stated on my restrictions page, it's ridiculous!), and is filled with half-truths and assumptions. He blames me for "following him around". I haven't done anything of the sort. The fact I came across those files is easily explained because I go through the daily upload logs, The files aren't even Drkiernan's. All I did was remove a fictitious tag from those three files which Drkiernan added, and I only did that once on each file. I haven't even touched them since!!! Trajan is the one who removed Drkiernan's tags a further two times, which is when Drkiernan nominated them for deletion on Commons. I was completely unaware of this until Trajan came to my talk page and ASKED me to give input in the DR. I have only posted in the DR once, give my view, and haven't gone back since. I do not understand what I have done that could possibly be worthy of a block, nevermind an indef block. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In my view, I think it's rather bad form to bring a dispute from some other Wiki project over here to the English Wikipedia, and then for DrKiernan and Br'er Rabbit, who are fully aware of Fry1989's temperament, to fan the flames to goad Fry1989 into violating his unblock restrictions. That's how it appears to me. I would support an interaction ban on all parties. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I just wanted to make a tentative comment. Fry1989 notified me about the problem he was having on his talk page. While looking there, this topic was opened by Br'er Rabbit, whose involvement puzzles me a bit, but no matter. I was involved in the unblock conditions (listed above), but there was extensive discussion with User:Amatulic, and I've notified him of this topic. I won't comment much on the merits of DrKiernan's complaint at this time, and I'm not sure what DrKiernan seeks at this point as he didn't open this topic. My brief comment is that DrKiernan was asking Fry to leave him alone at Commons. Br'er Rabbit inflamed things. Fry felt pushed. DrKiernan got more forceful because he didn't get the response he wanted, and here we are.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Now responding to Amatulic's comment, I fully agree with everything he said except I haven't yet decided whether an interaction ban is needed. Depends on other comments here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Br'er Rabbit won't even answer my repeated requests for what he thinks I have done to deserve an indeff block. "Long-term problematic"? What is that supposed to mean? What "problems" have I caused here since my unblock? I've been following my restrictions as laid out on my restrictions page to the letter. I haven't gotten into revert wars, I haven't flamed people, I haven't followed anybody around, I haven't done ANYTHING! But somehow he thinks he can support me being indeff blocked without even stating why! So what if I called Drkiernan a troll on Commons? First off, that was my personal opinion after being asked by another user to participate in a deletion request. Second, it was on Commons!! My restrictions have nothing to do with Commons, this is completely a Commons matter if it's an issue at all! Also, I came here not too long ago myself asking for an interaction ban between me and Drkiernan because of the constant spats we have had for 2 long years. He and I can't get along so I try to avoid him the best I can. Yes, I went to his talk page, about an issue on Commons, but he is doing the same now. I used language which is a bit strong, but when you look at the actual full sentences, I didn't call him anything, I didn't attack him. I have followed my restrictions very clearly. I do not deserve this witch hunt. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at it this way; your prior indefs were warranted and I don't see the benefit of them having been reversed. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd missed the whole unblock discussion in August, so I was surprised to see Fry1989 editing at all. And I see him calling DrKiernan a troll and being quite belligerent, including addling the threading on his talk. I see the separation between en:wp and Commons as pretty thin; images go there, are used here. I don't think I had much to do with whatever got Fry dinged in August; I saw it go by, but don't think I even commented. The Rwanda thing was more like February, and I don't think I've had any conflict with Fry since. FWIW, DrKiernan is probably off for the night, so best to see what he has to say tomorrow. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you why I put my replies that way was to answer him and you separately, and that the reason I reverted you (once) is because I felt like you were disrupting me by moving my replies around??? There was absolutely no malicious intent behind it, but you keep trying to assert that there was. From the beginning of that you have accused me of disruption, when I told you twice before now why I did it. Stop accusing me of malicious intent which I don't have! Fry1989 ^eh? 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And the "Rwanda thing"? That's been over and done with for half a year, I don't even know why you would bring it up. It resolved itself ages ago, way before my unblock discussion in August even came about, and it wasn't even brought up in August, it has nothing to do with this. It feels like you're brining up past issues just to make me look worse and worse to get rid of me. Maybe not, but it sure feels that way right now. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have come here atleast two times over the years about Drkiernan. The second time I asked for an interaction ban, I don't remember what I wanted the first time, but both times when I tried pointing out how he pushes me, and is rude to me, and orders me to do things for him when he's capable of doing them himself, they are ignored. I never got help. But whenever he complains about me, I always end up with threats of blocks and bans and restrictions and everything else. You people ignored my cries for help, and this is what happens when you do that. I don't want anything to do with him, but we keep rubbing shoulders here and there every few months and then this kind of nonsense comes about. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I already outlined on your talk how your move of my post away from DrKiernan's (to whom I was replying) was inappropriate because it changed the context of things. That you don't get it goes a ways towards explaining things. You are aware that DrKiernan is well respected on this project, right? Right? Calling him a troll, anywhere, is absurd, and far from civil. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read my post again. I didn't say anything on whether the way I posted my replies, or the subsequent revert of your change, was wrong or right. All I said is that you are accusing me of doing it maliciously and with the intent to disrupt when that absolutely isn't the case, I told you why I did it, please STOP accusing me of doing it maliciously! So what if it was (in your opinion) wrong? Doing something wrong doesn't always translate to deliberate malicious intent. You don't like the way I arranged my replies? Fine I'm sorry. But stop this attack on my intentions when I've made clear they were anything but what you accuse them of being. As for whether or not Drkiernan is well-respected here, that doesn't factor into how he interacts with me, or how I interact with him. That's between me and him, not how others view him. Just because someone is widely respected, doesn't mean they're above the capability of mistreating someone else. He has been rude to me for years. He's ordered me to change files and do other tasks for him which he is perfectly capable of doing himself. What right does he have to order me around to do things? And yet people like you seem to think that it ok, but that when I get tired of being pushed around, I'm the one with all the blame. Protect the bully, punish the victim, it's an old story I'm very aquainted with. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've not used the word "malicious", but you have, repeatedly. And calling DrKiernan a "bully" is just silly; especially coming from a bully in victim's clothing ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm so glad this is humourous to you. You have continuously accused me to doing my replies (and the single subsequent revert) with the intent to disrupt. That means you think I did it maliciously, whether you said the word or not. I've also made no attempts to shy away from the fact that I've been very rude to him, but you have to acknowledge that he has done the same and more. This website is littered with him commanding me to do things for him so he'll "accept them" and "allow them" on articles. Those Greek monograms for example, many times he ordered me to change them to blue so he would "allow them" on articles. Why do I have to do that for him? He showed in the past he was capable of doing it himself, he had no other problem with the files except their colour, so why couldn't he change them himself? Instead it was a further attempt to bully me into submission, "change these files or I won't allow you to add them to their rightful articles" like I'm some worker to be stepped on. Yes I've been rude as hell to him at times, but you completely ignore that it has been in response to TWO YEARS of unsolicited pushing around by him. He followed my edits to pages he had nothing to do with, and then passed judgement. He told me to change files for him. He has called me names. He has done so much to me, but somehow because I can't take it anymore, I'm the bully, I'm the one that needs to be blocked. I CAME HERE TWICE asking for help and you people ignored it. You don't think I'm not aware that he and I don't get along??? It takes two to tango and you make excuses for his steps in the dance. Disgusting. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The background seems to be this - User:Fry1989/Unblock conditions :

• "Civility requirements (in effect for 6 months after the current block expires): ... All communications must refrain from commenting on individual editors, except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages ... Fry1989 agrees that the requirements listed above constitute best practices that should be followed at all times, and that the durations above refer to the period in which a violation will result in the resumption of an indefinite block." (my emphasis)

Unblock conditions were agreed in August 2012. --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Break

• I want Br'er Rabbit and Fry to stop arguing with each other. If DrKiernan does not come here and tell us what he wants to do, this topic should be closed. This is not the right forum to have Fry's unblock and the conditions of his unblock reviewed (see Br'er Rabbit saying "your prior indefs were warranted and I don't see the benefit of them having been reversed"). As for whether Fry has violated the conditions, neither I nor Amatulic believes he has, or if he has (I haven't read every one of Fry's remarks on his talk page or here), it's only because he's been goaded into it. So, Br'er Rabbit and Fry - stop posting here. Fry, if Br'er Rabbit won't stop, ignore him. That's my advice and my position at this juncture.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Then what is the right forum to report breaches of Fry's unblock agreement? --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the right forum to report a breach. I'm saying this is not the right forum to have the unblock and agreement reviewed. I'm also saying that that is what I think Br'er Rabbit really wants. Finally, I'm saying that if someone believes that Fry should be sanctioned for breaching the agreement, someone other than Br'er Rabbit needs to step up and say so, but the bickering between Br'er Rabbit and Fry should stop. And another finally, I'm going off-wiki now, so I won't be able to respond to anything until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I should stop posting here? When Fry's got about six times the verbiage going as I do? And note that I didn't bother replying to his last above the {{od}}. And another note; I already suggested awaiting DrKienan's commenting. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You've raised the issue to the community, the back and fort just clouds the issue. Nobody Ent 01:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's just make sure a couple of things are clear here. First, from what I've read above, I'm not seeing many allegations that Fry1989 has violated his unblock conditions, or has been disruptive in any other way, in his edits over the past few weeks on English Wikipedia. If I am wrong about that then would someone please post specific diffs.

I gather the main (alleged) problems are on Commons. In general, we don't sanction an editor on English Wikipedia for misconduct on another project. That is not, however, an absolute rule; in extreme cases of harassment and the like, editors have been banned from En-WP for misconduct on another project, on another non-wiki website, via e-mail, or offline. The key words there, however, are "extreme cases." What's been described above doesn't sound yet like an extreme case.

That being said, if the situation is as it's been described, then Fry1989 should clean up his act on Commons, rather than risk sanctions there, or here, or anywhere. I have no role or participation on Commons and don't plan to read through the edits there, but if Fry1989 called DrKiernan a "troll" on Commons, he should apologize and not do it again. DrKiernan is the farthest thing from a troll on English Wikipedia, and unless he has a personality transplant each time he logs off of English WP and onto Commons, he isn't a troll there either. An attitude of "I can call you what I want there and you can't do anything about it here and neener neener neener" isn't going to impress anyone on either project.

And I agree that at this point we can see if DrKiernan wants to take this further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to an interaction ban between myself and Drkiernan (something I've already asked for before and it was ignored) or myself and Br'er Rabbit. I don't even understand why my talkpage was in his watchlist anyways, going through the entire history from 2009 to present, this is the first time he's ever posted there (unless he had a previous account or previous account name). Fry1989 ^eh? 01:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To include commons? Nobody Ent 01:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue on Commons is cloudy. The files in question were not Drkiernan's, and the files' uploader asked me personally to give my input on the DR for his files that Drkiernan initiated. Drkiernan does not often comes to Commons (from my observation anyways), but I would be open to that extending to Commons if people feel it's necessary. I already try and avoid him here, the only real issue on Commons was that today I self-admittedly called him a troll. Was it nice? No. Was it out of line? Of course. But again you have to understand that I have over 2 years of interaction with this user and it has almost always been unpleasant. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd seen these before coming here; now collected and per Brad's request.

• "Fry1989 shall abide by WP:1RR, one revert per article per 24 hour period, with exception allowed for reverting obvious, unambiguous vandalism and spam."
• "Fry1989 must explain each revert (excepting reverts of vandalism and spam) on the associated article talk page."
• These are all reverts that went undiscussed on talk; many are not even clearly revert if you just go by edit summary:
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg

net revert:

• diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg

actually a full revert back to Fry in May other than bot edits to interwiki links:

• diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg

And no posts to the talk page since June.

• diff of Flag of Cambodia

No posts to the talk page in a year.

Seems Road signs in New Zealand is "my [Fry's] article":

• diff of Road signs in New Zealand

No actual talk on the talk page ever.

I didn't goad him into any of this; I only found it by looking, which is the purpose of having brought this to ANI. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur violations of unblock conditions linked by RexxS have been violated. Nobody Ent 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well first of all the New Zealand Road Signs article is not literally "mine" (though I called it that because I worked VERY VERY hard on uploading all those signs and making the article), but if Br'er Rabbit would pay deeper attention, he would find that the article has been under repeated vandalism by a user called Jermboy (that's what I know him by anyways) and that Pharaoh of the Wizards also reverted this user several times on my behalf for the vandalism. He is a known sockpuppet who has access to dozens of IPs and creates fake accounts all the time too. He repeatedly added duplicate signs, removed ones, or added onces from other countries, I wasn't the only one reverting him on there, and I believe my restrictions exclude obvious vandalism. So let's cross off the New Zealand one right off the bat. As for Luxembourg, that's a complicated issue but to put it simply, there was already a discussion about what arms to use on the page, and it was only recently (in the past week) changed several times by an anonymous IP address. I still gave clear edit summaries instead of blank ones. Now for Cambodia, my edit summary was clear there too, I said the file that JamVT added is up for speedy deletion (not by myself) on Commons, this was true. It's because it has no source for it's copyright status and it will probably go. It was appropriate to revert back to the long-standing SVG file of the Cambodian flag. I'm sorry, I didn't explain my reverts on the talk pages of these articles, I messed up on that, but when you look at the purpose behind those reverts, it's clear they were in good faith and valid. Now yes, not explaining them on the talk pages is a breach, but it was a mind-slip and certainly not worthy of an indeff block and review of restrictions. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, can you please quote me where you feel I broke the civility restriction? I have not called anybody anything (on Wikipedia), the only place and time I have done so was once, today on Commons. Again that would make it a Commons issue. Any language I have used here on Wikipedia regarding other users has been under a qualifier of choice, the action they choose to take over another which directly affects me. For example, when I said today on my talk page that if Drkiernan was to choose to continue believing that I'm following him around (something he accused me of which is not true), when I gave a clear and reasonable explanation of how I came across the files on Commons, that would be out of his own insecurity. I didn't call him insecure, I didn't call him anything. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is not a content dispute over the order that two images appear in a gallery (an incredibly large gallery;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not about the order of the images! Look at the actual changes that user made, he duplicated images. New Zealand requires all their pedestrian-related signs to be fluroescent green. They used to be yellow. I have the fluoro green ones in the current gallery, and the old yellow ones under "retired signs". In THIS edit he duplicated them so that the fluoro green ones were in BOTH the current section and the retired signs section, removing the old yellow ones from the article all together. That was beyond obvious vandalism. Or what about this one where he duplicated the "cyclists take care on tracks" sign. There is a yellow one and a fluoro one, in that edit he made them both fluoro removing the yellow one from the article all together. None of these changes were constructive, they were vandalism! Fry1989 ^eh? 02:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are old; August.

• anon changes the order of two images
• you revert it, calling it vandalism

That's not obvious vandalism, and it wasn't discussed on talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the history of that article and go through all the changes that user made, 99% of them are vandalism. Is moving two signs around in their order vandalism? No. But that article had been vandalized by that IP so many times I reverted that change blindly without looking at it's substance because of everything else that was done. It should be noted, the IP's now blocked for a year because of this, so clearly others felt I was right, cause I'm the one who asked for it to be blocked and I posted everything it did as evidence. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I won't be replying to Br'er Rabbit anymore. He's splitting hairs instead of looking at the bigger picture, and is on a crusade to get me indeffed, he made that clear when he said he'll support such a penalty on my talk page, and in this edit summary. He wants me gone and that's all he cares about. I don't understand it, I don't even remember the last time he and I interacted on anything, certainly not my talk page as he hasn't posted there since I created my account in 2009. He's taking the place of judge, jury and executioner and trying to get you all to go along with it. If he posts something and others want me to explain it, ask me and I'll reply to you, but my replies to him are done with. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on the diffs provided by Br'er Rabbit and the admissions by Fry, I see no choice but to block Fry indefinitely for breaching his unblock conditions. The conditions, which were crafted by Amatulic, Fry, and me, were extraordinarily clear. Other than leaving a little wiggle room for what constitutes "vandalism" or "spam", no interpretation is required. And the consequence of a breach is just as clear: a violation results in an indefinite block. Fry can request an unblock if he wishes and it may be considered, but I don't see that he's entitled not to be blocked in the first instance. And the duration is not flexible. I am prepared to block him, or another admin may do so. I won't take any action until others respond, but that's my view.

One thing to add. Br'er Rabbit's comment that finding these violations was his "purpose" in bringing this here is preposterous on its face. He stated his purpose when he first posted. He said that Fry's "unblock needs reconsidering", and his other comments concerned the troll comment at Commons. However, my disapproval of Br'er Rabbit's conduct doesn't change my conclusion that an indefinite block should be imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't there please be any other option? What about a self-imposed period away, I can go away and come back. I screwed by by not posting my reasonings on the talk page, but that was a minor mess up. Half the things Br'er Rabbit brings up are misconstrued by him. I don't do very much here, I've made a minor slip up but I haven't actually done anything bad here or in bad faith. I haven't had any revert wars, I haven't gotten in fights, and I haven't attacked people. These are the issues I had which got me in trouble and I've stayed away from these actions. Please. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How can you block me when I haven't done anything bad here???? I didn't break my civility restrictions or my edit/revert restrictions, all I did wa mess up by forgetting to post a reasoning on a talk page, but when you look at the actual reverts they were 100% reasonable and right so there's not even an issue with their validity. This is insane that you would grant the desire of someone whose only purpose is to get rid of a good user who he's never even talked to in three years (three years I've had an account here and today is the first day he has ever posted on it! check the history). I've created articles, I've given hundred of hours of my life to this project and uploaded thousands of files to better this project. I did NOTHING wrong! Fry1989 ^eh? 05:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Fry, I'm not happy about recommending an indefinite block. I suggest you back away from saying you did "nothing wrong" as that's not correct. Your best course is to apologize for the breaches, explain that you failed to monitor your edits in light of your unblock conditions, and that you will try very hard in the future not to let it happen again. That kind of statement may get you unblocked later, even though it's unlikely to prevent you from being blocked now. You appear to be willing to stay away for a while, so why not do that, return after a reasonable period (not too short in my view) and make your request. An indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent block, although I can't predict what will happen if you make an unblock request in the future. In any event, others besides me need to weigh in at this point, and I need to go to bed. Take a deep breath and try not to post anything here that you may later regret.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I did say in my initial post that "Fry's unblock needs reconsidering", which re-blocking amounts to. I then said a bit later that "the purpose of having brought this to ANI" was looking for diff; my meaning in the second was that the purpose of such threads is to get more eyes looking at the record, which few seem to have done. So I dredged up what I'd been glossing over with popups and had the diffs together before seeing Brad's request for diff. Fry as been at DrKiernan's page both apologising and offering a deal; help kill this thread in return for a promise to stop attacking him. diff of User talk:DrKiernan, diff of User talk:DrKiernan. Let's see what DrKiernan has to say, especially about Fry's commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional achievements of arms. Fry makes flags and COA up and that's pretty dodgy. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock farm at Consett

See Talk:Consett#Consett_Iron_Theatre: this looks like textbook sock-puppetry to support a hoax. -- The Anome (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Impressive. One has to wonder why the alleged Consett History Society that has been used as a reference via this page is presenting their Iron Theatre as scrapped in the early 1900s when there are images of it taken in 2008. But on a closer look these images may even be from downtown Los Angeles and not from Consett, England. So much for the quality of the references used for this hoax. De728631 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire

On 25 September, Binksternet started a discussion thread about Belchfire (talk · contribs) on User talk:TParis (see "Ignoring sanctions on US political articles"). At the time, major concerns about Belchfire's behavior were raised with administrator TParis. In the discussion, it was shown that Belchfire had received at least three major warnings from administrators about his battlefield behavior and edit warring. TParis said he was on vacation playing the new WoW expansion and couldn't be bothered to deal with the problem.[44] Shortly after the thread ended on the 26th of September, Belchfire disappeared two days later, on the 28th. Today, Belchfire returned, engaging in the same exact behavior that has not yet been dealt with as requested by Binksternet back in September. To make matters worse, Belchfire appears to be gaming the system, reverting to the edits of a SPA IP (User:71.97.130.211) on political positions of Mitt Romney and violating the spirit of general sanctions by engaging in edit warring,[45] and coincidentally, doing the same thing on the same day on homosexual agenda, reverting to a version created by another SPA, this time a registered account (User:BacktoWiki).[46] This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely. Is Belchfire here to build an encyclopedia or to play games? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This complaint is nonsensical:

• A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever.
• When I edit an article, I'm not responsible for the contribution history of previous editors. Ever.
• Even if I was responsible for those contribution histories, neither of the editors cited by Viriditas meet the criteria of WP:SPA.
• Supposing just for the sake of the argument that they were SPAs, that doesn't mean it's against policy to revert to their version of an article, because there's no policy against being an SPA.
• All that remains is (supposedly) "odd behavior", which isn't much of a complaint. And there is no policy against "odd behavior".

I humbly suggest that Viriditas stop wasting everybody's time unless/until he has a real issue for admins to deal with. The only battlefield behavior here is this trumped up, fictitious ANI thread that he's started. G'day. Belchfire-TALK 00:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I maintain, using the above examples, that you are deliberately engaging in disruptive behavior. An enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem has been collected by other editors/admins, so there is no need for me to repeat it here. You are basically a "revert-only" account at this point who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts which effectively increases the 3RR count by adding additional reverts into the mix. I'm asking for action to be taken based on Binksternet's original request from 25 September.[47] Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Viriditas is hardly "wasting everybody's time." After looking into the links provided, I see that Belchfire has been warned numerous times and appears to me to have serious issues, starting with systemic vios of WP:TEND, and I call for remedial action to hereby come into consideration including a full topic ban for any political subjects. Clearly this has gone on far too long. And for the record I am utterly uninvolved with any of this. Jusdafax 00:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is someone accusing BF of sockpuppettry?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruption is more like it. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. For clarity, I do not accuse Belchfire of socking. Jusdafax 02:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is an ongoing problem that needs to be stopped, but Belchfire has given every indication that he is unwilling to stop his behavior. Far too often he has been reverting other editors on a drive-by basis on multiple articles—not engaging the other editors on the talk page to build toward consensus. He just throws a wrench in the works as he drives by. At WP:DISRUPT we see that Belchfire's pattern is identified under "Signs of disruptive editing". Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's a content dispute that has no place at ANI. Also, the originator of the complaint did not make a good faith effort to resolve the issue elsewhere, which is required per the bolded verbiage at the top of this page (only 22 minutes passed between a message on my Talk page that the initiation of this section). This entire thing is motivated solely by partisan politics. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• There is no "content" under dispute in this report, only your continuing bad behavior. As for attempting to resolve it, the diffs show that you've been warned many, many times. At this point, we need administrator action. We are far past the point of trying to resolve it. Been there, done that, now we need action. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

BF has had issues inte past, mostly with civility, but since being warned he has been much more civil. Where is he refusing to discuss?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a discussion when there is something to discuss. There is nothing to discuss here; this is simply a politically-motivated content dispute - not an ANI-worthy complaint. Viriditas knows better. Belchfire-TALK 02:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no content under discussion in this thread, only your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The links Veriditas posted above, highlighted "enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem," indicate there is plenty to discuss, as I see it. In my view to deny that is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I respectfully suggest Belchfire take this matter a bit more seriously, because up to this point they are doing themself a disservice. Binksternet and Veriditas raise troubling points that arguably merit community oversight and sanctions. This is the place to discuss that. Calling their complaints "partisan politics" reveals a battleground mentality on Belchfire's part. Jusdafax 02:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. But the initial complaint by OP makes it seem like they are accusing BF of puppettry. This needs clarification.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever." LOL! Someone needs to review what is considered edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Urolagnia

We seem to have another obsessive IP (or possibly the same one we had trouble with on the subject before), intent on spinning the article (with questionable grammar etc), and using questionable sources in the process. Most notably, the IP (currently User:87.194.46.83, but changing frequently) has inserted a statement that "R. Kelly was famously accused of featuring in a video telling a girl how to urinate, and urinating on her" into the article - a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. Can I ask that people keep an eye on the article, at least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've warned the IP. If the BLP violations continue then I think semi-protection would be warranted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for three months. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Creationist vandalism

Andycjp has been involved in a persistent edit-war with myself and another editor at Walking due to his persistent and deliberate attempts to remove at least the word "evolution" from the page, while not-so-subtly altering the title to suggest an imaginary alternative, presumably creationism. This is not isolated behavior - he has made similar edits in heel and Anatidae (see recent history of each) going back nearly a year. He has not altered his behavior in the face of multiple warnings from myself and Fama Clamosa, and remains dogged in his attempt to insert this nonsense into legitimate articles on scientific topics. His edit history shows him to be productive in other areas, but this sort of vandalism is unacceptable. HCA (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

On this topic: this is unacceptable censorship.

On the broader topic of young earth creationist censorship (I emphasize young earth because old earth creationism is totally compatible with theistic evolution): For Christ's sake, can we just get a policy made saying "Wikipedia accepts evolution as a fact, don't try to hide it just because you don't like science"...? I know that it really should just be an essay saying "per WP:NPOV, we side with mainstream science and accept evolution as a fact, and handle young earth creationism as a WP:FRINGE theory." However, if we do that, that's only going to let people go "it's just an essay," or "it's just a guideline." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to say that we offer blanket endorsement of one theory over another. We claim the need to cite specific facts, relying on the most authoritative sources for those citations. Those sources will dictate what Wikipedia endorses. If Young-Earth Creationism is indeed a fringe theory, reliable sources will take care of that. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually disagree with you there, Jprg. The Bible is not a reliable source for scientific articles, despite what Andy seems to think [48]. No editor should be forced to take such an editor through dispute resolution and get consensus not to cite the bible on in a section of evolution or other such ridiculous things. There's a difference between editors disagreeing over the reliability of a source and the fringeness of a theory, and one editor pushing a POV that doesn't have a hope or a prayer of being included, except in an article on the POV itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

HCA, Andycjp's edits are not vandalistic. Read WP:VANDAL#NOT before using that word. His edits are problematic and appear to push a POV, but that does not make them vandalism. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

See the statements in Talk:Evolution/FAQ which are backed at least by the consensus of the editors on that page. The FAQ observes that "The process and theory of evolution are both uncontroversial among biologists." In this edit by introducing a comment about the Garden of Eden into the Walking article Andycjp may have gone over the line. His edit summary is "Other views have the right to be represented here-most of the planet knows full well God has a hand in everything". Allowing a literal reading of the Book of Genesis to affect our article on a scientific topic is unacceptable. He is close to needing a warning under WP:ARBPS, in my opinion. See the wording which Arbcom used at WP:ARBPS#Serious encyclopedias. I agree with editors above that the word 'vandalism' is not appropriate for Andycjp's editing, but he has engaged in long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree a (final) warning to Andicjp is needed here, as a minimum. Let's also not forget that the WP:NPOV policy has very explicit guidance on exactly this type of situation: WP:Making necessary assumptions. Quote: For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. It doesn't really get any clearer than that, does it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, vandalism is the wrong word, since Andycjp believes himself to be making Wikipedia better, grossly misguided as he may be. His editing is in violation of a dozen or so of Wikipedia's alphabet soup policies, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is clear here, and it needs to stop yesterday. --Jayron32 05:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm now considering whether a mere warning or a block is in order. This editor has been around since 2004. Has he been known for similar disruptive behaviour before? Edits like [49][50][51] (random collection from his talk page) suggest that he was involved in disruptive POV editing repeatedly, and repeatedly showed quite nasty aggressive behaviour over it. Has he ever been warned explicitly about anti-evolution POV pushing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think some warning should be considered as any block would more than likely be indef, considering the circumstances and user's block log. Tiderolls 05:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's all of these warnings from this particular dispute. I really do think that requiring a more formal warning here is overly bureaucratic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Doctor Reno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a lengthy original essay to the end of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, detailing numerous reasons why he (the editor) is convinced Obama is not eligible to be President. I reverted him, but he promptly reverted me back. I also left a notice on the editor's talk page, explaining the issue and advising him of the Obama article probation sanctions. I didn't revert him the second time because I don't want to be seen as getting involved in an edit war, but I strongly recommended in my talk page comment that he revert his own edit. If he fails to do this, I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to remove the material in question, and possibly also take other actions in keeping with the article probation sanctions. — Richwales 06:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the edit, and added a confirmation of your warning to him. Removal of stuff like this is covered under WP:BLP anyway, so there is no reason for concern over reverting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Rich, you also need to remember to notify users when you raise issues about them at ANI - I've done it for you in this instance. I second FPaS; you can revert this sort of thing at will without fear of violating 3RR. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I know — and I was in the middle of composing a notice, but my efforts got edit-conflicted, first by FPaS, and then by you (Yunshui). Thanks for doing it on my behalf. — Richwales 07:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)