Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Copyright violations by an offsite party

When reviewing an external link to an article I was working on earlier this week, I discovered that the link in question contained text that I had written for the article earlier this year verbatim. When I posed my problem earlier in the week on the #wp-en IRC channel I was advised to send something off to Wikimedia Legal but the WMF's attorney informed me that they did not protect projects' copyrights. This is the second time I've had content that I've worked on to some extent taken wholesale by another website (I've done my best to contact the first one) but I am more wary about this second instance because it isn't some shitty fansite stealing text word-for-word but a multi-million dollar corporation. I am at a loss as to what to do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Start with the process outlined at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process, and use the Standard CC-BY-SA violation letter to initiate contact with the website. Unfortunately I think I'm right in saying that you're responsible for defending your own copyright (which kinda sucks, but there you go), so you're rather on your own - as the copyright holder, only you can give them the telling-off they deserve. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where to find the contact information for the website in question. They only have a support queue. I will attempt to send a message to support@their domain name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing the link in question? Maybe others can find the relevant contact details. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.funimation.com —Ryulong (琉竜) 15:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Address, phone and email: [1]. You're right, support@... does seem to be their only registered email.Yunshui 雲‍水 15:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• It'd be more helpful if you could post exactly what is alleged to have been taken. For those who know nothing of this, it'd like MGM or Pixar or Disney taking your work for their own purposes. Without more information to go on, I cannot really comment further. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Funimation blatantly copied the summary I had written in April for the first Ghost in the Shell: Arise installment which more or less exists in the exact same state as of the last time I checked the article. The only difference is that Funimation's version does not include the word "Set" before the phrase "In the year".—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You should tag the talk page with {{Backwardscopy}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were so worried about this, but there does appear to be merit to the argument. I used an old version from June after the announcement that they had acquired the rights.[2] Specifically this version.[3] As no previous cache is available at Archive.org, I did a duplication detector result.[4] With that being said, I'd contact Jackie Smith (Public relations manager) or possibly Joseph Nicholson (Marketing and Communications Executive). At the very least they might be able to direct you to the right person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a postal address. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

They seem to have completely changed their description of the show now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved (well technically you could still pursue them for the earlier violation, but while I understand how you must feel, I don't think there's much point trying that) but for future reference you could try gpl-violations.org if you need to take it further. It's possible they will refuse since the site violated one of the GFDL or CC* rather than the GPL but they might be willing to offer help as it's still a free content and copyleft issue. You can also list them at Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. * = I presume you wrote the material by yourself or with the assistance of other editors rather than taking it from a CC source, so it's completely dual licenced. In which case the site had to comply with at least one of those licences. Of course even if you partially took the content from a CC only source, you couldn't sue them for violating that licence. The CC only holder would need to do that. So even in that case it's still really a GFDL or CC issue from your POV. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Concern about Jezebel1349

Reluctantly I must inform admins of the case of the fairly new account of Jezebel1349 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is currently in the middle of a 24 hour block. Shortly after being blocked, she put blatantly racial and sexual invective in reply to me on her talkpage, including thinly veiled threatening language ("I have "surprises" for you looser, just wait..."), although she did then remove that part ([5]). So obviously I am a little concerned. This is after she repeatedly blanked references based only on IDONTLIKEIT. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Currently she is scheduled to come off her block some time tomorrow. I'm not sure I want to find out what "surprises" she has in store for me at that time, what can I do? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Block extended to 1 week with no talk page privs. If disruption continues after block release, please alert me or bring it back here to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the sudden rash of trouble did not die down at the same article Madai and there is currently an SPI for the above Jezebel1349 and User:Iranzamin-Iranzamin Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iranzamin-Iranzamin that needs attention. Iranzamin-Iranzamin has a nearly identical habit of making false claims about my race on Talk:Madai which she perceives as "Indic-Pakistani-gypsy" for whatever bizarre reason: [6] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney edit-warring/personal attacks

In just the past two weeks, MilesMoney has been repeatedly warned about their behavior in what appears to be at least five different incidents: [7][8][9][10][11]

MilesMoney responded to the the most recent warning with the request "Go away and don't come back", so I'll respect that and ask for others to alert the user to the existence of this discussion. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified MilesMoney of this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Some of those warnings are over the top. The first one involves one revert in a 24 hour period. The second one involves, at most, two reverts in a 24 hour period, something the OP is culpable of as well. The third one involves two reverts, the same number made by Roccodrift who did not respect WP:BRD. The fourth was legitimate, but happened 25 days ago. The fifth, may breach our WP:NPA policy slightly, but I've seen far worse from Sitush on MilesMoney's talk page, for example "Given that I am not the first that you have banished of late, and given your obvious incompetence, it does rather beg a question concerning your righteousness.". - MrX 14:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• If you are going to link to a diff involving me then I'd appreciate it if you could try to put it into context. For this one, you need to read the collapsed section here and probably also this on Bbb23's talk page. One difficulty that keeps raising its head is that MM routinely bans people from their talk page & often does so early in a discussion, making it difficult to resolve issues without escalating them to drama boards such as this - there is a chilling effect. I'll try to compile a list. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's his prerogative to ban people from his talk page, especially if they harangue him, as seems to be the case in the past few days. You're responsible for your own words, regardless of context. You don't hold the highground when you accuse others of the same type of behavior that you engage in. - MrX 15:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What kind of context would like to sugar coat this in? "Do you really think I give a damn abut your formal warning? I'll just carry on editing as I always have - the likes of you do not scare me: grow up." - MrX 15:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Sitush's conduct. Saying a user can ban other users from their talk pages is superficially accurate, but if a user develops a pattern of such bans, it may be reasonable to infer that they are not collaborative. MM provokes and others push back. Understandable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine. If that's the standard that were using, then there's nothing wrong with MilesMoney's conduct either. Others provoke and MilesMoney pushes back. - MrX 15:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Template:Cue After looking at WP:EDR, I have found that there is no formal interaction ban between MM and Sitush, so MM is just being a big you-know-what. However, it would be appreciated if these two opened a case at WP:DR instead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:DRN, and that board is not for conduct disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean that, and I have corrected it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair comment and I wish MilesMoney would refrain from banning editors from his talk page (including myself, BTW). My point is, there's enough trout to go around, and nothing here is actionable by an admin. - MrX 15:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I personally would appreciate it if MilesMoney didn't make comments like this ("what you say literally makes no sense. It's not even clear enough to be wrong."). I have a thick skin so I don't know if it's a personal attack or not, but I do think it is not helpful to furthering discussion and might make many feel their contributions on the talk page are useless so they might as well stop editing there. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That diff isn't a personal attack ... it doesn't even border on uncivil - kinda like Mexico and Belgium. ES&L 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The correct country is Austria, and in that little world on Wikipedia, everything is uncivil, nothing makes any sense, and all the participants snipe at each other incessantly. We should topic-ban all of them; either that, or get very large, resilient ear plugs.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Is this a fishing expedition? The diff showing a warning from me is because of a series of reverts at BLP Joss Whedon concerning an uncited section. MilesMoney brought references and eventually got talk page consensus for including the material. This diff is part of a larger pattern showing that MilesMoney likes a scrap—he likes to revert, bully and argue—but the result in this case was better for the article and reader. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's unfair to call this a "fishing expedition". Hector was concerned about what he perceived to be a pattern of behavior. He brought his concerns to MM and was told to go away, which only tends to confirm the pattern. Whether there's sufficient evidence to sanction MM is more complex, but I don't see this as a baseless report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Note I haven't called for any particular form of action, I'm just 'reporting it up the chain of command'. MM seems to be having some trouble-- in just my own encounter, at one point, I think we had 6 different editors rejecting the controversial edit and MM was still warring on it. I tried to issue a very nice and sincere warning and got an extremely hostile response. My warning going unheeded, I thought I should drop a note here and let the experts sort it out. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no "chain of command". Edit-warring goes to WP:AN/EW, long-term behaviour goes to WP:RFC/U, and content disputes go to WP:DRN. You only come to ANI if you're requesting a specific action: a block or topic ban ES&L 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess part of my job here is to defend Hector. Your procedural statement is a bit constrained and hypertechnical. Editors may come here if they want to report a problem that hasn't yet risen to the level of starting an RfC/U. An editor may come here if all they want is a warning to the reported user. An editor may come here because they think there's a problem meriting administrative attention but they're not sure what the appropriate sanction is, and maybe there is none. Now, if you want to say instead that you believe no administrative intervention is required, that's a different matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hector reinserted a BLP violation then templated Miles for removing Hector's violation even after Miles had clearly explained the issue on talk and had taken it to BLP. Hector, you should withdraw this complaint. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A strong talk page consensus held it was not a BLP violation. MM can disagree with that consensus, and that consensus can change, but edit warring against consensus is unacceptable behavior, and attacking me for holding him to that level of competence is doubly unacceptable. Specifico, you do your friend (non-friend?) a disservice when you condone his behavior-- he may well belief in his opinion, but it is not acceptable for him to act as though his opinion outweighs or negates the opinion of the rest of community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I consider it a Personal Attack for you to call MilesMoney my friend and you should strike that remark. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, sorry (and confused!) that you found that offensive, but clearly, you deserve the right to characterize your relationship or lack thereof however you wish. My apologies for apparently implying something you didn't want implied.HectorMoffet (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hector, please state exactly what was it that you were implying and please explain why you are confused that I would find it offensive? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney's use of the policy BLPCRIME here as grounds for removing part of a section heading doesn't make any sense. Maybe the part about lobbying needed to go, but that has nothing to do with the BLP, much less the subsection on BLPCRIME in policy. I suggest MilesMoney cease using fraudulent rationales in their edit summaries.--MONGO 16:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the rationale makes no sense, but do you have to call it "fraudulent"?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did have to call that fraudulent...and I could do without the snippy remark.--MONGO 02:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, in case anyone is wondering, MONGO's rather belated response stems from this.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I was merely trying to save you some grief by not having that party drag you into a miserable time sapping waste of your time, but thats up to you, which as you put it yourself there, was complex. Most of your responses here at these noticeboards consist of critiquing other's comments rather than dealing with the issue at hand, which obfuscates solving the real problems, and undermines the purposes of the noticeboards...all it does is make others exasperated. I have yet to see you offer any solid remedy on the issue of MilesMoney, perhaps because you have none, when all one really need to is a little groundwork and the truth will be known if you know how to do it, and it doesn't need a checkuser.--MONGO 03:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@MONGO:, pray, don't keep us all in suspense ;) There have been various sock accusations levelled at MilesMoney at various times (as recently as this weekend). They've come to nothing at SPI. If you've done some groundwork that enlightens that situation or any other regarding MM - whether favourable to MM or not - then please do share it. Perhaps just say here that you've emailed admin X about it if you think that whatever you have is sensitive. I'd rather not waste more of my time preparing for a RfC/U if it isn't needed. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has gone on long enough & so I've started User:Sitush/summary. I hope to complete the talk page resume in the next few hours. I realise that some people may consider it to be an attack page & I'll accept it if the thing is deleted for that reason. It should certainly be deleted when the community has reached some sort of decision about the behavioural issues. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pursuant to WP:ATTACK, it could be deleted ("keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate"). However, pursuant to WP:UP#POLEMIC (which is not policy but is more specific), it is okay based on your purpose ("The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."). As an aside, although I have not reviewed the list, based on its length, I wonder if an RfC/U would be more appropriate. Entirely up to you (and any other editors), of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect RfC/U is where this mess is going to end up because I'm not convinced that ANI will deal with it. Either way, it is not my intention to retain the thing for any longer than is strictly necessary and I am including favourable stuff (barnstars issued etc). That said, I'm not going to work on it exclusively - there'll soon be a huge backlog of poor stuff on the caste etc articles unless I do some maintenance there also. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to assemble diffs in ones userspace regarding another editor's behavior so long as it is soon thereafter placed in a RfcU or with arbcom, afterwhich it can be deleted.--MONGO 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to amplify something from Binksternet's earlier comment: "... he likes to revert, bully and argue". This is a concise and well-stated encapsulation of the problem and moreover, when even Miles' supporters are saying this I think there is a consensus that his behavior is combative. Roccodrift (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It is but we need diffs, not encapsulations. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be another witch hunt. In all the diffs thus far presented (e.g., User:Carolmooredc's complaint about Miles' drawing attention to her inscrutable writing style -- a genuine problem, which makes it hard to collaborate with her on WP), no credible case has been made for any disciplinary action. So Sitush -- a guy who says "grow up", calls out people's "incompetence", and then has the gall to complain about other users making "personal" comments -- is now trying to rehash totally off-topic stuff from July, because he sees the ANI as an opportunity to punish Miles. Absolutely contemptible conduct. Close this thread and leave Miles alone. Steeletrap (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't you find it odd that there should be so many of these so-called witch hunt against the same person? Something must be wrong, surely, either with their actions or those of their accusers? And don't worry if you feel left out: your own actions will likely be raised in due course. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What I infer when I see a ton of witch-hunts against one editors is that there may be a bunch of people out to get him, whether it be that they disagree with him or otherwise. KonveyorBelt 21:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I said that there seems to be something wrong somewhere, not necessarily wrt one person. On the other hand, assuming that the "bunch of people" are not meatpuppets, consensus has its part to play in this. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the phenomenon not "odd", but it's easily understood. There's a significant number of relatively long-time users who feel that, due to their seniority, they are entitled to bait excitable newcomers into behavior which can be used to denigrate and impugn the newbies. These elders, as would be expected, are those who have devoted and continue to devote a significant amount of time and attention to WP. Over time, they form relationships with other elders and with various Admins. Those who become Admins tend to be even-tempered and are in general disinclined to take strong action. Their role is largely confined to facilitation in uncontroversial matters and identifying and vetting consensus on talk and noticeboard threads. Because the WP elders are the only ones with enough site knowledge, time and interest to challenge or depose an Admin, the Admins have an understandable bias in favor of giving free rein to the elders. To a social scientist and libertarian such as myself this is easily understood. It's likely a stable situation, because the relatively junior editors who actually come here to work on content are unlikely to be willing to devote the time required to compile dossiers of diffs and recruit allies and navigate the political processes of this community. The result is that WP, which is commonly understood to be dedicated to and thrive on openness, actually operates as a rather closed and reactionary community. I'm not expressing any personal opinion or evaluation about this state of affairs, just observing one aspect of why it is neither "odd" nor "wrong". SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Some generalized and, yes, personalized criticism of a large number of editors and admins doesn't seem to be a very appropriate response to a discussion of one editor's behavior. And being a libertarian means you have some respect for the contract/agreement you make when you join wikipedia, including rules on how to change policies you don't like. Criticizing alleged elites who actually have learned the rules and attempt to live by them because you have some problem with attempted enforcement of voluntary agreed upon rules, while giving no constructive suggestions, isn't particularly libertarian. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole point is that the 'elites' are violating the 'voluntary contract' of the community, by prioritizing relationships and politics over sober enforcement of the rules. Your insinuation that he is not a good libertarian is a personal attack that should be removed from the article. (How would you like it if someone told you you're not a good feminist or anti-war activist?) Steeletrap (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think here by "personal attack" we're talking about the one defined and forbidden by Wikipedia policy, and such certainly isn't that. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example of MilesMoney's interaction. Special:Contributions/65.102.177.223 had made 3 edits to Liberty University and posted 2 notices to MM's talk page, all on December 2. Next, starting on December 4, the IP edited 3 other articles (with 4 edits). On December 6, I posted an IP welcome message (not referencing any particular contribution.) MM's follow-up, 81 minutes later, lacks a certain amount of AGF and civility, but does not surprise me. – S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Legionarius

Legionarius and IP 130.88.164.18 are acting like they own the article Arena Corinthians , and they are simply preventing me from editing, reverting all my edits. The article seemed a great advertisement when I started inserting "bad" data about the stadium, on the involvement of mafias, corruption and other notorious problems involving this stadium. Then this user and this IP, one of them reportedly Corinhtians supporter (as evidenced by this diff : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arena_Corinthians&diff=584127037&oldid=584077211, where he says in Portuguese "MY world championship"), and a great chance that Legionarius also be supporter of Corinthians, started making total reversals of my issues, under the most absurd arguments possible : that my sources were not reliable (ridiculous, as they are excellent sources and very reliable) that it has nothing to do with the article (yes, it has!) while they are trying to block me in all possible ways. Not achieving success, departed to an unnecessary "Dispute resolution noticeboard", to try to intimidate me. Now both reverted again my editions and soon after, gone : Legionarius does not edit by the last the two days and the IP, 3 days. That is, they simply want to keep the article as if it were a gigantic unreal propaganda pro team they support, hiding important facts concerning the subject. I ask that both should be blocked from Wikipedia, or at least prevented from editing this article , since both been acting in the same format that single-purpose accounts: Legionatius only edit this article, specifically, since June 2013, and the IP (which seems to be the same person, or known, because he acts together Legionarius, and was blocked by block evasion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:130.88.164.18&diff=584602079&oldid=584550024) basically just edited this article also . I'm sick of this bias . Rauzaruku (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you're fresh off and WP:EW block on this article and just repeated the edit that you were blocked for, continuing the edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Administrators. This is an unfortunate situation. First, I am not 130.88.164.18. [12]

When I rewrote the article and put it to GA this gentleman gave me a warning the article would never be stable and comparing the club to a murderer.[13] After some months he showed up adding several libelous additions from biased sources. Discussions have been underway. There are too many diffs to list. I will try to put a timeline here:

1. Article rewritten and put up to GA. Message from user:[14] . Highlights: demonstrably buying titles, connects with the Brazilian media mafia, it's like trying to highlight an article about a thief or a murderer.

2.Somebody put a rebuttal and he deleted it. [15] Summary: Corinthians fans opinions aren't relevant.

3. He makes changes to reflect his POV[16], followed by about 10 others. I say that it is not a good source, because it is biased. [17] He got into an edit war with user 130.88.164.18.

3. Other rebuttals:My "accusations" are not accusations, they are proven , documented and referenced facts . Try removing anything, and I call the administrators to block and ban you, You better stop lying about the source, and I do not invention texts. In the report, there are documented facts and personal statements of those involved. If you don't show interest in documenting the relevant facts to the articles, then you are a partial editor, and this article is not afford to be GA. And, in fact, you've been acting like a "single-purpose account" for a long time here. 5 years out of Wikipedia and you returned into account single-purpose format - an entire semester just editing this article. Impressively partial.

3. I contact him on his talk page. Not being successful, I put up a RfC[18], using the GA version as a base. As he ignores the RfC, I reverted it and asked repeatedly to put his comments on the RfC. That got me blocked.

4. His offer of consensus is If you want a consensus from me, do a section with "the offical Globo-CBF-Federal Government-Russian Mafia" version.[19]. I really cannot go there,as just there is no indication that this is true.

Rauzaruku has some problems with his English, what makes the conversation more difficult. i.e., he mistook disgusted for disgusting. Not criticizing; just saying that he may be taking statements the wrong way.

He historically has been showing this POV pushing behavior on other articles, like on Portuguese Language[20][21], Partido da Imprensa Golpista [22], discussing medal orders on articles, Rodrigo Constantino, Instituto Millenium(the last two with User: Al Lemos).

On the Portuguese Wikipedia, he was banned when using other nicks:

Dariusvista

CoalaBR and his puppets, more puppets, other puppets and Some more puppets.

As Rauzaruku he was blocked once for POV pushing and uncivility and now he is up again for blocking.

You can find plenty of uncivil comments and POV pushing on his history. His main pet peeves are Corinthians and Politics.

Is there and admin that is bot and admin here and on PT:wiki?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks for reading!

Legionarius (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This guy is a comedy. He is not discussing the article, just the people. His only goal is to block who edit his "sacred" article... I'm doing a hard work here in the swimming section for months, but it's so good to ignore all my contributions (more than 400 articles created, and more than 90% of my time evolving articles) and focus only in the moments there I'm fighting against vandals here.... extremely partial. I would like to know why you stopped 5 years to edit here, and suddenly, started to edit only in Arena Corinthians for 6 months, someone is paying you and stuff? Or you have more accounts? This is very strange. I'm waiting you discuss the article (you didn't nothing yet), and don't try to ban me all the time, trying to protect your giant Corinthians propaganda. Al Lemos is another partial editor, just like you, who wants to use Wikipedia to do political propaganda. This coward run from here to vandalize another wikis. You could follow this example. I want to see an administrator saying that my sources are not acceptable, not a wiki-lawyer trying to ban me. Oh, and I'm waiting you to do something more useful in your life, than to be 6 months using Wikipedia as your personal blog. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. To keep things short, I am the opposite of all the accusations you put. Regarding the content discussion, please read the talk page as it is very detailed there, a long text. Once an admin get a chance to look at this incident you raised and advises on the next steps, I will resume editing and communicating. Legionarius (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this dispute except for the fact that I closed the unsuccessful case that was filed at WP:DRN. However, I wanted to make involved parties aware that, unlike WP:DRN which is a forum designed exclusively for content disputes, this forum is designed to address behavioral problems in editors. So it is appropriate for editors here to discuss behavioral problems in a civil way, using diffs to support their allegations. Also, editors should be aware that if they come to this forum with unclean hands there is the possibility of the WP:Boomerang effect. Good luck to both of you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Rauzaruku also defaced the article on Fr:wiki, Es:wiki and on It:wiki.Legionarius (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You are so cool, man. Don't have nothing to do in your HUE HUE BR life, except to edit Wikipedia and your beloved team article, and watch my edits. Wow, amazing. Want a trophy by your life inutility? I'm still waiting you discuss the sources and the text, not myself. As well as you don't have arguments to do against the extreme notability and reliability of my sources, you keep trying to block me. Pathetic. You're hitting the water. When you stop to act as a single-purpose account, a fanatical supporter of Corinthians and a wiki-lawyer, call me. Why do not you try to edit other articles? Oh yeah, six months ago, someone must have paid you to use Wikipedia as pro-Corinthians propaganda blog and since then you just edit this article, I forgot it. Well, I don't need to do nothing, except to wait Legionarius grow up and write a section with the official version of the history, but he don't want to do it, so, I can't do nothing. If he try to erase it all again, I will revert this vandal again. And that's it to me, good night. Now I'll edit swimming articles again, I'll not lose more time with this. I suggest to filter Legionarius from editing this article, this will finish our problem. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I was going to block Rauzaruku for the above rants alone already (they are littered with personal attacks), but I threw in continued edit warring on the article--their preferred version contains at least one clear-cut BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. If they don't learn from this, given their long history of disruption across numerous articles and numerous Wikis, and a few socks being thrown in as well, I'd support an indef. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Rauzaruku is back reverting the articles on Fr:wiki, Es:wiki and on It:wiki.Legionarius (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bookspam

User:Dutchy85 has added "bookspam" to the lead paragraphs of dozens of articles. The book appears to be self-published. It's been out for four years, but has no reviews on Amazon. I haven't established a link between the account and the author, but I haven't much time this morning. There's a lot to revert, an I figured I'd run it by the group first in any case since this is the first time I've encountered "book spamming" to this degree. Rklawton (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Rklawton - the book is not self published it's from McFarland who are a very legitimate publishing house. It the book is a resource on AIP films and I am going through it. http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-3309-4. I am not the author of the book I just have a copy of it. I am just a fan of AIP films and trying to increase the reference sources for AIP films on wikipedia.Dutchy85 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've already determined that McFarland is not "a very legitimate publishing house" in the way you're suggesting. It's barely a step away from POD. ES&L 14:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• EatsShootsAndLeaves, please tell me where we've determined that, to satisfy my Wikipedian and professional curiosity. I have some questions about McFarland, but I wouldn't put it as you just did, at least not yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Rklawton, I really think you should have discussed this with the user first; I'm not sure this as yet adds up to an incident that should be listed here. Now, a discussion on this topic is very welcome, of course, though this may not be the best venue. Anyway, I've looked at a couple of McFarland books and they're kind of hit and miss. I got one on my desk that I've cited here (in No Such Thing (film)) because I have faith in the particular book.

  Now, Dutchy's edits could be entirely valid; if there is no other reason in their edit history to think this might be spam we have to accept it. I've done this too, though not to this extent: you run into a useful book and start citing it all over the place. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I've not scrolled through Dutchy85's edits, but I have seen his or her additions of gross figures to numerous film article infoboxes, so this is not a single-purpose account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Two other points: I cannot locate any discussion on WP:RSN about McFarland, specifically that they are "barely a step away from POD", so it would be good to have a pointer to such a discussion. Second, I note that Rklawton has nominated the article McFarland & Company, about the company, for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that link, BMK. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The book is held in over 200 libraries according to worldcat. I have not seen it, but I consider it porobably acceptable as a usable source, at least for factual material, The place for this discussion is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If 200 libraries actually bought the book, I'd be impressed. The fact is, McFarland is an independent publisher. They accept for publishing whatever you're willing to pay them to assemble and publish. A book published by them is no more reliable than anything else self published. Now if we can find some indication of reliability, that would be different, but I'm not seeing any. Here on Wikipedia, if someone wants to claim a source is reliable, then the burden is on them to demonstrate it's reliable rather than the other way around. At any rate, given the volume of editing, I'm looking for several things - a general feeling for whether or not these edits should be revered, and a general idea of whether or not the account's editing privileges should be revoked. We've had enough Wiki-PR type nonsense already, and I'm not all that keen on seeing it continue. Rklawton (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a gulf of difference between an academic, specialty press and a vanity press! Coming out with statements such as "They accept for publishing whatever you're willing to pay them to assemble and publish. A book published by them is no more reliable than anything else self published" is plain wrong. You question the "reliability" of their works; try the Reference and User Services Association of the American Library Association. Their 2012 awards for Outstanding Reference Sources includes McFarland's The Polish American Encyclopedia[23]; in 2011 Off Broadway Musicals, 1910 – 2007: Casts, Credits, Songs, Critical Reception and Performance Data of More Than 1,800 Shows[24]; 2010 Broadway Plays and Musicals: Descriptions and Essential Facts[25]. Also in 2010, McFarland were picked for RUSA's Best Historical materials with The New Woman in Print and Pictures: An Annotated Bibliography[26]. In 2006 McFarland's The Titanic in Print and on Screen: An Annotated Guide to Books, Films, Television Shows, and Other Media was picked by RUSA for Best Bibliographies in History[27]. Sure, they publish niche works, but you are way off mark with this unwarranted criticism of McFarland's practices and credentials. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Their website is quire explicit that they do not accept payment for publication. The idea that Dutchy's editing privileges should be revoked because you have a bug up your butt about McFarland is absurd and, if done, likely an abuse of your responsibilities as an admin. Take a look at the AfD you started, which is pretty much a snow keep at this point, for the community's take on your view of McFarland. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than take action myself in this case, I put it up for discussion here. And that's fully appropriate. Your language and your tone, however, are not appropriate, and if it persists, you will find your own account posted here as the subject of a new discussion. Rklawton (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My tone is completely appropriate, especially considering what very much looks like a retaliatory WP:BATTLEGROUND AfD nomination, and especially considering you brought this issue here without doing the least bit of investigation into Dutchy's editing history. Instead you're making strong charges against an entirely innocent editor without evidence and throwing around threats of "revoking editing privilgees" and filing unwarranted AN/I reports because someone spoke frankly to you. I'm sure you enjoy shooting from the hip, but your administrative responsibilities call for more than that, which you have not fulfilled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspected Attempt at Outing [28]

Hello. Could someone please look into and/or advise on procedure/action concerning an incident of a suspected attempt at Outing [29] a user via a possibly Uncivil comment posted by Socialmedium on the Talk Page of the Institute for Learning Wikipedia Article. Here is the text in question;

"Joel, I suggest you, ahem, get a life.Socialmedium (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)"

N.B. A previous comment by Socialmedium in the same Article began; "Dear anonymous contributor known as '82.38.143.36', "

Both comments can be found here [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks LetsDoItRight (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I do suggest that an admin with a little time and some patience take a look at the article Institute for Learning and its talk page because it looks very much like some things are going on there. Specifically, User:Socialmedium appears to be an SPA, possibly with a COI, but almost certainly with a fixed POV, who is attempting ownership of the article. On the other side, I'd suggest the possibility of socking, both via IPs and throw-away accounts. The "outing" comment above also raises the possibility that this editing conflict is a real-world dispute that's moved on-Wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Another user re-editing my talk page comments

User:Drmargi has repeatedly re-edited my comments in a talk page discussion. I pointed out that this is not allowed per talk page guidelines and that he/she does not have my permission to do this. She nonetheless continued.

• [31]
• [32]
• [33]

ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 18:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personal attacks should be removed, but Template:RPA is better than the text Drmagi used. Welcome to the world of WP:BOOMERANG. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 18:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Didn't know about the template. Thank you! Corrected, and my edits stand. CK was asked several times to address the issue, not the editor, but refuses, with responses peppered with personal attacks. Consequently, I redacted them, per WP:NPOV which is within policy. --Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:NPOV is not relevant to redacting talk page comments.

2. The first two diffs show that Drmagi removed the comment "The article's self-appointed caretaker", claiming that this represented a personal attack. This is not a personal attack. See WP:NPA#WHATIS.

3. The third diff shows that Drmagi removed the comment "Grow up". The comment was uncivil. However, before we criticise ChakaKong for this, we should read WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, which says that one form of incivility is "taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Drmargi's repeated unwarranted accusations that ChakaKong was making personal attacks, and deleting parts of ChakaKong's talk page posts are a good example of baiting as described in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL.

Please could we consider a 6 hour block for Drmargi to give him/her time to reflect. If he/she continues his/her uncivil behaviour, the blocks should escalate.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Outside opinion: Looking at the provided diffs there is another way to interpret this. Drmargi being called a "self-proclaimed caretaker" can also be seen as an accusation of him having ownership issues, which could itself be seen as a personal attack. 90.193.35.112 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If CK discusses the issue and behaves in a WP:CIVIL manner, CK doesn't have a problem. End of story. This had gone dormant two days ago, and it wasn't me who stirred it up again. He's been nothing but belligerent from the start, and I'm not prepared to tolerate his name calling and false accusations. They are personal attacks designed to bully me into the outcome he desires. Period. --Drmargi (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent genre warring by Alcatrazzrapper

I'm not sure exactly where I should go for this. It seems Alcatrazzrapper is a WP:GWAR and WP:SPA which has done nothing but change genres on hip hop album articles without any discussion at all. I gave him a final warning on the 3rd, but he has not stopped. Perhaps a block is in order, but I will leave that decision up to an admin. Jinkinson talk to me 20:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• This and this are properly verified, so it seems to me they're following guidelines in at least those two edits. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not really. Both of those sources have "political rap" listed as a "style". Alcatrazzrapper put in "political hip-hop" which is surely not synonymous, and a genre is not the same as a style. Allmusic is a mediocre source at the best of times, and it's really only useful for a baseline listing of genres if no other meaningful journalism is available about the album. No one knows where they get their "genre" and "style" attributes—it could be some data entry monkey who's just copying metadata from the publisher. You can't tell any of this to your typical genre warrior, though, because they don't communicate or listen to arguments. They're just here to change genres on every album they can find. --Laser brain (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Front Page Image

Currently File:Uniform tiling 433-t0.png is on the "Today's Featured Article", but it might be a good idea to switch images. Reds and blues close together in images appear to "flash" (for lack of a better term) and might cause a seizure in someone who is sensitive to those colors. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CENSORED... or perhaps time to repeal that extremely problematic policy. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User: 78.156.109.166

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

---

This IP address is being exclusively to troll at the WP:Help Desk and the various sections of the WP:Reference Desk.

Some of the Help Desk diffs follow: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

IP address has been blocked once. I did not look up the block entry. A longer block is needed for this troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Original block was for randomly adding the words "Michael Jackson" to articles (eg). I am not sure if the editor is a troll, but has had some difficulty understanding how to work on Wikipedia (to put it mildly). I support a longer block until the editor can understand complex text necessary to edit on the project. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor's current focus of asking strange questions at the Help Desk and the Reference Desk and then restating the question so that the original answer was not an answer seems to be characteristic of a troll. At least one other editor at the Help Desk has said that we (the Help Desk regulars) are being trolled. Even if the editor is not a troll, he or she is not here to be constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do the links not work for me? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy.[34] Doc talk 10:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Obvious trolling, see e.g. Wikipedia:Help desk#Opinion questions in the Reference Desk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• In case it's not clear from the bible related diffs alone, the user has a habit of making rude demands demand for yes or no answer, refactored after he was criticisd, giving bizarre excuses for his behavior I don't have Google, "Uh... Did I mention memory?" > "Can't even read your text just above, because my drug..." asking back-to-back opinion questions "Are we in hell? Serious question", and editing his remarks after the fact without leaving any trace like a crossout or brackets. He is obviously aware of his behavior, given he assures us his answers are serious, and sliently edits his comments when subject to criticism. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Kafziel abusing admin tools and overriding long established consensus

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

---

Hello all. I would like to make an ANI report against Kafziel even though he has only responded to one warning message (so I presume he has only read one), because (1) it seems quite serious and may even constitute enough reason for a permanent desysopping and (2) reversion of his edits needs administrative attention anyway.

Kafziel has been making edits against consensus with articles at WP:AfC, the main issue being he deletes articles that he does not accept. The proper course of action based on wide consensus is to simply decline the article and allow the reviewee to read the comments on why the article was declined and allow them to improve the article and resubmit it. As I am not an administrator, I do not have access to the specific content in each article, but a list of articles that he has deleted can be found at Special:Log/Kafziel. Huon has also brought up four especially troublesome deletions at his talk page, namely first, A7 deletion outside of mainspace, second, inappropriate G13 deletion as it has been actively worked on in October, so that's only one or two months, not six, third, CSD of article he moved into mainspace just minutes before, and fourth, which Huon did not explain.

Kafziel then responded, citing that AfC is not policy and also IAR. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding on what consensus and WP:IAR mean. After that, User:Hasteur, User:SilkTork and I confronted him about his edits. User:Hasteur has also emailed ArbCom about this. This is his rationale behind doing his actions, but of course that is, again, against consensus and is detrimental to the AfC project, whose aims is to help a user create an article through feedback and guidance. If we need to resort to such measures to clear the backlog, we might as well not have AfC altogether. I also suspect that he has resorted to accepting every article to clear out the backlog before, but this post is getting lengthy and it's late at night for me so I'll probably add another post tomorrow if I can find evidence of that.

Ok, now for the administrative part: I request the recovery of all the articles that User:Kafziel has deleted inappropriately, possibly with an apology note to the writer's talk page.

Thanks and goodnight, I'll come back tomorrow. Darylgolden^(talk) 13:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• AFC again, eh? Don't see much "feedback" whether the article is deleted or not. That being said, this is going a bit further beyond bounds than I've seen before. Is there a list of AFC entries which need to be undeleted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• While there is some degree of good intention in Kafziel's efforts in the AfC namespace, and Crisco makes a fair point, these actions are totally out of processes and ultimately make it harder for the limited number of Wikiproject AFC members who try to offer feedback and answer help requests. I would request Kafziel to stop unilaterally deleting AfC submissions (whether he moves them mainspace first or not...). If he does so, then I see no need for this AN/I thread to go any further. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's just figure this out for a second - outright promotion and BLP violations would be subject to immediate speedy deletion when rejected, and sensibly, so would AFC's of articles that already exist. If I look at User:Kafziel's most recent deletions in the AFC space:

1. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Osseointegration Group of Australia (A10 - identical article already exists) ... appears to be a valid deletion
2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Opsonin Pharma Limited (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) ... valid CSD reasoning
3. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ras Al Khaimah Tourism Development Authority (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) ... again, a valid CSD reasoning
4. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Ninivaggi (WP:CSD#A7) ... hmmm, perhaps no proper reason to delete
5. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A1K9 (G13: Abandoned Article for creation – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND/G13) ... again, valid deletion reason.

So, from those 5 ... can someone tell me what the problem is (other than #4)? ES&L 16:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still a bit unsettling that Kafziel would unilaterally interpret his role in a way that put him at loggerheads with editors at AfC. There is no way for regular editors to review speedy deletions. It's admirable that he would try to clear out the large backlog, but not by any means necessary. I don't blame users for being suspicious at an admin moving pages to the article space simply so he can speedy delete them under a rationale that applies only to the main space. If an ordinary user were to start moving pages and then request speedy deletion, I assume this would be considered disruptive editing. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Kafziel's conduct is cavalier and out of process. The A category of speedy delete shouldn't be used on AFC articles. The G category, of course, can be used, although normally the creator should be given an opportunity to correct the problem, except perhaps in egregious circumstances. In any event, if he wants an AFC article deleted based on a valid criterion, he should tag it rather than delete it directly. His reliance on IAR appears to me to be a self-serving justification to do what he wants. He should take Silk Tork's advice and go work somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

4 is a copyright violation of this, right action, wrong reason. AfCs are not immune to speedy deletion on blatant spam/copyright/BLP grounds, but it seems to me that the main issue here is whether it's correct to move to main space just to SD. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EatsShootsAndLeaves With respect, there's actually consensus approved ways to deal with your examples

1. Decline as Exists, wait for G13 to become eligible, and then delete. A10 is not valid in the AfC project space.
2. AfC pages are given a little more leeway in terms of the Advertising rationalle and as such this would have been beter served by an eventual G13 nomination
3. Again, Advertising is given a more leeway.
4. A7 is for article space, not the AfC project space.
5. G13 perhaps, but there's already a systematic process going through and notifying creators and nominating for G13 so that there is an opportunity for review.

For these reasons, ES&L, the defense is shaky at best and outright wrong when considered by a normal editor. Hasteur (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd say that using an "A" CSD criterion for something not in article space is a problem, no matter what else is going on. And that's ignoring that AfC is designed to be a place where failure and re-shaping of articles is allowed, which means that "nope this doesn't pass now, deleting" completely short-circuits the workflow. I'm very much sympathetic to the sense that AfC is filled with deletable crap, and to wondering why leave it all there instead of dealing with it, and I might even support a proposal that we start giving people less leash at AfC as far as things like advertisement articles, but the current process is set up to deliberately not be the "one chance and done" situation a user would be put in when creating an article in mainspace. That means not insta-deleting if an article isn't up to snuff.

  I'm also sympathetic to "Wikiprojects can't tell us what to do", and Kafziel's claim that since he's not a member of AfC, he's not bound by how its members do things, but in this case I would venture to say that "don't delete declined stuff unless it meets G10, G12 or G13" is not a wikiproject guideline; it's pretty much a universal one followed by any user who touches AfC from the reviewing end. I'm not a member of Wikiproject AfC (in fact, I tend to forget it exists), but I handle AfCs and I do it by accepting or declining submissions, not deleting them. Consensus among everyone I know of other than Kafziel who handles AfCs is that AfCs are deleted upon review only in circumstances where they contain BLP violations or copyvio. "I know what consensus is, and I know that people object to what I'm doing, but I don't feel like doing it according to consensus" isn't ignoring the rules, it's flouting them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jimfbleak Even if it was a copyright violation the standard practice for AfC is to decline, mark as a copyright violation Template:AFC_submission/comments and if it's a bulk violation, then to blank the page. Deleting is straight up out of process especially when deleting for the wrong rationale. Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Standard practice is therefore completely wrong. It is illegal to infringe copyright, and I don't think copyright owners would see AfC as a refuge from US law. FWIW, I just deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Sisters for copyright infringement and blatant spamming. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation is not "illegal", it's a violation of the copyright holder's rights, and therefore a civil matter, which is a very different thing. Let's not get all hyperbolic here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright infringement is, of course, a G category and can be used outside of article name space. However, it's not that big a deal if the page is blanked. We remove copyright infringment from existing articles without deleting them. We only use G12 when it's a new article and the entire article infringes. If it's done at AfC, the problem is still fixable, and, in any event, whether deleted or not copyright infringement still took place; you don't eliminate the original infringement by deleting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't agree with applying any of the A criterion to AfC but not only is it absolutely wrong to not mark a blatant copyright violation (or attack page) for immediate deletion, but those are in the instructions for reviewers at AfC (though I should qualify that I was the one who edited the project to change the former wrong process of just blanking these, when I found that that was in the instructions [35]).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that an attack page should be deleted. There's no reasonable basis to think it's correctable. I still disagree with the copyright infringement issue as a lot of users don't understand the problem but could correct it if given a chance, but, at the same time, it doesn't bother me all that much if it is deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations and attack pages can and should be deleted in AfC space. That's not at issue here. I pointed out a couple of problematic deletions on Kafziel's talk page: The A7 deletion outside the mainspace mentioned above, a G13 deletion of a non-stale draft, another A7 Kafziel deleted minutes after moving it into the mainspace himself (he says moving it was a mistake and he reconsidered, but there are a bunch of others he treated in the same fashion: Brainz, Tyrolean Independent Film Festival, Lambloch. Several of those seem to be about notable topics and could be de-spamified with comparatively little effort, making Kafziel's G11 rationales dubious. I might accept A10 for AfC drafts if we already have a sufficiently similar article, but in many cases what would be needed is a histmerge, not deletion of a draft that actually predates the article (see for example [36] and The Osseointegration Group of Australia).

In summary, trying to clean up the AfC backlog is a laudable goal, but deleting everything not ready for the mainspace yet is not the way to do it. Huon (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there have been thousands of articles accepted in Afc which started out being very promotional or having no references at all. Crisco 1492 says there isn't much guidance given, but the help is spread over many talk pages, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, on the users' talk pages and on the talk pages of the reviewers (such as mine HERE. I do sometimes nominate duplicate articles for deletion, but only after checking that they don't hold a significant part of the mainspace article's history. The submissions are not in article space, and are all marked inside the submit template with NOINDEX, so the urgency to remove them is much lower (except in the case of attack pages or copyvios of course). If Afc submissions are to be treated the same as regular mainspace articles, then Afc might as well be shut down. I proposed this on a temporary basis recently as a measure to deal with the backlog, and the response was far from positive. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted some AfC submissions as G11, and deleted some as duplicates (though I use G6 rather than A10). I know quite a few other admins who do so also, and I would not say there is a consensus never to use these criteria at AfC. (FWIW, I point out that one of the multiple defects of the AfC process is the lack of a good way of handling duplicates) However, the standards for both of these are much more liberal than for articles in mainspace, because they can be improved and are at AfC for improvement. I will delete an AfC that is an outright advertisement, or an so promotional that despite multiple submissions it appears it will never get fixed, but the criterion for articles in mainspace is merely not fixable by normal editing but requiring extensive rewriting. AfC is the place for such rewriting. With respect to the articles about, the tourism development G11 could conceivably be edited into acceptability, but the Opsonin one is something I might have deleted also. I will delete an afc that is an exact copy as A6, but not one which is merely substantially a duplicate, because it might be possible to merge some of the material. Of course the deletion as A7 is improper, and I would have considered it improper even as an article, because it makes a plausible claim to significance as CEO of a significant company.

I consider it acceptable to delete an occasional G13 out of the normal sequence, and many admins have done so, but only if it has been there considerably more than the minimal 6 months (the point which the routine backlog clearance process has reached is at about 14 months at the moment) . I will sometimes do this for something altogether hopeless. The article mentioned above was 7 months old, and is not utterly hopeless, though unlikely. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

1. @Fluffernutter I don't agree with "I'm not part of the WikiProject, therefore I don't follow their rules." It's like saying you're not part of Wikipedia, therefore you can do whatever you want with Wikipedia articles - this is not a valid excuse because even if you claim that you are not part of Wikipedia, you are editing its articles and therefore must still follow rules when doing so. Similarly, Kafziel may not be part of the AfC wikiproject, but he is editing pages under the AfC project, and since there is an established consensus with how to deal with such articles, he must follow consensus. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Can we discuss about the articles that should be recovered? At present, I feel that this is the most urgent issue, as his actions have probably hurt a lot of newbies who may be worried about their articles being deleted and they may not know what to do. I would say recover every article deleted under the 'A' criteria, including pages which have been moved to mainspace before being deleted. Articles deleted under G11 that are promotional in tone but still contain substantial information should also be recovered. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Are you sure you're replying to the right person, Darylgolden? I didn't say anything resembling the words you're saying I said; my point was in fact that "I'm not a member of Wikiproject:AfC" is not an excuse to not abide by community guidelines and consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case I apologise for misreading your comment, Fluffernutter. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

To start with, since G13s are restored in response to a good-faith request if there is no other problem preventing it, I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A1K9/ I am prepared to restore the others except Opsonin, but I have no objection if another admin wants to restore that one also, because if we disagree, it's not a valid speedy G11. For non-obvious cases, the procedure for deletion is to list the article for a discussion at MfD. We may work out something better when we have the drafts namespace implemented.Perhaps the admin who works most with these ( User:Kudpung ) will comment. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm the admin who works most on these; perhaps one who has done the largest nubers of dG13 eletions but there are dozens of admins whose names we hardly ever come across who gnome away occasionally at the CSD cat doing perhaps there or four at a time, but it still happens very often that while I am reviewing one G13, by the time I reach for the delete button - or rescue it - someone else has already deleted it. My main concern is that it appears to me that if there are too many G13 in the the queue, some admins who know how to do it may simply be doing batch deletions without looking at any of them; creating a new backlog from an old one is counter productive. Due to the huge backlog, the vast majority of G13 are over a year old, so theoretically there should be no more qualms about deleting them than an expired PROD, after all, the creators have had long enough - and many of the creations have not even actually been submitted. I've rescued a tiny few but generally the vast majority of G13 would never be let into mainspace under any circumstances. When rejecting, we should never be bitey, but the myth that was put about by the Foundation in Haifa that most content creators began their Wiki careers as vandals was obviously wrong.

When the backlog is cleared, and all new creations in the backlog of articles the creators have never returned to are a maximum of only 6 months old, it will be time to pay even more attention to the drafts, but I will not be an editor who will dedicate time to repairing many of them for their lazy creators. Providing helpful friendly feedback so they can do it themselves, certainly, but otherwise my time is taken up with the repair of hundreds of new school articles that are far more worth saving than autobios of nn rappers or mixtape DJs, or blatant spam masquerading as articles.

What we do need are some coherent guidelines that ensure that all reviewers and deleting admins are singing from the same page, and in that respect, with the creation of a set of criteria of experience for reviewers, a draft namaspace, and some new ideas how it can be used, such as perhaps cloning a copy of the New Pages Feed/Curation Toolbare for use at AfC, everyones' lives, creators, reviewers, and admins, will be made much easier. It doesn't help however when some editors who work at AfC, whether they consider themselves part of the project or not, drive others away from the AfC project or even ultimately from Wikipedia. All they are doing is throwing the babies out with the bathwater. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Kafziel has not responded to this thread yet, but I would like to state that I really will have no problem if he promises to cease all activities in the AfC project and not edit in that area again. The main point of me opening this thread was actually to bring attention to the edits that needs reversion but since it involves some degree of acting against consensus and admin abuse, I posted it here instead of at WP:AN. So my ideal conclusion is with User:Kafziel agreeing not to edit AfC articles and the reversion of his deletions. Darylgolden^(talk) 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"...if he promises to cease all activities in the AfC project and not edit in that area again"...Seriously? AFC is one of the most backlogged areas of the project, and it's blatantly obvious that Kafziel is trying to move things forward with the best interests of the project at heart, but you want him 100% topic-banned from AFC? You could have suggested that perhaps he not personally delete anything, but NO...you want to kick him in the head instead? Way to undermine your argument. ES&L 12:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

At first, I'd be inclined to support a topic-ban of Kafziel from AFC. But then again, there is a really large backlog at AfC (which some admins and other editors have mentioned above), and there would be no problem if he left non-involved admins to delete the articles, rather than himself. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) The bottom line is, admins shouldn't use their administrative rights in disputes in which they are involved. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Was there a dispute in progress when the pages were deleted? I thought that the dispute started afterwards. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no prior disputes. As I say below, I've just been working my way through Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago. I'm fairly sure I've never had any interactions with any of the article creators or prior edits to the pages themselves. I'm as uninvolved and unbiased as anyone else. I've moved far more articles into the article space than I've deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Kafziel

I think some editors here should take a moment to re-read WP:IAR. It’s very, very short, and very, very clear. It doesn't say, "…unless you risk angering a Wikiproject." I see some people saying IAR doesn't apply because I’m not improving the encyclopedia. Says you. I've added dozens (maybe hundreds) of decent pages to the encyclopedia in the span of just a couple of days. That’s a damn sight more than most of the tin-pot dictators running around over there, rejecting articles for not having in-line citations or proper wiki formatting. It has become apparent (and this report would seem to confirm it) that AfC has gotten much too big for its britches. So let me be very clear: I don’t care how AfC likes to do things, and I don’t have to care. I don’t need anyone’s permission to move an article from AfC into the article namespace, or do any other damn thing I want. The same goes for any other editor. I also don’t have to consult with the Military History Wikiproject before I create a military article, or with the India Wikiproject before I create an article about India. If you think you own these pages just because they are part of your Wikiproject, you are very much mistaken.

AfC does not own the pages they create. I was willing to leave well enough alone, but now their mismanaged and disorganized bureaucracy has spilled over into the real encyclopedia, in the form of a proposed draft namespace. Supporters argue that the appallingly gigantic AfC backlog requires a new bureaucracy under which second-class editors can write second-class articles, and a new set of gatekeepers can prevent users from editing Wikipedia as was originally intended. So now the backlog has become everyone’s problem, and I’m helping take care of it.

I’m not “involved” in any of the articles I've moved or deleted. I’m working my way down the list in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago. In the interest of not simply transforming the AfC backlog into the AfD backlog, I have speedied a few (a very few) of the articles I've come across. If I've made a mistake deleting something, undelete it. There are a number of simple procedures for that. Any admin is free to restore anything I've deleted; I don’t think I've done anything to stop anyone, or even argue against it. If you don’t like a deletion I made, ask someone else about it; there’s probably no point in asking me, because I give each article careful consideration before deleting it and will only very rarely reverse myself. By the same token, if articles I move into the article namespace are nominated for AfD, that’s okay by me, too.

Blatant spam is blatant spam, and it isn't protected just because it’s created under the auspices of AfC. We are not required to work patiently with spammers to help them find creative ways to game the system. I will not do that. But, again, if I make a mistake, go ahead and fix it. That's the whole point of a wiki.

TL;DR – If you disagree with a deletion I’ve made, restore it. If you want me to start obeying AfC’s little rules, forget it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, it sounds like your position is that you dislike the idea that underlies AfC's current workflow, that one's first try at an article needn't be the only one they're allowed, and that you're taking actions to correct what you see as an inherently deficient process by holding editors to the same standard they'd experience in mainspace. Would that be an accurate characterization of where you're coming from? If so, my concern is that you're knowingly defying a standing consensus (not just a "little rule" made by "tin-pot dictators", but an actual "this is how this thing is practiced by the people who do it" descriptive consensus) to make a point about the AfC process. IAR isn't a license to do exactly as one pleases on "any [...] damn thing I want", and it concerns me to hear you say that you feel you don't need anyone's permission to do anything. I suppose that's accurate in that you don't need any one person's permission, but the community functions on consensus, and you're as responsible as any other editor for not knowingly editing in contradiction of consensus. You don't need one person's permission, but you do need the community's.

I think you could make a good argument that "if at first you don't succeed, keep trying ad infinitum, no matter how unlikely your article is" isn't the way we should be doing AfC, and quite probably convince at least some of its participants to adjust the way things are done there. But I don't think that calling people names while declining to either follow or try to change consensus is the way to go, and the fact that that's your option of choice strikes me as unbecoming of an administrator in an era where much of the community is aready concerned about administrators doing as they please too often. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I’m not disrupting Wikipedia, I’m just ignoring AfC. The two are not one and the same. And make no mistake – this is not something I think I’m allowed to do because I’m an administrator; it’s something every editor is allowed to do because this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I’m not moving articles out of AfC as soon as they’re created, like a crazy person; I’m moving articles that have been languishing there for weeks and weeks. AfC is rife with abuse, and the talk pages archives are full of users complaining that articles are being held back (or outright rejected) by self-appointed gate keepers who won’t pass articles until they’re practically ready for Featured status. Many editors aren't even aware that they are allowed to move their own articles out, or bypass the AfC process altogether, and I've had lots of “thank you” notes from people who had been waiting and waiting for someone to show up and do something. There’s a very simple solution for anyone who doesn't like how I do it: Stop posting here and start processing the backlog. Get it done. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, it is not as simple for us to restore your deletions as you suggest. Non-admins don't have access to page histories and don't have a log of the pages you've deleted. You have an information and technical advantage over other users when deleting pages, and it's concerning to me that you're not attempting to bridge that gap by trying to make your decision-making more transparent. The admin tools are not designed to make life more difficult for other good-faith editors. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, if you had said that you made a lapse in judgement, and you wouldn't violate community consensus again; I, and I believe most of the community, would be able to forgive your actions. But this continued position of I'm right and the community consensus is wrong is at best juvenile, and at worst, worthy of a desysopping. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to give it a shot. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that a petition was made to ArbCom asking for an emergency Desysop for your blatand disregard of policy, guidelines, and established consensus. That you're willing to hack through the article nursery with a dull machete is indication enough that it is time to forcably take the keys away as you're so far in the deep end of the "Consensus of One" that it is preventative of future damage. SilkTork can we agree that the messages of 17:54 and 17:57 constitute a threat to continue to disrupt and damage the project? Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen, man: I have plenty of experience at AN/I – on both sides – so I know it’s usually a matter of one editor/group of editors thinking another editor/group of editors should kowtow and beg forgiveness. I don’t do that. You can rage all you want, and it’s simply never going to happen. Not because I’m always right, but because this is a wiki so if I’m wrong, just fix it and move on. I’ve fixed countless mistakes made by others over the years, and I don’t demand reparations from them. If you think you’re going to have my adminship revoked for creating articles against your will, or for making the occasional deletion error (and not arguing about them or wheel warring over them) then you’ve got another think coming. And if you think I'm going to be blocked or desysopped for some "emergency" measure, when I haven't deleted a single article in more than two weeks, I think you are also very much mistaken. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hello, Kafziel. At your suggestion, I read the WP:IAR page. It refers to improving the encyclopedia - a goal we all share. I am puzzled, though, over how deleting articles that aren't in the encyclopedia, and won't be unless the policy problems are removed, causes any improvement to the encyclopedia. On the contrary, since most Afc submissions are made by new editors, if the pages are just deleted instead of the editors being given advice and the articles improved, those editors will likely give up and not edit again, and Wikipedia will be missing any contributions that they might have made. I have interacted with many of these new editors, and even some whose articles couldn't pass notability, and were eventually deleted, have gone on to create other acceptable articles because they were drawn into the community and came to espouse its values. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I guess the disconnect is that I see everything on Wikipedia as "in the encyclopedia" and you don't. I'm not sure what else it would be considered; free web hosting? I admit I don't know an awful lot about technical things like indexing or whatnot, but I know if you Google a company, its spammy AfC page will be among the results. So, yes, I do think not letting spammers squat at AfC improves the encyclopedia. As does deleting obvious word-for-word duplicates and nonsense. If we're worried about losing users because they're discouraged, then, again: Go process the backlog. Because I can tell you right now, just as many users are quitting Wikipedia because their articles are sitting in limbo for months on end. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• My concern would be that although pushing articles into article space without giving the submitter the opportunity to fully improve it before publication seems like a way to beat the backlog, it really is relying on a handful of users through the AfD process to do the required research to determine if a page is worth keeping or not, and this probably requires a lot more net effort than allowing the AfC process to coach submitters through improving their own articles to the point no one would reasonably consider nominating them for deletion. AfD isn't at all a zero effort process, and surely AfC was created to reduce the demand on that and page patrol in the first place - that doesn't seem like reducing backlog, only shifting it to somewhere else. To hastily push them into article space to 'sink or swim... out of limbo' is surely undermining the AfC efforts. --_nonsense ferret 19:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• A valid concern, except that the vast majority of the articles in the backlog need neither AfD nor AfC. Most are perfectly fine, and just being held back so reviewers can feel important. Wikipedia was created through open, worldwide collaboration. If we just move them out and let the community participate, instead of sweeping them under the rug, almost none of them need any procedural review at all. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

To say that people review articles at AfC to 'feel important' seems not to particularly assume good faith, and fails to recognise the great benefits to the encyclopedia as a whole of the work done by the reviewers. I'm afraid my experience of looking at a large number of such submissions does not support your suggestion that the vast majority of them are ready for article space. On the contrary, very few new editors understand what a reliable source is, nor understand the importance of citations for BLPs. Also, as an additional point in not using the tools provided for accepting articles at AfC, you don't get the benefit of talkpages being automatically created and WP template being added for new articles etc which will surely reduce the effort for everyone. --_nonsense ferret 20:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

AfC was created because IP users can’t create articles, and new users might not know how. That's all. Anything else – asking for in-line citations, improving leads, establishing notability, etc – can and should be handled in the article space. I've seen countless articles being held back for things like “this is a good start, but I’d like to see more detail about X”. That’s nonsense. That’s an editor who has spent too long on AfC and has an inflated sense of authority.

It's not up to anyone to decide when an article is "ready" for article space. If it’s a coherent sentence or two that is verifiable and makes some kind of claim of importance, then it’s ready to go. Send it. Wikipedia articles require neither in-line citations, nor proper formatting, nor proper categories, nor any particular amount of content. Aside from certain special cases such as BLP, they don’t even require sources at all to begin with. And they don’t have to have talk pages, and they certainly don’t have to have talk pages with wikiproject banners on them. None of those things are requirements. If you’re a member of AfC, I can see why you might think they are. But as a member of Wikipedia, I can assure you that they are not. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This raises an important point: what should be the criteria for accepting articles. I agree with Kafziel that the criterion is not GA. But I also think it should not be as low as the ability to just pass speedy. I think the accepted standard is in the middle: the ability to have a reasonable chance of passing AfD. In particular, I think an article should establish notability before it passes, or at least have a reasonable try at it. I think an article should have key controversial matters properly referenced, though not necessarily in any particular format. I think an article should be readable--not optimal, but with enough organization that the immediate response won't be to find some way to delete it. It should have the key external links, but not so many that it will lead to a suspicion of promotionalism. Not to be certain of passing AfD --experience has shown that it is almost impossible to predict that anything will certainly pass AfD. an article coming out of AfC should be good enough to stay in WP, and be improved further. Looking at declined AfCs , a great many of them are declined for not following the details of WP style, or even the details of what the individual reviewer thinks is the sort of reference style they personally prefer. We do need to have someway of encouraging people to make better articles once they go about it, and it can be useful for an experienced reviewer to explain what to do further. But if we hold up articles for this, we will never get them at all. What's needed isa way to encourage beginners to keep going, and that has proven very difficult. I have no real positive suggestions here--just to eliminate the negative factors, and high among the negative factors is people giving discouragement to new editors.

the purpose of AfC ist ot just to let ip's make articles. It's to let people with a COI make articles= drafts, and it's also for anyone who is inesperienced enough that they feel they need guidance. What we must do in return, is provide the proper guidance. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth, I totally agree with these points DGG. I think in the past a minority of less experienced AfC reviewers have really gone too far placing silly requirements in the way of reasonable first draft articles, but this doesn't mean that establishing a basic case for notability isn't a very useful function. One of the difficulties in being a reviewer is that sometimes without some further research it is pretty difficult to make a call on whether there may or may not be a case for notability, this is often the case with NACADEMIC and similar technical guidelines. After an iteration or two of review you can end up with an article full of somewhat dubious references, where it is still difficult to see a prima facie case. It is these articles with a few references that often end up staying on the backlog for a while because people can see they are not 'easy' reviews. I think they are not easy for good reason, and throwing those all into article space is not really helping - a few of them are real gems which are a delight to find, but some are just COI ridden lumps of poop bundled up in blog coverage and press release. It is the wheat and the chaff. --_nonsense ferret 22:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But we seem to disagree on who should be relied upon to separate the two. The entire Wikipedia community (which is, by definition, the whole world) or a tiny subset of self-appointed AfC gatekeepers? I say the former. And every Wikipedia policy and guideline, from WP:BOLD to WP:OWN, agrees with me. These articles are not AfC's to administer. They belong to Wikipedia, for better or worse. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward

I don't see a need immediately to "topic-ban" Kafziel from AfC. As I said before, his desire to clear the AfC backlog can be of great use to the project. What concerns me is his total lack of interest in working with the ordinary editors who frequent this area to develop a common understanding of how he should do his work. IAR is a policy guideline, but consensus is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Would it be so horrible, Kafziel, to work with WikiProject AfC editors to develop shared rules for speedy deletions? It's the only reasonable solution that springs to mind here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Any user can view all my logs (including deleted pages) here. It's all very transparent. I can understand that it's a bit more of a hassle for you to review or undelete an article, because you have to ask someone else do it for you. But that's the same as any editor who wanted to restore any other real article I've speedy deleted over the years; why would AfC get special consideration? There are several admins working on AfC. I'm sure they can help if need be. Since anyone can approve and move a page, the admin tools aren't needed for much besides deleting and restoring articles.

If little old me can empty out a category of past-due articles in just a day, why can’t an entire wikiproject do the same? This needn't even be an issue, if people were less concerned with nit-picking and more concerned with improving the encyclopedia. Many hands make light work. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• The only way to clean out articles that fast is to do it by paying no attention to them. Except for a few special cases, the ordinary run of AfCs needs screening. The point of being an admin it to think about what one is doing, not to imitate a bot. Now, I do not think Kafziel is necessarily the worst in this respect of the people who are looking at old AfCs, and I have despaired at convincing some that 5% of 50,000 is a number work saving. However, everybody else who does it, when they do go slow enough to think about it, use correct criteria. The reason the AfCs have accumulated is that the A criteria do not apply; this is not just informal consensus, but a basic part of the deletion guideline that the A criteria are limited to articles. I would expect a affirmation from Kafziel that he intends to abide by this. That he offers to correct any mistakes people call to his attention is good, but only as a supplement to limiting oneself --as we all do-- to deleting only the ones that fall under the guidelines in the first place. This isn't a special restriction: any admin who does not follow the guidelines in a particular area should work elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I’d love to have the luxury of being more careful, but look where that has gotten us. Whatever the previous consensus may have been, it isn't working. And if process isn't working, then I ignore it. That's what IAR means.

My point is that if more than just one person were reviewing them, there would be plenty of time to look at them with all the care that AfC would like. It’s a question of man-hours, and with each extra set of hands and eyes, the work is divided up into smaller parts, and more time is freed up for careful scrutiny. One editor can process 130 articles in eight hours, or 130 editors can take eight hours to process one article each. Either way, it needs to get done. If AfC wants to handle it, I wouldn't have to. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So form a new consensus instead of writing your own rules and rejecting outside input. That's all people here want, I think. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I already have consensus behind me. The editing policy says, "Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect." I'm doing that. IAR, also policy, says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I am. Those pages have consensus, and they trump whatever else may have been decided by some vote at a wikiproject. Besides, discussion is not the only way to build or change consensus; it can also be done through active editing. In this case, there's really nothing to discuss (and the people who started this report aren't actually interested in discussing anything anyway). If anyone has a problem with any deletions I make, they’re welcome to restore them. If you think an article I promoted wasn't ready for the article space, get to work improving it. But I outright reject the notion that I (or any other editors) have to follow the same reviewing procedures that have resulted in tens of thousands of backlogged articles. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen people complain about the articles you move into the mainspace; it's the deletions that are problematic. Do you really want to claim you're "helping users avoid abuse at the hands of AfC" by deleting every imperfect draft you come about? I would agree the author of the OrderUp draft you deleted felt abused, but not by AfC. If you think the stale drafts are a backlog that requires work, why not work on that instead of deleting non-abandoned drafts? We have a valid speedy deletion criterion for old drafts, and you might even rescue some that had been declined in error; that would go some way towards proving your point about overly critical AfC reviewers (and yes, I'm sure some drafts were declined in error). However, I'd prefer not having to patrol your deletion log to undelete lots of dubious "G11" cases. Huon (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "deleting every imperfect draft" - that's absolute nonsense. I've moved tons of drafts into the article space, and none of them are perfect. That's the point. The entire Wikipedia community should be working on them. (But yeah, if I see blatant spam, I kill it. No apologies.) And no thanks, I'm not interested in slogging through the G13 crap - AfC made that bed, and now they can lie in it. But at least by working in the 4-week-old category, I can prevent more articles (whose creators may actually still be around and hoping to move forward) from being lost in that black hole of expired drafts. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

On the admin side, this seems to boil down to a few questionable speedy-deletion calls then. Doesn't seem to warrant any sanctions in my opinion. Most of Kafziel's points are pretty valid criticisms of AfC. The policy consensus gap seems to be between "more than likely able to survive if challenged at AfD", which is most reviewer's criterion, and "able to survive speedy deletion" which seems to be what Kafziel is advocating. The adoption of the latter criterion would definitely reduce our backlog, both of pending and of rejected articles. A thread like this is probably not a good place to decide on a new general consensus criterion for AfC reviewing though. Gigs (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems like Kafziel is addressing a problem (a huge backlog) and editors who regularly work at AfC are upset by his approach and manner of getting work done. But he is solving a problem in a process that seems to be stuck. Is there any chance that the RfC regulars could refresh their attitude of what is required to move an article into mainspace and offer some decisive opinion to new editors so articles aren't languishing for months without being resolved? I mean at some point, if an article is unpromising, I'm sure the creator will get discouraged and give up rather than keep revising and some verdict can be rendered on these abandoned articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that deleting drafts that could easily be improved counts as "getting work done" or "solving a problem". If the community had wanted non-accepted drafts to be deleted immediately, it wouldn't have built the six-month delay into G13. Kafziel by now has stated that he actually isn't interested in working on the backlog of 40k abandoned drafts he complained about. He also is not interested in helping editors improve drafts, or even just giving them an opportunity to improve a draft - if it can't survive in the mainspace right now, it gets deleted. That makes his supposed concern for editors who "may actually still be around and hoping to move forward" ring hollow. Huon (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't know who built in that six-month delay. It just kind of appeared one day, as far as I can tell. It certainly wasn't voted on by the community. If there was some kind of consensus for it, I suppose it must be somewhere in the AfC archives. But trust me: You don't want me working on those 40,000 articles. Unless you want to come back next week and discuss my 40,000 recent deletions.

Instead, I'd rather work on the articles that do have some merit, and whose creators are still willing to work on them. Many of those editors have thanked me for bypassing the ridiculous roadblocks of AfC editors and moving their articles into the main namespace (which, of course, they could have done themselves - which is AfC's dirty little secret). Working on those articles does contribute to lessening the backlog, by not letting them get into it in the first place. Articles have four weeks to be brought up to speed; that is plenty sufficient. After that, you can get it done, or you can watch me do it. I don't much care which. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not play bureaucrat. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, if you're going to work in a space, it's expected that you're going to know the procedures and policies that are in effect for that space. [37] [38] [39] [40]

[41] [42] are just a small sampling of fairly recent discussion about AfC speedies. If you want to write an encyclopedia you don't need admin bits for that. If you're going to continue to abuse newbie editors, abuse the good will of the community, and continue to be a "I'm right and the community consensus is wrong" iconoclast, your admin bits are in danger. Arbitrators (SilkTork—Newyorkbrad—AGK—Carcharoth—Courcelles—Risker) I reiterate my assertion that we have an admin off the reservation that is threatening further disruption in the face of requests for an explanation, furhter disruption against an established consensus, and a editor who believes that they know better over multiple editors and administrators in good standing. Hasteur (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm right and the community consensus is wrong. I'm saying I'm right, and whatever little consensus you all might have dreamed up at AfC is wrong. The community's consensus created things like WP:BOLD, WP:OWN, WP:EDIT, and WP:IAR. So while I might make mistakes from time to time, I am well within policy to work on any page I want. If it's an article, I will put it in the article space. If it's blatant spam, I will delete it. Just because AfC decided to set up their own little magical fairy-tale land where they host spam articles on talk pages, that doesn't mean none of the other kids can play with your toys. You do not own them. You do not have the right to tell people not to be bold. You do not have the right to tell others they're not allowed to work on something. So you can go ahead and call all the arbitrators you want, and rage and shake your fists, and I will never agree to do anything differently. Sorry to break it to you, but the ArbCom isn't your little pit bull. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, your position has drifted from a "I will do necessary cleanups in AfC despite its normal policy" to what is now sounding to *this* uninvolved admin as somethink akin to "F U all, I'll delete what I want", and what appears to be a claim that you will now delete against multiple people giving you feedback that you're going too far and too fast; this is almost a textbook description of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

I understand this situation and criticism are not to your liking, but I was neutral to vaguely supportive of where you were when this started, and now am wondering about whether I should be starting a topic ban proposal here, and worrying if you're going to go off and do something that I or another uninvolved admin would have to warn, final warn, or block you over while that was going on.

TLDR: Turn back, dude... You're going the wrong way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to say. Most editors here would rather not drag this to ArbCom or anything like that. We're just trying to create a harmonious editing process that takes into account numerous valid concerns. Kafziel's attitude has been combative, dismissive, and uneager to see others' point of view. "I will never agree to do anything differently" almost dares us to try the sanctions route, which would be a regrettable course to have to go. I really don't think an off-thread attempt by interested editors (including Kafziel) to form some common understanding of deletion behavior is unreasonable at all. There is nothing so urgent about the AfC backlog and so uncontroversial about Kafziel's edits that we ought to chuck every conventional dispute resolution process out the window. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And what, exactly, would you block me for? I didn't say "F U all, I'll delete what I want" - you said that. What you think you hear is none of my concern. What I did say is much closer to "F some of U, I'll delete spam wherever I see it." And you're goddamn right I will. You guys seem to think this is my first time at AN/I. Or that I'm going to start quivering in fear over threats about the ArbCom. So you go ahead and do what you want as far as topic ban proposals - I'm 100% covered by policy. Not AfC guidelines that somebody made up... actual policy. The big ones. The pillars of Wikipedia. So maybe you should take a better look at what I've actually been doing, and not just what you think you see here, before you make a fool of yourself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Policy is not a shield under which you get to disrupt the encyclopedia project or community. The number of admins who hit burnout looking like this, threw a finger to the community and then were out, is substantial. This is not my first ANI either, by nearly a decade. I am not saying "I might have to block you" because that's desirable. You're sounding like you're about to go disrupt the encyclopedia, and saying you will. I am reminding you that any admin will block editors - or admins - who intentionally and loudly set out to disrupt.

This is not "their project can ignore wider policy and standards". But nobody can throw a finger to large sets of the community, Kafziel. It's entirely against the premise of working collaboratively and collegially with everyone else here who wants to build an encyclopedia. Is that that hard to understand?

Again: Turn back. The degree to which you're now claiming IAR covers you will get you warned, blocked, topic-banned, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I want to work with everyone on Wikipedia, not just the little clique at AfC. That's why I'm moving articles out of AfC and into the article space. I'm not required to collaborate with everyone, especially those who don't want to collaborate with me. But if a rule prevents me from improving the encyclopedia, like silly rules about posting wikiproject banners on talk pages, then I will ignore them. As Gigs and Liz point out above, this is basically a bunch of people completely losing their shit over a few mistakes from a couple of weeks ago. If I were you, I wouldn't be in quite such a rush to join the lynch mob. But if you want to start a request, you go right ahead. Stop talking about it and do it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

When it was a few mistakes a couple of weeks ago, I was not interested in commenting. It's your recent threats - and I use that word carefully and deliberately - which caused me to respond here.

What you are saying you are going to do now is very different in character and nature from a few mistakes a couple of weeks ago. You are more or less proudly saying you're going to disrupt things. I'm not going to preemptively do anything to you, but I really sincerely hope you're just using colorful language in frustration, and not serious about expanding your activity. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What's all this business about threats, and expanding my activity, and proudly disrupting things? I haven't said anything of the sort. I will continue doing exactly what I have been doing at AfC: Moving old articles without using the tool, approving articles without giving anyone feedback, and deleting articles that are spam or attack pages. As far as I can see, looking back over alllll this discussion, nobody has said anything that would make me think I've done anything wrong. AfC users are mad that I won't follow their little rules, but I'm not beholden to them. They don't own those articles. So I will continue to operate as I have been, and when you feel like it warrants action, you go ahead and do it. Until then, I think I'm done here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• So, Kafziel, if you honestly have the best goals of the project at heart, you will continue your work at AFC except that if you find draft articles that you believe need to be deleted, you will blank them (using the review tool) and then tag them for speedy deletion by someone else. Pretty simple, and you get to keep merrily helping with the overworked AFC holding pen (I did about 20 yesterday myself). Everyone wins if you do that voluntarily (hint, hint) ES&L 12:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, I will not do that. Administrators are allowed to speedy inappropriate articles on sight, and I will continue to do so. I am not going to transfer the AfC backlog to the CSD backlog. I will continue operating just exactly as I have been. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You might want to rephrase that last assertion. The way you have been operating is the cause of this thread in which regular editors, volunteers from the AfC project, Administrators, and Arbitrators have all told you that your actions are problematic. It would be best for you to refactor, otherwise your statement can only be taken as a threat to further damage and disrupt Wikipedia and would therefore be subject to the rules regarding blocking and desysopping. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Administrators are allowed to speedy inappropriate articles on sight" ... "I will continue operating just exactly as I have been." ... and that is about the biggest way you could bite the newbies imaginable, especially if your opinion of "inappropriate" ends up being different to somebody else's. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why I don’t pay much attention to AN/I. As I said earlier, it’s all about people demanding that other people bow and scrape and beg for mercy. That’s not going to happen here. We’re not talking about a compromise – we’re talking about a few angry wikiproject members telling an administrator what he is or is not allowed to do. Telling me it will go so much easier for me if I’ll just submit to the will of the church. Well, I don’t. I’m working on the encyclopedia. I am allowed to delete spam when I see it. All admins should do the same. If I make an occasional mistake (or even if it’s not a mistake, and you just happen to disagree) then other admins can undelete the pages as they see fit. Or you can talk to me, and I might do it myself. That’s how this all works. But if you think you’re going to do sanction me, tell me where I can work and what tools I can use to work there, then it’s going to take a damn sight more than an AN/I report. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If you aren't paying much attention to AN/I, why are you making so many edits to it? The real way you don't pay much attention is to take it off your watchlist and edit articles! Our conversation is now done here, I believe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I did. I went to bed, slept the sleep of the just, and woke up to find that someone still thinks they can tell me what I can and cannot do. It wouldn't have been fair to ignore that, and give tacit approval of sanctions against an administrator without process. So again, I just said no. And I will continue to say no. ArbCom hasn't responded because they know I'm right. (No doubt they'd prefer I were more tactful, but just because I'm a self-righteous prick doesn't make me wrong.) So if you want to walk away, do so. If you want to rage some more, do that. But nobody is going to tell me I'm not allowed to delete spam or move articles. Not you, not Hasteur, nobody. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to indef block Kafziel

Since Kafziel has asserted loudly he will continue to do things that other longstanding editors view as disruptive, perhaps it is time for some stronger action to protect the encyclopedia. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Support (as if it was in question) As the user is also an admin, therefore it is appropriate to also add the desysop as I have no confidence in them respecting the block and using the admin bits to continue disruption. I have petitioned ArbCom to strip Kafziel of their admin bits for threats of clear disruption and harm to the project. Since no motion has been forthcoming, I consider it appropriate for a request on the Bueracrat's Noticeboard petitioning for an Emergency Desysop. Hasteur (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's going to happen. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, no. Certainly Kafziel's bedside manner could be better, but stepping on the toes of people running their own little fiefdom warrants neither a block nor a desysop. I would suggest that Kafziel should avoid using the A criteria since in those cases there is no harm in waiting for G13, but I am also concerned that some AFC members seem to think that hosting copyvios is okay. In those cases, Kafziel is right. Unambiguous copyvios from the start = speedy delete. If you guys really want, change your process to delete, then recreate with a template explaining the problem. Resolute 16:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CONLIMITED. Mojoworker (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose We have lost sight of what he actually did because of his obstinacy. Nevertheless, I don't see that he has done anything worthy of an indef, especially given Mojoworker's reference to WP:CONLIMITED. Sorry, but the project is not the encyclopedia. JodyB _talk 16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose having been on the receiving end elsewhere of abusive Admins in a clique claiming wiki-project control and ignoring WP:CONLIMITED I support Kafziel's right to defend his position. Not impressed at all by the forum shopping 'Crat board and Arbcom approaches either. Way to soon for that. Leaky Caldron 16:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to give Kafziel a barnstar and block or desysop some random other editors

Well, not really the second part, but still... So far, the only use of his admin tools that has been reverted was a G13 deletion, which wasn't wrong but was undeleted as is the standard when people request it.

So, not a single one of his admin actions under scrutiny here has been overturned for being incorrect (never mind "abuse"). But people are asking for his (her, whatever) head because they have indicated that they will continue doing these apparently correct admin actions. This leaves us with his non-admin actions, which consist of moving AFC articles to the mainspace. Isn't that the purpose of AfC? Have any examples been given of articles that were moved prematurely (i.e. articles that should be deleted as spam, copyvio, attacks, whatever)? Is there a pattern of such moves?

What this seems to boil down to is "some of the AfC project members don't like my actions here". If he isn't doing anything against policy, isn't abusing the admin tools, isn't making loads of errors with his moves, and is adding viable articles to the mainspace, then a project that obstructs this, and asks for desysopping and/or blocking, should be swiftly abolished per WP:OWN. Fram (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't help but agree with Fram. Sometimes people become so enamoured of the process that they lose sight of what the process was supposed to help. It's a discussion I hear almost everyday.

A: You've done it wrong!

B: No, I skipped a few steps

A: But that doesn't follow the established process!

B: The end point is the same, no?

A: Yes, but you've violated established process!

B: Yes, but my way got there more efficiently and the end product is the same.

A: Yes, your way is more efficient but you violated the established process!

B: So change the process.

Process engineering 101, people. Blackmane (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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

user Bhutto gee

• Bhutto gee (talk · contribs)

Looks like another one from the sock farm (User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_20#Possible_sock.2Fmeatpuppet_Zubin_Irani, User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_19#Block_of_Jasmine_Aladin)and Emir Jamshedparineetichopra (talk · contribs) is back, doing the same disruptive editing on same articles and adding same unreliable sources in WP:BLP articles for example [43], [44] and [45].--Jockzain (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sock and corresponding sleeper blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED"

Minphie (talk · contribs) is an editor affiliated with "Drug Free Australia". A participant of several content disputes with several other users, including me, he have now resorted to canvassing. Or rather more accurately, they have called out for fellow drug warriors to chime in and sway Wikipedia in their direction. This document with instructions on what to do flies in the face of most policies and guidelines. If not in words, so in spirit. I found it very troublesome and don't know what to do. So I leave it for you. Thanks. Steinberger (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Notified. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see that it is necessary to try to associate the WP editor with a real name, and I redacted it, But the call for meat-puppettry here is unmistakable. I think it warrants an indefinite block. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Pretty much WP:NOTHERE. Resolute 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The target list of articles given in the how-to guide linked appears to be as follows:

• Arguments for and against drug legalization (perhaps this refers to Arguments for and against drug prohibition?)
• Cannabis (and all its derivative pages
• Drug policy of Portugal
• Drug policy of Sweden
• Drug policy of the Netherlands
• Harm reduction
• Insite
• Medical cannabis
• Methadone
• Needle exchange program
• Prohibition
• Recreational use of drugs (presumably this means the article Recreational drug use)
• Rhetoric of Drugs (presumably this means the article The Rhetoric of Drugs)
• Supervised injection sites
• War on Drugs
• Zero tolerance

-- The Anome (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

• Support indefinite block for meat-puppetry. I would also like to note that they denied any WP:COI here and here, specifically in response to a question about Drug Free Australia. That is shown to be false by the PDF, above. Based on that, I would also propose an indefinite topic ban on any articles involving drug treatment, drug programs, or the like, broadly construed. GregJackP Boomer! 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Point of order - Minphie would only have a COI with regards to Drug Free Australia if they work for or with them, not if they were contacted by DFA as a local Wikipedian who was in support of the same cause(s). Even if Minphie does work for DFA, the COI would be restricted to a hypothetical article on DFA, not on drug policy writ large. People who are involved in a policy debate do not become conflicted in editing here. They risk WP:BATTLEGROUND violations (or WP:SOAP). As the editor was indeffed already, one could make a guess as to at least one admins' opinion on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The block notification says "it is clear that you are here to push a certain point of view rather than to contribute to building a neutral encyclopedia." I'm not disputing that (although there is an emphasis in the call for editors on citing sources) but I wonder whether this is any different to the Storming Wikipedia project. Why would one be allowed (even encouraged) and the other result in an indefinite block? StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Because one broadly encourages expanding the encyclopedia and reducing systemic bias, while the other is a coordinated attempt to impose a specific point of view on a narrow range of related articles? Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

While the "Storming Wikipedia" project should have the effect of encouraging more women to edit, some of the quotes in the article referenced above do indicate possible POV problems, and I'm sure that editors are watching for any bias that may appear. For the most part the group is trying to encourage women to edit, assuming that since they are women they will add material of interest to women. (I, for example, am into bluegrass music, computer programming and science fiction, and you all know how men neglect these topics.) This is a far cry, though, from providing a specific list of articles and explaining exactly how to gang up on other editors to shift the focus of the articles to reflect a certain POV. IF the Storming ladies did this, it would be equally unacceptable. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be a good idea for uninvolved admins to add the above articles to their watchlists, in case the promised meatpuppet army materializes. -- The Anome (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Just reading the document, it gives a good grounding on Wikipedia participation. Hopefully we'll get some more editors out of it. We encourage all participants, and so long as we keep an eye on what's going on, where's the problem? Surely we are not running around in circles because - gasp - there might be editors with different views to our own? Mind you, I wouldn't put too much faith in the advice for slow-moving edit wars. Three reverts in a day is merely the "bright line". Reverting twice a day for a week is still going to get a block. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, besides "teaching" from a very biased perspective ("[the other side] are very good at simply deleting [your addition] and putting some bogus explanation.", etc), the document also gives wrong information. It instructs recruited editors to use template:cite journal for every ref. It tells them they need to create an account to be able to contribute. It says that if you feel your text's provenance might be challenged, you support it by commenting on the talk page, rather than saying that you should support it in-text with a citation. It says that you only need to discuss after someone reverts you if you think the other person has a "reasonable rationale", and that otherwise you're "entitled to unilaterally revert" their revert. It implies that anyone reverting your edits is "the other side" who's operating "bogus"ly. It even gives instructions for how to game 3RR (in a way that's almost sure to get you blocked if you try it).

  It's possible to write a document that teaches a potentially-POV group of people the basics of editing Wikipedia well...but this isn't that document. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure, it's not perfect, but we have a truckload of resources that are very good and aimed precisely at new editors. There's a bunch of people happy to steer any newcomers straight. A bunch of new editors - if we should be so lucky to get a bunch - are either going to conform to Wikipedia policy or find their time here very difficult. We've been given a headsup on what to look out for, we can do that. I'll add those pages to my watchlist and see how any newbies behave. Without biting. --Pete (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like a fake to me. Its unlikely a pro-drug activist would be that blatant about violating wikipedia guidelines. Plus if you look carefully, theres a call for emails to be sent to him/her - possibly to entrap possible wrongdoers. Just a thought. Pass a Method talk 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I know some of these outfits--this one and the ones listed on their "Affiliates" document. I wouldn't put it past them. Or, why would you think such organizations would not want to try Wikipedia, just as they try to influence the media and various governmental and non-governmental organizations? It's the MO of any organization that wants to accomplish change, and these cats are quite passionate about it. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (EC) I don't see any reason to think it's fake. It's linked from [46] for example. And the website appears to be the correct website for the organisation known as Drug Free Australia [47]. I'm also in minor agreement with Pete that it's not really clear they're trying to violate wikipeda guidelines. Yes they've made numerous mistakes, but if you look at the document, it's clear they're telling people to properly respect the "rules" and to only communicate via wikipedia pages (the email bit appears to be to let them know rather than for offsite collusion, I suspect so they can disclose it if it ever comes up like it has now) etc. I also agree with StAnselm that whether or not something is inappropriate POV meatpuppetry or trying to correct systemic bias by recruiting a greater diverstiy of editors isn't always very clear. (Feminism may be wider ranging, but if you're recruiting editors to better represent the feminist POV, you're ultimately still recruiting editors with a specific POV with the belief that their POV is underrepresented which results in systemic bias and that by recruiting more editors with that POV, you will ensure it is fairly represented in discussions and articles will improve because of it.) Or to put it a different way, I can certainly see why from their POV they're being entirely proper and open about trying to correct systemic bias and help achieve NPOV by ensuring all viewpoints are fairly represented in any discussion by openly recruiting editors who's viewpoints they feel are underrepresented. It's not like this is the first time this has happened, e.g. as mentioned in Wikimania 2011. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The metadata also supports it being genuine, realizing of course that this can be faked too. GregJackP Boomer! 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - User 'Pass a Method' has a point, it could be fake. I can think of some editors here I would love to see blocked. If all it takes is for me to create a pro-meat puppetry flyer, stick their name on it and pass it around via pdf to have that accomplished...
  Anyway, (@Rschen7754:) why the rush to block? (blocked exactly 20 minutes after this ANI was created) The user has not even had an opportunity to comment here in their defence. It's not as if they were actively disrupting in the main or user space and a block was needed to protect the project. - ^theWOLFchild 04:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, in the (very unlikely) event that they can say something to effectively rebut the evidence, they can still do so on their talk page. Meanwhile, they are semi-active, and we don't want this issue to float away. --Rschen7754 05:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion - How about we pool our eyes and make a list of any new editors showing up on the pages listed above. We can keep a gentle watch over them, raise any concerns here, make sure all is good. Minimise disruption for all parties. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't only new editors who have POVs that should be monitored. The Medical cannabis page (and all cannabis pages) has just undergone massive changes in the past week, and has essentially been uglified (compare this with this) and apparently is closed to editing by anyone but the Project Medicine team. This same team, in the name of MEDRS, is using a rat study and a study confounded by cocaine use to prop up Cannabis in pregnancy, an article started by someone using sources from this Australian anti-drug group. Who's watching the watchers? petrarchan47tc 19:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a most curious statement, Petra. This discussion has just come to my attention; you seem to be implying something about anyone editing (to improve) an article started by this person/group/whatever they are in Australia. What is it that you are implying, because I came to the {{cannabis}} suite of articles via the merge of a now-deleted student essay on cannabis and epilepsy, and found a walled garden of poorly sourced text, cited mostly to old primary sources. Cannabis in pregnancy is now cleanly sourced to secondary reviews, compliant with our medical sourcing guidelines. Your allegations of a "team" at Medical cannabis have been raised with you, in the appropriate forum, on your talk (where they were archived generally with no response), and you have failed to adequately engage discussion on article talk, yet you continue battleground allegations here in another forum.

Yes, I do encourage more admin eyes here, and not only because of what some Australian group might be up to; a review of Talk:Medical cannabis and archived discussions at User talk:Petrarchan47 is instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've never encountered Mikael Häggström before, but I think he should be notified that you are mentioning him here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - (Not sure that as a non-admin I am ok to comment here, nevertheless) Can I ask what is different about the behaviour being investigated here and that of User:sgerbic - aside from the POV differences of the two? It doesn't feel evenhanded to me that this guy is being vilified for behaviour that on the surface simply reproduces SGerbic's. What am I missing? I'd love to know. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Any editor is able to comment here, this is just a noticeboard to get admin attention. As to your question, the difference is that no one has brought Sgerbic's alleged actions to ANI. Admin's don't have the ability (read superpower) to know what goes on everywhere. If you find issue with Sgerbic's editing, you'd have to provide evidence of this rather than just a vague statement. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• The difference is that Sgerbic and the "guerilla skeptics" have specified that they are interested in producing a balanced encyclopedia, that they don't want to push a POV and they want to improve coverage of skepticism. If Sgerbic and the guerilla skeptics were trying to slant articles in a more skeptical direction, I'd be very concerned. They seem more interested in building up coverage of the skeptical movement though. Still I think we should definitely keep an eye on groups like them to ensure they are being neutral and fair. If they can contribute material that's fair, NPOV and productive, we should welcome their contribution even if they have silly, overdramatic names like "guerilla" or market themselves as "storming Wikipedia". —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Interesting discussion, thanks for mentioning me so that I can learn more about this process. I read through the letter. It is similar to what we do with GSoW, we try to teach and we encourage improvement of something we are interested in. They seem to be really concerned that what they put in the articles will be reverted which worries me a bit as we all want to stay as far away from edit wars as possible. But just because some of us do not share their POV does not mean they don't have every right to look for others to edit these pages. They state they want to stay on the right side of the rules, and we need to assume good faith that that is what they will do. If and when they do start violating the rules, then take action in an appropriate way. And trust me, the amount of responses these people are going to get is going to be tiny. The amount of people who actually end up editing more than a couple months is even tinier. Writing a blog asking for editors is one thing, getting volunteers is a totally different thing. I know after running GSoW for 2+ years that it takes tons of encouragement, training and mentoring to get people to stay involved and editing. I really really doubt that this group will ever cause any of these pages any issues. Thank you DGG for bringing it to our attention, great discussion. Also I didn't see the statement by Roxy the dog as a a challenge, but as a good question.Sgerbic (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on my comment below regarding the actual policies at work here? I can't really see the fact that they may not be succesful in the canvassing for meatpupppets as being any kind of excuse. As you may notice from the quotes I highlighted below, the case is quite clear. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Observation – the section of the linked document authored by Minphie starts near the bottom of the second page, the part with the request for email notification and the biased editorialising etc appears to be writted by someone else at Drug Free Australia. Minphie's advice is poor in parts, no question, but alone it does not appear (to me) to be sufficient for a WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. EdChem (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. I think this has been done too hastily, and with insufficient evidence of meatpuppetry on Minphie's part. It appears that he was asked to give a brief introduction to editing on Wikipedia. Any of us might be asked to do the same. Certainly, we would avoid some of the things that Minphie said, but there is nothing here in what Minphie said about telling people what to write, or what biases to introduce. As mentioned above, that is a separate part of the document, written by persons unknown. This block is unjustified - if the editor is showing that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, he can be blocked on the basis of on-wiki edits; blocking him on the basis of this document is grossly unfair. StAnselm (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW while I stick by most of what I said above which was more intended to apply generally to what was going on, I think Minphie more or less screwed themselves.

In particular, while the general idea behind the document may be understandable and some may even consider it acceptable, the documument itself does make out the other side to be the enemy. I don't think this is uncommon in this sort of thing, IIRC it did happen a bit in the outside wikipedia responses to gender identity issues raised by the Chelsea Manning case, and I'm sure some of the response in many other cases e.g. the feminism one, ultimately when you're associated with calling others the enemy lefties, you can't expect things to end well for you. And even if we don't accept the author of the PDF and Minphie as the same person, Minphie was clearly involved in a lot of it.

And just as important, and again without having to accept whether or not Minphie is the same person as the author of the PDF (who is strongly associated with DFA), it's difficult to see how you can logically claim you don't have a COI according to our COI policies if you were involved in that document. Precisely what is a COI and how our COI policies interact with our privacy policies may be contentious but in a case like that your options really are to either declare your COI or refuse to comment because of privacy reasons. Saying 'I don't have a COI' when you helped write a document posted on an advocacy's organisations website calling for more wikipedia editors, an advocacy organisation which is heavily involved in a lot of what you're writing about, well that just dumb.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think we were too hasty--we simply have blocked, as any other attempt at sockpuppettry, and there is no necessity to discuss whether the sockpuppettry was for the purpose of making trouble. It was a request to an interested community of people to edit WP to express a particular POV, and this is never correct. What makes it all the more striking to me is that it was an attempt by someone who clearly understand the guidelines at WP for how to evade the intent of our policies, by trying to edit under the radar. It was not an appeal to follow the guidelines, but how to stretch them beyond their proper meaning and hope not to be noticed. Our jurisdiction does not extend beyond WP, but when a WPedian uses his WP name in such an attempt, they must be blocked, as editing in this manner is destructive of the purpose of a NPOV encyclopedia. If someone makes such appeal without giving their WP identity, it is usually not right for us to try to detect it--all we need do is call the attempt to attention here or at COIN or wherever most appropriate, so people can be on the watch for it. We can obviously not eliminate POV editing on controversial topics, but we can at least publicize the more obvious and organized attempts at it. That the people involved have the intention of bringing their article to what they think is the neutral POV which is their own view is the very essence of POV editing. Their honesty of intentions on the topic are not the question, but their attempt to do coordinated group editing on WP. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Coordinated group editing? <gasp> Ummm... that phrase sounds waaaay overboard.  :-)   WikiProject Military History... those evildoers! Or any wikiproject. Heck, I attempted coordinated group editing just yesterday. (please do not indef me!) As for bringing in new editors, I am 110% in favor of that, and am in fact writing my own "survival manual" to help beginners navigate wikipedia.

  The real *meat* of the problem here is simple. "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side..." Emphasis added. That was the mistake that Minphie made, and that was precisely where pillar two was violated.

  While I would not say 'hasty' exactly, indef right now is perhaps the wrong approach, since it is clearly not a proportional response -- such a drastic step might create a bitter wiki-martyr. Did they actually *succeed* in causing any disruption, or in any visible-in-mainspace injury to pillar two? If not, then perma-banhammering them seems kinda like a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Maybe somebody should talk to them about the blatant issues like using 'journal' in all refs, and mandating registration, and other such foolishness? HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You are missing this very important part of the sentence "... of a debate."Sgerbic (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Other information These discussions have happened with this user for some time. See
  • ANI complaint in 2010, alleged editing warring over Safe injection site
  • ANI complaint in 2011, alleged edit warring over this same article Insite
  • complaint on the RS noticeboard in 2012 discussing Drug Free Australia
  • and again in 2012 on the RS board discussing Lancet papers for this same purpose.

It is unfortunate that we failed to find a way agreeable for this editor to contribute to the mutual satisfaction of all involved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is what I meant by "hasty". If there is evidence of disruptive editing over a long period of time, then that should be brought before the community. But I notice that neither of the two edit warring reports were deemed worthy of a block. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Minphie has edited for four years without a single block. It seems strange to block him indefinitely with the rationale "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia". StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if he had confined his disruption to his own editing, it would make sense to try a shorter block before escalating to indefinite. However, in this case, the user himself has already invoked the "nuclear option" by recruiting meatpuppets off-wiki. The severity of the response is not surprising. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@DavidLeighEllis: - Riiight, so we should just indef him/her, with "torches and pitchforks", before he/she has even had an opportunity to respond to the issue? There is no evidence that what they might have done off-wiki, has led to any disruption on-wiki. This block is unnecessary and waaay over the top, It should be lifted until there is an actual reason to block. - ^theWOLFchild 05:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Minphie haven't been blocked before, but there have been no shortage of reasons. Just the other week at Talk:Insite he wrote: "Do you not want Wikipedia to reflect absolutely founded fact? /.../ If my text tells the truth on Wikipedia, why do you think that you should sanitise it according to your own private sympathies?" This way of arguing is typical of Minphie. He wants the "truth" to be told. When people - of other "truths" - try to explain that Wikipedia is not about "truth", but of giving a picture of what the most reliable sources say, he call the reasoning bogus and reverts. Would this be the only problem, an escalation of sanctions from short to more severe until he understands the basic principles of Wikipedia would be the right thing to do. But I share opinion of DavidLeighEllis and other. It is to much now. It has gone to far. Steinberger (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Per comments by Sgerbic, whose group I am not a member of, who I would not know unless woolly thinkers hadn't complained about the good work they do, and make up stories about work that they haven't done ;) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

  It seems to me you are solely voicing your opinion based on the fact that you sympathise with their cause, and completely fails to adress the matter of off-site canvassing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

May I ask Saddhiyama on what basis you make your silly conclusions about how I think regarding the cause of the subject of this discussion? What part of my contribution here leads you to make such a statement - please do tell me?. For the record, you are quite wrong in this regard, and I assume equally wrong in your comments below. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment was based on the fact that you failed to adress the actual issue of canvassing, but managed to mention that "woolly thinkers" complained about "the good work they do" as a defence. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comprehension of simple English leaves a lot to be desired. Nevermind, I'm sure most here understood what I said. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet you still did not address the issue at hand. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please allow me to second Saddhiyama in apparently failing to comprehend your "simple English," in that my understanding of what you said (and didn't say) is identical to his. Also, silly comments like "your silly conclusions" and "your comprehension of simple English leaves a lot to be desired" are silly indeed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block. From the document: "What those fighting for a drug free world need at present is a group of around ten committed Wikipedia contributors who are willing to take the time on a daily or weekly basis to put our perspectives onto Wikipedia while keeping within its rules, and also ensure that the weight of numbers in conflict resolution forums on Wikipedia are not always on the drug-liberal side". While they do take care to state that meatpuppets should be "keeping within its rules", the rest of that sentence is a very clear breach of WP:MEAT: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate", thus making their disclaimer void, since the recruitment document is in itself a breach of policy. This obvious breach of policy seems not to have been noticed by a lot of the commenters above. This is not comparable to Wikipedia projects and the fact that they may have problems recruiting willing editors does not change the fact that it is a violation of policy. And regarding the comments about the document being fake: you are clearly grasping at straws here, since the link is from the official website of the group in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that quote comes from the part added as a preamble to what Minphie wrote? If so, we have no evidence that Minphie was aware of the preamble apparently added by someone from DFA. Looking at the part actually attributed to Minphie, I see some poor advice but I don't see a call for meatpuppetry and tag-team editing. I think an indef on Minphie on the sole evidence of the last two and a bit pages of the PDF is unwarrented. Other editing of Minphie's may justify it, I don't know, and I disagree both with what DFA seem to want to do and with the "truth" they wish to stuff into WP, but the evidence to date is not being evaluated in a balanced way, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it an extreme stretch to suggest that the user was not intimately involved with the production of the notice. Preamble or not, this is the user's document. I do think that Minphie was trying to stay within the lines of policy but probably stepped out. A block is fine but I am not convinced it should be an indef block. JodyB _talk 12:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It is as unlikely as the claims about the document being a fake. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block This is a blatant breach of WP:MEAT. Do we know with absolute certainty which portions of that document Minphie did or did not write him/herself? Of course not. We also don't know with absolute certainty whether two different registered user accounts, voting the same way at an AfD, and sharing an IP address, are actually sockpuppets of the same person, and yet admins still aggressively intervene in these scenarios because they're all ducks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela

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

---

Could an admin possibly assist with a speedier speedy deletion of Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela to allow for the current article Death of Nelson Mandela to be moved to that title. I have updated the article to include information pertaining to the funeral with the aim of following the structure of other similar articles, e.g. Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. I only make a request here due to the large amount of traffic this page is and will receive as it gets closer to the funeral in addition to the fact that the redirect is no longer automatic due the the speedy deletion template I placed there. Thanks - Reallynca (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Tell me

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

---

Why can I not have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael John Lewis (talk • contribs) 23:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Because you do not yet meet our guidelines for notability. GregJackP Boomer! 23:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistent creation of inappropriate articles

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

---

• XavierTG (talk · contribs)

Not blatant vandalism, but this blast of articles detailing game rules isn't encyclopedic. User has not gotten the hint after numerous warnings and a block. And I suspect the most recent set of articles has been copied from elsewhere, but can't find the source(s). JNW (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I deleted their contributions. I don't know if they should be blocked indefinitely or not. The kids ate their dinner and shared their chocolate letter with me (Sinterklaas shipped them from the Netherlands), so I'm not really in a foul enough mood, maybe. But a block for incompetence, I wouldn't oppose. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Drmies. I confess I am in a foul mood--the parents are ailing far away and I missed work to tend to my gal, who's quite ill just now. JNW (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You got me in a really foul mood also, I felt like blocking someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia and I found one here ;). Blocked indefinitely, clearly warned and blocked before and didn't listen. No need in keeping him around making inappropriate game guides and blanking pages. Secret ^account 04:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Another SPA POV-pushing and edit warring at Bukharan Jews, WP:NPA on article Talk page

Special:Contributions/Coolforschool
User_talk:Coolforschool

Maybe this user is a new SPA account of an IP recently edit warring on the same article, as he almost seems to lay claim to the latter's edits.

He has been attempting to restore the same material, after I went through the trouble of opening a thread here and then at RS/N Archive_160#Bukharan_Jews.2C_lost_tribes.2C_etc. here.

I've tried to accommodate the content related concerns of the SPA within the scope permissible by the RS here and here, but that didn't seem to appease them. Please refer to the recent edits and the article talk page, where his first edits appear to include personal attacks. I had thought to report him for edit warring, but brought this here in light of the comments on the article talk page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have reverted all of the recent edits to the last stable version of the article. Including yours, Ubikwit. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's see if the editor I filed this against responds. The two edits of mine that you ended up reverting were edits that I made after deciding to look more thoroughly at the NYT article to see if there was anything there that would support some of the points of concern being raised. I think that including the POV in the edit from the Background section is important insofar as it balances the other POV (inclusion of Ashkenazi in demographics related to Bukharan Jews). The edit in the cuisine section is relevant to the cultural distinction the SPAs arriving at the article have been vehement about asserting. The SPAs are violating policy by tendentiously pushing a unilateral POV over and against RS, but there is a balance to be achieved by incorporating the various POV insofar as there are reliably sourced statements supporting them.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Ubikwit was blocked by User:Toddst1 for one week for edit warring on Bukharan Jews. I feel that it is excessive: he involved the new user into discussions on the talk page and he was trying to get 3d opinion here. Maybe it would be more appropriate to protect the article for a while and give users chance to settle their arguments on the talk page? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries like this make it abundantly clear that Ubikwit knew s/he was edit warring. That was the 4th time s/he reverted the same edit by Coolforschool. Ubikwit has been blocked 4 times for edit warring and knows the drill. That's the excessive part. Classic WP:BOOMERANG.

Note that CFS continued the edit war after I warned him/her and is now blocked as well. Toddst1 (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User: Anjooraan

I was looking at the recent changes a few days ago, and found a couple of problematic articles by the same person. Normally I'd nominate such articles for WP:Speedy, and have a quick glance at the user talk page to see if they needed help. When I looked at User talk:Anjooraan, I found a mountain of deletion notifications, and no evidence at all they had even looked at their user talk page (certainly no edits there). I asked what to do in the Teahouse, and they advised me to come here - it's certainly over my head.

In an editing career that appears to date back no further than the 23rd of November they have listed on their talk page:

• 24 nominations listed under WP:SPEEDY (A7 and Copyright violation)
• 6 Nominations listed under WP:PROD
• 3 other deletion nominations
• At least one copyright violation

At least one of the speedies was for a page that had been deleted once under speedy deletion and recreated by Anjooraan. It's a pity because they seem enthusiastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonchameleon (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wow. I see absolutley zero talk page edits during their short but rather busy time here on Wikipedia. I would suggest a short block to try and get their attention. If they decide to communicate after that, then the block can be lifted. Otherwise, if they continue the disruptive behavior after the block has expired, then an indef will likely be in order. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that there multiple copyvios involved (I count 6 G12 deletions), an immediate indefinite block would be more appropriate. They can be unblocked if they then demonstrate understanding of the copyright policy and the other concerns. MER-C 03:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a block is in order. This editor shows no signs of competence and discusses nothing with other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Alansohn

Well I hate to resort to this noticeboard for anything, but at this point I need some fellow admin/editor assistance before I blow a gasket. So in the interest of me not doing that, let me give those who haven't been following this issue a little back story:

Back in 2009 an editor (User:Levineps) was on a category creation/tagging rampage. This rampage was simply creating a ridiculous amount of work for others to cleanup after, and after it went on for a while it became very disruptive to the community. So, he was warned several times to stop it, and failed to listen time and time again until he was finally sanctioned by the community and formally banned by myself after this discussion. As you can see from Levineps' userpage, this still did not stop the over-categorization. Indeed, he had to be blocked several times for continuing to do so (despite his continuous straight faced lie that he thought they had expired). Then, it seems once he noticed the ban was always going to be enforced, he decided to use a sockpuppet to evade the ban (User:Oriole85). From this account he created ~1,750 categories, in a one month time span from 5 Nov to 5 Dec. He also proceeded to make thousands of rather quick edits (using HotCat) to tag several thousand pages into these categories, within this same time frame. This was noticed within a month's time (by User:Jrcla2, and then brought to my attention), and this sockpuppet was subsequently blocked by myself. I then reverted almost all of his edits, and proceeded to summarily delete all of his category creations (as noted here). Of course, during this damage control session there were several confused editors wondering why the reversions were happening, and they all (much to my obvious chagrin) came by my talk page to inquire as to the cause. Most of them seemed to understand the actions being taken, that they were done in accordance with policy, and that the reversions/deletions could be undone on a case-by-case basis if seen fit (even Purplebackpack89, an editor I've been known to not necessarily get along with, had the good graces of leaving edit summaries that pointed out why that particular category was appropriate and should be added back ['Twas appreciated pbp]). Most of them except User:Alansohn that is. Alansohn decided to go on a soapbox where he knew best, and where everything I was doing was somehow systematically destroying Wikipedia. We got into quite the back and forth on my talk page (still there) which ended in less than optimal terms considering his refusal to listen to my reasoning behind the actions, or perhaps the several previous ANI discussions that had taken place around the banned editor (including the disruptive micro-splitting of categories by the banned editor, which many an untrained eye can miss). He then took a few of the categories to WP:DRV where he was told by Spartaz (closing admin) that he was being disruptive. Well, sadly this was still not the end of Alansohn's behavior. Now Alansohn is reverting my reversions/deletions with simply wondrous edit summaries like "revert disruptive edit by User:Coffee", "undo another disruptive edit by User:Coffee", "Reverted needless edit by Coffee (talk) to last version by Oriole85", "recreate another needlessly deleted category", "recreate yet another category whose deletion has disrupted Wikipedia", or just using rollback against policy.

Now I think we can all agree that even a broken clock is right two times a day, and that likewise there are most likely some useful contributions in the heaping pile of over-categorization by Levineps (as there had been before). This is why I've stated (even at the DRV) that I was fine with my edits being undone, or pages being re-created for this purpose. But I think we can also agree that there's a difference between good faith edits bringing categories/tags back that were actually useful, and what's happening here. I will state again that I'm completely fine with cats being added back if seen fit, but I will also state that I don't appreciate being attacked on dozens of pages across the site. Anyways, that's all I have folks. Have I lost it, or am I somewhere on the right track? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that Alansohn using edit summaries on hundreds of different pages to scream about how awful and "disruptive" and "destructive" you are amounts to a personal attack on you. Reyk _YO! 23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree this amounts to personal attacks, and not appropriate as edit summary. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This calls for a temporary block if these are personal attacks. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never dealt with an administrator who has not only been rude and nasty, but has worked so hard to disrupt this encyclopedia in his efforts to spite User:Oriole85. I don't know Oriole85 (or LevinePS) nor any of his associated sockpuppets. I saw Coffee's deletions while it was going on and pleaded with him to stop, becoming the sixth of about a dozen other users who approached him on his talk page and elsewhere. The from Rikster2 and this from Orangemike asking "Please help me understand what on Earth you thought you were doing" which earned this reply from Coffee saying "You're the 5th person to not take the time to see that the user that made those edits was banned" and the edit summary "jesus how hard is this", and Coffee's response to me that "I think you're talking out of your ass." is a classic. Coffee repeatedly refused to respond to requests from multiple editors in multiple contexts to stop, take a break and listen to the community and he has repeatedly refused to help solve the problem, hiding out for a few days and failing to respond to repeated messages, but now he has time for ANI. Coffee's disruption has resulted in the deletion of hundreds of articles and left thousands of articles miscategorized. It's great that Coffee is willing to allow other editors to undo the damage he caused, but his damage is already done. I've tried to undo his edits, but the size and scope of the harm he has caused through his actions make the task of reverting thousands of edits nearly impossible to do manually. I fully support any effort to undo Coffee's damage and I am over and done with this effort on my part, and have been for hours; I can't be bothered to waste time beyond the reverts I've already made. I would have supported using ANI to deal with Coffee's abusive actions, but he has finally come to the table and if he acts in good faith to assist in the recovery from his We had to destroy the village to save it approach, the damage to Wikipedia may well be recoverable. Alansohn (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before and I will say it again: after someone has removed a blocked editor's edits, it is completely inappropriate for another editor to come along after the removal and restore them. It's a form of proxying for the banned editor. The exemption in our proxying rules about having an "independent reason" are there to allow people to restore edits on articles that they normally work on without having to jump through hoops to avoid duplicating a good edit, not to enable people to chase down reversions of a banned editor and try to restore them.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I came across at least a dozen edits by Oriole85 and subsequent reverts by Coffee through my watchlist. It took me about 15 seconds to figure out Coffee was reverting the edits of a banned editor. I can't fathom how Coffee's behavior could be viewed as "worked so hard to disrupt this encyclopedia" by any stretch of the imagination or even disruptive at all. In stark contrast, it's pretty easy to see how Alansohn has been seriously disruptive and downright dickish. Not cool. Toddst1 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

upon reading the recent discussion I agree with Toddst1. if Alansohn can't recognize that he is using personal attacks as an experienced editor, this should be considered for appropriate action. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't at all agree with Kww above. Frankly i find the idea of automaticlly reverting edits simply because they were made by a banned editor perverse and undesireable, and I equally dislike restoring them automatically. The test should be te quality of the edit, not the person who made it. But I no way does policy limit restoration to "regular editors" of a given page. Any editor who, in good faith, thinks that a given edit improves the project and is willing to take responsibility just as if s/he had made it originally is free to do so. DES ^(talk) 00:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The above said, the edit summaries quoted above are really not acceptable, whatever the merits of the edits. I'm not that much into categorization, and I have no opinion on the merits or lack of merits of any of these category edits. But I think it is dubious to mass-revert them without individual consideration (which it sounds to me as if Coffee is doing, and even less desirable to make personal attacks in edit summaries when restoring them -- the summery should explain why the particular edit is a good idea, in the opinion of the editor making it. DES ^(talk) 00:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, DES. I don't understand the reaction to revert thousands of edits by a blocked user without considering whether they were appropriate or not. It seems knee-jerk to me. I can see why editors posted alarmed messages. I can't condone the nasty comments and edit summaries though which apparently happened on both sides. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The original ban centered around Levineps making a huge amount of overly specific categories that had the effect of splitting useful, well-populated cats into a profusion of trivial, poorly-populated ones. This made navigation harder instead of easier. The ban evading sockpuppet was repeating the same behaviour. From looking at Coffee's edits, it is clear to me that the majority of the reverts improved the articles. I think we're at a strange place when we start defending ban evading sockpuppets who make a million unproductive, indiscriminate edits but condemn the administrator who reverts them. Reyk _YO! 01:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) @Liz/DES: I also agree that mass reversions of a banned editor are not the optimal solution and I completely agree with the philosophy behind that, but we're talking about literally thousands of edits and nearly 2,000 categories that were created to deliberately subvert a ban over a months time. It would be impossible to look at every individual edit/page and determine within a reasonable amount of time whether these were appropriate or not. So the only reasonable course of action here was to rollback everything, and wait for actually good contributors to this project to make the necessary edits. Yes this isn't optimal, but it was necessary as the community here had already told Levineps to stop doing this so actions like mine wouldn't have to be taken, hopefully ever. (Although keep in mind these edits only took place over a months time, so I find it hard to believe that returning things to the way they were a month ago is such a Bad Thing™.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The issues regarding mass reverts DES raises are exactly my concerns. User:Coffee could have mitigated the confusion and frustration by more clearly indicating the reason for his actions in his edit summary and by taking more time to evaluate the risks and benefits of these mass reverts. I thank DES and Liz for their insightful remarks regarding my actions and the trout (and advice) is accepted on my part. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that the issues raised by DES don't align well with policy. Bans apply to all editing, good or bad, and reverting is the only way to enforce that. It's not in anyone's interest for anyone to take the time to evaluate a banned editor's edits, and it serves to encourage ban evasion.—Kww(talk) 01:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, I neither justify nor defend Oriole85's sockpuppetry. But the community had seen his categories and his edits and the claim that none of them were productive (or Coffee's "even a broken clock is right two times a day") are way off base. There was no clear and present danger. There was no ticking time bomb. With Oriole85 blocked, there was ample time to evaluate the edits and have a clear-headed rational admin take action with community input, which may likely have resulted in keeping a significant portion of the edits. As Coffee has acknowledged, there were close to a dozen editors who asked him to reconsider his actions, and he had ample opportunity to take his foot off the mass revert pedal. If a serial killer is convicted after performing a successful heart transplant on a patient, it might well make sense to give the serial killer the death penalty, but there's little benefit in removing the heart from the patient. Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that by evaluating each edit, preserving the good ones and removing the bad ones, you are treating him as if he were not banned at all. While you may not intend to defend his sockpuppetry, every action in that sequence encourages and rewards it.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the policy Kww cites is poor and I would change it. But until/unless it is changed, it does not in any way prohibit any editor from reinstating such edits if the editor believes in good faith that they improve the project. There is no restriction to 'regular editors of the page" as Kww stated above. Perhaps Coffee was correct that the number of edits involved and the judgement that few of them are useful justified mass reversion. But it seems to me that a more responsive and collaborative tome could have been taken in communication with good-faith editors on the subject, particularly when multiple editors suggested that Coffee pause in the reverts. DES ^(talk) 02:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Policy is consensus, consensus is policy. Administrators enforce the wishes of the community as mediums for/tools of the consensus. They do not use their tools to enforce their own opinions, nor do they stop necessary actions based on the wishes of one editor. Which brings me to my second point: There weren't multiple editors asking for me to pause, reconsider, or stop. There were multiple editors requesting an explanation, but that's not the same thing. Alansohn has flat out lied by saying "As Coffee has acknowledged, there were close to a dozen editors who asked him to reconsider his actions". I never acknowledged that, as it never happened. That aside, while I understand you wish this could have been handled without mass-reverts/deletions (hey, I do too... laboring for two days clicking away at thousands of rollbacks/deletions isn't exactly my cup of tea), I don't see how when we're talking about thousands of bad edits included in that mix. I repeat: My actions did nothing more than reverse the articles/categories to how they were on 4 Nov. Saying we should have had long time consuming collaborative discussions about ~1,750 categories and ~5,000 edits, the vast majority of which were bad and all of which were created in a month by an editor banned explicitly from doing them, just doesn't seem to be a logical choice. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence -- and certainly Coffee has failed to provide any -- that every one of these edits was bad. The community had seen Oriole85's edits for a month and until he was caught as a sockpuppet a minute fraction of his edits were challenged, despite the wide scope, breadth and visibility of the articles affected. Policy may be policy, but all Wikipedia policy dictates the use of common sense. No one is turned in a brainless automaton by the dictate of any policy. Taking even a few hours to evaluate the situation and obtain community input, given that the perpetrator was identified and blocked, could have saved Coffee and the entire community a great deal of wasted time and aggravation, and had the potential to save thousands of useful edits and categories. I'd be horrified to wake up tomorrow morning and find that Wikipedia had crashed and been restored to a backup done on November 4, though it seems that Coffee would be fine with that prospect.User:Coffee would be better served by indicating some small measure of self-realization of the problems caused both by his actions and his refusal to respond in good faith to the dozen-odd editors who raised issues with his actions ("You're the 5th person to not take the time to see that the user that made those edits was banned", the edit summary "jesus how hard is this", and Coffee's response "I think you're talking out of your ass."). Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The only defense Wikipedia has is to apply WP:DENY. Well-intentioned but essentially clueless onlookers should stop attacking editors (Coffee) who are doing the only thing that can be done to dissuade a banned abuser from further damaging Wikipedia. If a sufficient number of the edits are good, approach the user and suggest they appeal against their ban, but please do not subvert standard operating procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing here since 2006. I do not think that I am "essentially clueless". I have long disagreed with WP:DENY. I don't think it is in any meaningful way a "defense" of Wikipedia. I see no evidence that it in any way reduces the incidence of vandalism or other unhelpful actions. Nor have I attacked Coffee's edits -- I have, however, disagreed with his tone, and with some of the (IMO) incorrect statements of policy by KWW above. I might add that WP:DENY is an essay, albiet one with many supporters. it is not itself policy. DES ^(talk) 14:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Restore deleted categories. I'm having trouble working out what is wrong with Category:1845 establishments in Vermont, especially since it is populated. Either we categorize establishments by both year and U.S. State, or we don't. But Category:1845 establishments in New Jersey was created more than a year ago. And I don't think it's over-categorization to include them. So regardless of who created them, let's keep/restore the categories. StAnselm (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. If the category is a valid one, then by all means recreate it. Blanket reinstating the disruptive work of a sockpuppet, whose sockmaster was banned for doing the exact same thing, is rewarding the abusive behaviour that violated consensus. Sure, a small amount of the categories may well be valid. But when the vast majority are bad, as is the case here, then blanket removal is the right procedure, before reinstating any that may perhaps be valid. Johnuiq's comment is perhaps the best summary. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Looking through User:Oriole85's edits, I see plenty of rather noncontroversial categories being added. Category:Wooden bridges in Vermont (and several other states) appears to be an effective split of a single nationwide category. Category:1869 establishments in New Hampshire is part of a very well-established system of establishments by year and state. The deleted Category:Female models from Michigan includes Kate Upton, and I fail to see how that category is controversial, nor is Category:Sports teams in Buffalo, New York or Category:Sports teams in Boston, Massachusetts or Category:American women television journalists, all of which have orphaned articles pointing to these needlessly deleted categories. Wikipedia policy is not a suicide pact and there was ample opportunity to take even a few moments to consider the possibility of greater harm through the systematic and mindless deletion of these categories. Rather than "a small amount of the categories may well be valid", it appears that the overwhelming majority are not only valid, but their deletion has created loose ends and other problems. CfD works rather effectively to delete bad categories, and there appears to have been no tidal wave of problem categories created by Oriole85 cropping up there in the past month. If the overwhelming majority were invalid, where are they? Where are all the ones that conflict with community consensus? The observation made by User:StAnselm here (and so many other editors during the mass deletions) that we would be better off with these categories rather than with all of them systematically deleted is worthy of consideration now and should have been considered by Coffee and the community before their mass deletion. (Please note: I have changed the title of this section to more clearly reflect the discussion here) Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm starting to wonder if you ever read the previous ANI discussions I linked you to multiple times, or even WP:OVERCAT. Category:Sports teams in Buffalo, New York and Category:Sports teams in Boston, Massachusetts are simply unnecessary subcats (as evidenced by the lack of population). And WP:OC#LOCATION specifically calls out categories like Category:Female models from Michigan as it makes no difference what state models are from. Please review our policies before you continuously repeat yourself here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Your arguments might stand a shot at CfD, but are a poor excuse for mass deletion. In terms of policy, DRVANI explicitly requires that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Can you point to the diffs where you made an effort to address the problem? Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• You're making it clearer and clearer that you fundamentally don't understand what's going on here, or you're being deliberately disingenuous to the point of trolling. Take a look at Levineps talk page, or I don't know the umpteen ANI threads where he was told to stop producing these categories. I'm not even going to bother linking you to the dozens if not hundreds of diffs that show he was warned a ridiculous amount of times to stop doing this. Or hey, let's look at the fact that he was banned from making the damn pages. But perhaps we should have just held hands with the editor and kindly asked him to stop a thousand more times... clearly that would have been the best action here. (Also, this isn't DRV.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• You're making it clearer and clearer that you fundamentally don't understand basic Wikipedia policy. You came here to ANI. ANI policy requires that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Can you point to your efforts to reach out to me to address your issue. As a stickler for following policy, I'm sure that you had dotted every "t" and crossed every "i" in ensuring that fundamental ANI policy was observed to the letter of the law. One diff would be enough, I can point to a dozen diffs where I and other editors asked you to stop your mass reverts, surely you can point to one of your own. Policy is consensus, consensus is policy. Administrators enforce the wishes of the community and it appears that you have failed to observe policy here. Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, your continuous pattern of repeating what I've said back to me is directly disrupting the idea of having anywhere near a positive discourse here. Secondly, I'm not required to do that, especially when it's obvious that me going to your talk page wouldn't have done anything considering your refusal to listen on my talk page (and you don't get to use that as an excuse... if I had not been involved I would have blocked you for personal attacks and disruptive editing). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• You not only failed to communicate with me and deleted my attempts to discuss on your talk page the problems that you were causing, you refused to communicate with other editors and summarily deleted their comments as well. I think that you are projecting your refusal to communicate and address issues raised to you and assuming that I (and other editors) would be unwilling to address your concerns. As a law-and-order, rules-are-rules-and-they-must-be-followed, letter-of-the-law admin, you have failed in your obligation to reach out to me on my talk page. This failure to respect policy here at ANI is only part of a pattern of ignoring Wikipedia policy. I understand why you are so anxious to remove your name from the title of this section. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• StAnselm: There are several ways your comment could be interpreted, so let me reply to them all: If the point you're making is that one handpicked category somehow represents all ~1,750 categories, I fail to see what logic you're using to come to that conclusion. If the point you're making is that some of his edits were good, then please make sure to read the entire thread before making a comment, especially when what you're talking about has already been addressed several times. If the point you're making is that this editor and thereby his edits (and yes, it does matter who created them) was a net positive to the site, well not only is that not true but it should mean that you'd be willing to request that Levineps be disbanned. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – I don't really see a reason for these edits to be reverted if they are truly constructive. However, it's not the case, as Lukeno94 says above, and it is better in this case to revert first and ask questions later. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Could we ask that Alansohn stop changing the section title to misconstrue this discussion? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussion here is primarily about the mass deletion of categories and their potential recreation. I fail to see how a title that neutrally describes the discussion misconstrues anything and is better than a link to a single user name. I still get top billing, but Coffee can have it if he wants it. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to block disruptive user Medeis

Wickwack paddywack, give a troll a bone, this old thread needs closing down--Jayron32 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[I posted this request here yestertday, but it dissappeared within seconds. I thought it was a software glitch so I posted it again. Aagin it was deleted within seconds. Checking history showed it was deleted both times by "AdmiralCaius". I asked politely on his talk page why he deleted it. He deleted that question there as well, without comment. Deletion here without comment is not helpful, proves nothing, and achieves nothing. Is AdmiralCaius another name for Medeis? I have posted here again. I note that others have continued to complain about Medeis on the Reference Desk talk page under heading How to answer questions. We can all do without the need to rebuke Medeis. I really cannot understand why Medeis is allowed to continue. Just from the comments by others currently on the Referance Desk talk page, he clearly has a bad reputation] Recently, a user, SteveBaker (not the problem user), posted a flowchart under heading How to answer questions on the Reference Desk talk page, (http://en.wkipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Science#How_to_answer_questions) with a request for comment. It attracted a disrespectful comment from user Medeis beginning "This seems a rather obvious ... way of [stopping] those who think it should be hatted ... when Baker and others really really want to answer it." Later, Medeis attempted to get the flow chart deleted. I contributed several posts, along with others, in what I consider a constructive way. Discussion ensued with some users supporting and/or agreeing with me, and some disagreeing with reasons given, which of couse is fine. It is clear from several posts under this heading and elsewhere that people, even if they hold different views to me, consider my contributions constructive, and they have no problem with it. Medeis deleted most of my posts, leaving the comment "Comment by banned user removed”. I am not aware that I am a banned user. I have no reason to believe I am a banned user. It seems clear to me that Medeis has deleted my posts in order to stifle or skew discussion - the same reason he wanted SteveBaker's flowchart deleted. Another user thinks I am someone they call Wickwack. I am not Wickwack, whoever Wickwack may be. Apparently I live in the same country (Australia), and share the same ISP (who has millions of other customers) as Wickwack. This is no great problem, except perhaps that it provides Medeis with a convenient unjustified excuse without providing any proof. I note that Medeis is very active at hatting and deleting all manner of posts on Reference Desk, not just mine, and only sometimes justified (i.e., only some are obvious trolls, provision of medical advice, and the like). It is a major contribution surely leading to a poor reputation of the Reference Desk in the community at large, along with Medeis's sometimes personally abusive posts (for example, the comment against SteveBaker above, quite unjustified). I cannot understand why sanctions have not been taken against Medeis some time ago. A search of Reference Desk project and talk page archives shows many users commenting adversely about Medeis. Since Medeis is disruptive, a deletion vandal, and a major contributor to bad vibes, can Medeis be banned/blocked please? In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I attempted to notify Medeis on his talk page. However there is no Edit or New Section tab on his talk page! RJB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.87.169 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC) There actually is an Edit and a New Section at Medeis page. There is much discussion including a discussion of ANI issues. I am unsure about the rest although it is clear that Admiral Caius did delete the posting thinking you are a banned user. Perhaps he can supply the diff to that decision? JodyB talk 01:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) The history for this can largely be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple_IP_addresses. That section also links to a sockpuppet investigation page. I personally am completely confident that the IP posting here is, in fact, WickWack aka Ratbone. One of his favorite ways to troll has always been to pretend to be several different people. His IP changes to quickly, and covers too many ranges, to really bother blocking. Not disrptive enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Although this IP is not named it is from the same pool in Australia. The evidence at Someguy's diff is enlightening. I think I may hear quacking in the distance. JodyB talk 01:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Someguy. Other editors will note this is the third time the banned IP user has posted this in 24 (if not more, I haven't checked), it was reverted before by an editor who left a message on my talk page. His behavior has been discussed recently at the Ref Desk talk page under a header "wickwack" and throughout, with the point of his banning and the appropriateness of summarily reverting his edits mentioned repeatedly. I intend to unwatch this, and I suggest it be archived. Please leave a message on my talk page if my attention is needed agin. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Liang1a not going beyond complaints of prejudice against China to discuss contested edits to ADIZ articles

I rarely if ever take the initiative to try to get help solving an issue with another editor here but User:Liang1a has refused to substantively engage on the Talk pages with regard to the particulars of what this editor wants. The editor has only edited two articles in recent years and a typical edit in recent days is to just add "The baseless carpings by countries hostile to China such as Japan are nothing more than deliberate demonization of China" to an article. Maybe the cultural gap here as to Wikipedia's norms and purpose is just so wide that the problem is rather unprecedented in my experience. May I suggest an admin either admonish this user to either discuss the objections raised on article Talk pages and address the points at issue or alternatively restrict editing to the article(s) or by the editor until such time as there is further specific content-focused engagement with other editors?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The original text was: "The announcement of the zone drew attention and international criticism, especially from Japan and the U.S." It is obvious that "international criticism" is a subjective term insinuating that the whole world is condemning China. Obviously, the Chinese ADIZ is a political event that those countries hostile to China wish to exploit to demonize China. I don't know that the "norm" at Wikipedia is to allow partisans to use it for political ends. If it is permitted to insinuate the whole world is against China then surely it is permitted to refute it with :"The baseless carpings by countries hostile to China such as Japan are nothing more than deliberate demonization of China". Which, incidentally, is absolutely true. Furthermore, the term "carping" was used by an article published by Global Times which is an authoritative publication in China reflecting the sentiments of the Chinese government. "Carping and irresponsible remarks about China establishing its own ADIZ are of no value at all." http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/827925.shtml Therefore, I was not merely expressing my personal opinion when I used the term "carping" but quoting sourced material. As a compromise, I will agree to "The announcement of the zone drew attention and expressions of discontent from some countries, especially from Japan and the U.S." Liang1a (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Also, Brian Dell or somebody, has been deleting my posts as quoted below:

It is not true that US ADIZ regulations do not require filing flight plans for those aircrafts that fly through the US ADIZ but do not enter US sovereign airspace. The US ADIZ rules are as follows: http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• In North America, the US and Canada are surrounded by an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which is jointly administered by the civilian air traffic control authorities and the militaries of both nations, under the auspices of the North American Aerospace Defense Command or NORAD.http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• The joint US/Canadian ADIZ, which is almost exclusively over water, serves as a national defense boundary for aerial incursions.'http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Any aircraft that wishes to fly in or through the boundary must file either a Defense Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan before crossing the ADIZ (14 CFR 99.11). http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

While approaching and crossing the North American ADIZ, aircraft must have an operational radar transponder and maintain two-way radio contact. (see 14 CFR 99.9 & 99.13) http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• In the United States, the FAA handles the requests of international aircraft and Transport Canada handles Canadian requests.http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as an enemy aircraft, potentially leading to interception by fighter aircraft. http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

There is no justification to deleted sourced material. I hope admin will ask Brian Dell to stop deleting it.Liang1a (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The original research / personal opinion in his edits are blatantly obvious, so I've given him a final warning. If he wants to grind his axe, he can do it somewhere else. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Someguy1221 an admin? Does he have the authority to give me warnings?Liang1a (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No idea but it doesn't matter. Anyone can give you a warning. You should take it on board and if it's deserved, make sure you stop the problematic behaviour. If problematic behaviour continues after several warnings, you may need to be blocked to protect wikipedia. (We don't need warnings before blocking if your behaviour is bad enough but it's normal best practice since it helps give us confidence we do have to block someone as they should know about the problems they are causing but aren't apparently going to stop.) Only an admin will be able to block you in the end, but who gave you the warnings doesn't generally matter. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific - yes, he is an administrator, and yes, he has authority to issue a final warning to a disruptive user. Anyone technically can issue such warnings, but admins can act upon them, and generally treat such warnings from other admins as more solidly valid than those issued by normal editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

How do I know Someguy221 is an admin?Liang1a (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

See here: [48]. And then think about actually responding to the issues raised about your editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Liang1a, you cite to the same source seven times here, but you could cite seventy times and it does not resolve the matter if your source is disputed. Calling attention to a source does not resolve the issue if contradicted by other sources or if, as here, the sources don't in fact conflict but the devil is in the details as opposed to the broad strokes one finds in the Powerpoint show your repeatedly refer to. Just why your source, or more precisely how you are using it, is problematic is laid out on the relevant article Talk pages. It requires more patience all around to work through more complex material and frequently more discussion as well. There is actually a certain logic to how Wikipedia works but to appreciate it one has to stop and analyze the nature of the resistance encountered instead of just taking another charge at it. Veteran editors are less likely to be treated as hotheads than newcomers not because their temperaments are fundamentally different but because they've learned over time how to tiptoe through the turnips and get things done. Just speaking as another editor, while I'd see your proposal to change "international criticism" to "expressions of discontent from some countries" overly wordy, this sort of proposal is very typical of Wikipedia's day-to-day editing and continuing down this lane represents the way to go here.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:ColonelHenry more personal attacks and outing

User:ColonelHenry was warned a couple of times, inluding a final notice, against making personal attacks against me and the community as a whole.

a NPA warning

a NPA final warning

Apparently he's a bit obsessed with me, and is stalking and spying on me off-Wikipedia and recently used information so gathered to out me on Wikipedia, oversighted, but, this edit.

No illusions that rules have any meaning on Wikiedia, even the most sacred cows, as OUT is supposed to be, and particularly since it turns out that editors continue to churn out bad science, knowingly, then, instead of correcting it, out me for writing about it. Verifiability is a joke.

No follow up from me, outing is outing.

--AfadsBad (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ridiculous, WP:HA#NOT. I corrected one of the matters you brought up on your blog about errors in science content. So what, I read your blog. I've corrected three or four things you've complained about in several of your blog rants about how Wikipedia's science content is bringing about the end of the world. You should appreciate it...someone actually reads your gripes and on occasion acts accordingly to correct the griped-about passage. I didn't mention you by name or mention other identifying information, didn't mention any contact information, and neither did I direct anyone how to find your anger-releasing soapbox of a blog. All I did was mention in my edit summary that I was responding to your recent blog rant and mentioned vague information that you've already volunteered elsewhere publicly but nothing that linked you to it. Rather disingenuous to claim you were outed when no one could have identified you from what was stated, and I only stated what you've mentioned on Wikipedia, or at public events connected to Wikipedia, to tout your credentials. Sorry, but you know what they say about people in glass houses and throwing stones. If you want to rant anonymously about other people (and out them on your blog) and then complain when someone vaguely alludes to you (but not in a way that leads to you or your front door)...pot calling the kettle black. I guess you'll just write about it on your blog as yet another reason why you hate Wikipedia. Sorry, if you feel attacked, not my intention. But your hands aren't clean in this. Perhaps Adorno said it best: "The splinter in your eye is the best magnifying-glass available."--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have to say I'm not certain where you're coming from User:AfadsBad, considering you literally outed yourself with this edit. That took all of five seconds to find, and without ever reading your blog I immediately came upon it. If you don't want people being able to track you back to your off-wiki activities, then perhaps you should take the necessary steps to make sure they can't. It would be no different than if I told you that my name is Chet Long and I'm stationed in Louisiana, and then started screaming when someone else alluded to this at a later time. Which also brings into question the choice of oversighting ColonelHenry's edit, if it was no more than he claims it was (I don't have OS, so it would be helpful if another OS could inform ANI as to why that oversight was done). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Coffee - Check your email, I emailed you privately regarding the content rather than repost it publicly here. I didn't think it possible to out someone who already released that information on several occasions on Wikipedia and at Wikipedia-related events (Q&A sessions, etc.) in order to condescendingly establish "these are my credentials, I'm a scientist...you're all idiots."--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• • It's not what he says it is; the oversighters are not idiots; it was a no-brainer oversight containing information not on en.Wikipedia and not in my blog. And, no, it wasn't oversighted because ColonelHenry mentioning my blog on Wikipedia; the blog is mentioned and linked in a couple of places on Wikipedia, and I tag it with my Wikipedia name. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also a less than constructive edit for AfadsBad to blank a section claiming (unsourced) plagiarism, even when he recognises that it was a rewrite rather than an addition (and I can't see this section having been added in recent edit history). This is an editor more concerned with grandstanding their linguistic skills above others, rather than working to improve articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Less than constructive? It's utterly contemptible. This editor blanked the entire section on Flora, a subsection of "Flora and Fauna", rendering the main section title nonsensical and removing necessary and useful content. This is classic WP:NOTHERE. It seems our Literary Genius copied the section on his blog, and then posted his rewrite - to prove his ability to improve Wikipedia. He didn't just go ahead and improve it, oh no. He showed how badly written it was, and then showed how a Real Writer would do it. An editor apparently innocently believes that AfadsBad genuinely wanted to improve Wikipedia, and so posted the "improved" section to the article. AfadsBad proves he has no interest in making any improvements, by deleting the whole section. He does not even restore the "bad" version. He just blanks it. Outrageous. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That is what the instructions say. And, really, you can't throw an obligation to improve an article on someone just because Wikipedia editors plagiarized from them. Copyright violation instructions are clear: remove the material, post on the talk page. Don't like them, change them. But, as a volunteer encyclopedia, I am fine with choosing what I do. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Unsourced plagiarism?" It wasn't a rewrite by a Wikipedia editor; I posted an example rewrite on my blog, which is copyrighted, and I own the copyright; Wikipedia editors did the usual, they copied from the internet, from my blog, and pasted my work into Wikipedia without crediting me as the author and without my permission--there's no ticket for this one. So, not only plagiarism, but a copyright violation. But, I will be glad to take care of that through Wikipedia's official channels to make sure my copyrighted work is completely removed from Wikipedia. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, grandstanding linquistic skills with this? " No illusions that rules have any meaning on Wikiedia, even the most sacred cows, as OUT is supposed to be, and particularly since it turns out that editors continue to churn out bad science, knowingly, then, instead of correcting it, out me for writing about it. Verifiability is a joke." That is the most comma soaked, spagetti plate of grammer I have ever seen. I agree with the WP:NOTHERE and think this might be a case for WP:BOOMERANG. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, once more, following the instructions on Wikipedia is a complete bomb; so, maybe User:Andy Dingley can correct this to whatever he thinks people should do when a copyright violation is found:

"If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. == Copyright problem removed ==

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: insert URL or description of source here (optional). Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. AfadsBad (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) has been created for this."

At least I've learned that following any policies or guidelines on Wikipedia is not an argument for having done it correctly.

--AfadsBad (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Lets get back to the outing issue. If any user self identified but no longer wishes to have their real life ID known on this website then no one should repost it, ever. I would like to make sure this is clear.--MONGO 16:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I concur. I don't care if it's something AfadsBad mentioned somewhere at some time that ColonelHenry picked up on... mentioning it in an edit summary is a real dick move. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Great blog, Afads. Of course, one might suggest that it would take the same amount of effort to correct the problems you complain about as to complain about them... but just pointing the problems out is also helpful. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to improve, but some editors, such as ColonelHenry and Cwmhiraeth, made it clear to me that rules and procedures trumped everything, including verifiability. Both of these users fought to keep bad science in article space, in spite of the information being made up nonsense. It would be more fun to write accurate articles than to post about nonsense, but the former is not welcome here. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• No offense, but I would have been glad to work with you had you approached me initially with a little less of the aggressive "bull in a china shop" swagger. In fact, I aim to improve Dent corn in the next few months, and if you could get off your condescending high horse, I would probably enjoy your opinion and expertise as that work proceeds. But as long as you continue to be belligerent, I would never waste my time attempting to collaborate with you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

70.120.95.221 - continued disruption and possible sock

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

---

The IP account 70.120.95.221 has been on a long-term pattern of changing flag icons, changing boxer nationalities from British to Irish, and adding in unsourced ethnicities in the ledes of articles despite being against WP:MOSBIO. This follows the exact same patterns of two other editors previously blocked for this pattern of disruption (User talk:70.115.253.212 and User talk:River City Boy). They have been reverted by several different editors and yet carry on regardless.

Examples of changing flag icons: [49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59]

Examples of changing nationalities or removing Britain or trying to impose that they are Irish: [60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67]

Examples of adding unsourced ethnicities into lede: [68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76]

The IP has been cautioned, warned and given a final warning [77], and has also had a SPI initiated against them on 2nd December, with the two other accounts above listed. Unfortunately due to a backlog the SPI has not been dealt with yet.

Despite this they once again make another edit changing "British" to "Irish" on 10th December [78]. So it is clear that this editor doesn't want to defend themselves and wishes to carry on seeing if they can get away with their disruptive behaviour.

For me this is clear block scrutiny evasion. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Rakeshkraja and All Things Nice

It seems a recently created article, All Things Nice, was created by someone who was paid by the subject of the article to create it, as he has acknowledged himself in the article. In light of the recent WikiPR scandal I think this may be a violation of WP:PAY and am posting here to see what administrators think should be done. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

They didn't acknowledge that, that was vandalism by another user (see the history.) You can't make that assumption. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks for pointing that out. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There probably are advertising issues with the article though, I haven't had the time to go through it, but a quick glance looks like yes it is advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism report

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

---

Hello,

As I was reviewing new uploads on Commons, I was brought to this page: Joe Hockey. It has been vandalized by TheRamblingNarcissist and is still under fire. Could a sysop take action there. Sorry if this isn't the right page or if I missed something, I come from fr.wp. Thank you, Letartean (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Indefinite block. In the future, you can report vandalism on en.wikipedia at WP:AIV. --Jayron32 14:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Page noted. Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Sepsis II and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography

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

---

Sepsis II (talk · contribs)

User:Sepsis II has a history of POV-pushing regarding the Israeli-Palestinean conflict, POV pushing that has amounted to two blocks, and sanctions as well.

Anyway, earlier today, he went to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography and moved Palestine from unrecognized states to recognized ones, his first edits to anything VA/E related. VA/E has rules, namely that you don't make controversial moves, adds, or drops without discussing them at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded, so I reverted him on that basis. He then posted on my talk page, where I told him he needed to discuss the edit. Recently, he reverted me back to move Palestine back to recognized states, accusing me of ownership of the page. This revert seems to be in violation of his sanctions. Could something be done about this, starting with undoing his actions and reminding him of his sanctions? I don't really have the stomach for getting in an edit war with this, and I take no position on the recognition of Palestine, merely that such a clearly controversial edit should have been discussed first pbp 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Question: Wasn't Palestine officially recognized by the UN last year? - (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121129)
We also have an article about it. - ^theWOLFchild 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I still say it should have been discussed before the move was made. VA/E has rules. Discussing things before you do them is one of them. Again, I take no position as to whether Palestine is or isn't recognized. pbp 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, but the fact is, he is correct. So, instead of helping him to add info we know to be correct (and supported by RS), you are fighting to keep it out on a technicality? Meanwhile, now the article still has incorrect info and you are seeking to drag him here to ANI? Have you tried discussing this on his talk page? Have you considered any other means of dispute resolution? What admin intervention are you seeking here? - ^theWOLFchild 16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Further note; I don't see how the initial edit was "controversial", and therefore required you to revert it. But that said, once you did, he should have discussed it with you, per WP:BRD. But I see he has instead reverted you again. You guys should be careful, you don't want to end up in an edit-war. - ^theWOLFchild 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) It's not an article, and b) He has the last edit pbp 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) Whatever. Let's not get hyper-technical. b) I noted his last edit with my previous comment above, (it was caught up in an edit conflict). - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sepsis's only current sanction appears to be a 'civility' one. From the Palestine-Israel log of blocks and bans for 2013: Sepsis II (talk · contribs) officially restricted to 1RR/week and put on a shorter leash for personal attacks.[225] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) curtailed to a civility restriction only [226] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)     ←   ZScarpia   16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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