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

MMA, part 1287

See also Wikipedia:ANI#MMA_AfD.27s above. I have just closed another disruptive AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (3rd nomination). I have also noted at least one WP:POINT nominations for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19) of articles edited by the few editors who are trying to uphold Wikipedia policy in the MMA area. I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say "enough". Black Kite (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As an editor who has passively observed the MMA disputes that flare up on the boards every other day (it seems), I'm also of the mind that some unified solution should be adopted—it really has been quite "enough" at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As only tangently involved (MMA editors trying to change policy/guidelines to make such articles acceptable to which I've commented on), yes, this is far past the point of disruption. That said, the MMA ppl have brought up a good point that if the various individual event articles aren't considered notable, then why do we have articles like 2008 Food City 500, 2011 World Series of Poker results (note, 2011 World Series of Poker exists but is ok), and similar? There is an inconsistency here, and it might step from the larger idea that the various sports arena itself is a walled garden - by no means as great a degree as the MMA - but clearly with a larger allowance for topics and the like. At this point there needs to be a course of action that pulls any decision away from those involved with MMA or at least the troublemakers making such pointy AFD noms, and get to a resolve quickly, but making sure that solution applies uniformly to other sports-based articles. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that we have articles like 2008 Food City 500 because no-one's got round to deleting or merging them yet. Yes, the solution should apply to all sports, but with well over 3 million articles stuff like that is always going to sneak through; it doesn't mean we should let it go though. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fully aware that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument, except that I recall seeing editors from the various sports (nonMMA) suggest the NASCAR articles are just fine but the MMA ones are a problem. This mirrors a similar discussion about the denial to include eSports (professional video game competitions) within NSPORT because "its not a sport". I do applaud most of the editors that are knee deep in sports, self-aware that sports coverage far outweighs most other contemporary topics and thus having restraint to what is summarized on WP, but there remains some aspects here of walled gardens that we can't sweep away by just closing down the MMA stuff, fairly. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a very subtle difference though, one that came out of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open in that an annually repeated sports event is a little different (I am not saying I necessarily agree with that). Mtking ^(edits) 00:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What's enormously unfortunate about this situation is it's somehow identified as an "MMA" issue when the exact same sets of pages exist all across the site and tend to be the rule for formatting rather than exception. The main difference here is that for various reasons the AfDs on this particular subject have been unusually successful. Simply contrast this with worse entries such as that, or that, or that, or that (the list is trivial to enumerate). When users who feel their area of interest is being singled out see their concerns dismissed by wiki-insiders, it creates a great deal of frustration with the process and thus the highly visible drama. Should the same exceptional deletions happen on any other part of wiki with a significant userbase, the consequences would hardly differ. The challenge to solving such a systemic dilemma is to studying how the system works rather than respond with the same natural instincts which is the hallmark of institutional failure. Agent00f (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are some things that will always be the case in Wikipedia or in any similar project without centralized control and therefore without fixed enforceable rules:

1. within a field, the results at AfD will be inconsistent
2. between fields, the accepted emphasis will be inconsistent
3. everyone will think their own interests are being unfairly neglected

I accept this will happen even the areas of most concern to me, and though I continue to push gently for greater coverage of them, I will not forfeit whatever sympathy there is for my minority interests by making a nuisance of myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My question, how come we have to continually deal with these many AfDs on MMA articles, more often than not with either a "keep" or "no consensus"(no consensus when there are 4-5 votes for deletion and dozens to keep, yet those all are discounted for one reason or another), yet whenever a much less notable event, like say for instance a soon to be cancelled show about modelling that has no lasting significance gets nominated for deletion, the result is always a "Speedy Keep" and the nominator gets scolded? After so many failed deletion attempts by the 1 main MMA deletionist here, shouldn't they too be scolded for continually nominating articles?AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's significant element of randomness on wiki by design, then the implication is userbase interests here were specifically unlucky. With this understanding the org shouldn't be unduly alarmed that intrinsic variation produces outliers. IOW, when the stars align, page sets get wrecked and those who use them become displeased proportional to the wreckage. The connection between these last two is basic human psychology which is difficult to trivially amend. Agent00f (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say enough." What method would you recommend for getting rid of MMA fans? Portillo (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• For those who cannot edit without being disruptive or incivil, then blocks and/or topic bans are clearly indicated; that's not even controversial. That doesn't just apply to MMA fans, but to any editor of Wikipedia. I merely bring the issue to ANI so that more eyes may be available. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do you think there's a broad enough consensus about deleting the articles at hand that it could be made a CSD category? It's a brutal but effective approach.—Kww(talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't believe so. Whilst some are clearly non-notable, others are on the fringes. Even the ones that are obviously non-notable have some sources, even if it's clear that they fail WP:NOT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. I think the main issue here isn't the articles (they can be dealt with in time) but the disruption that is spreading to other areas. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and the AfDs end up like this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 145. I doubt if that's going to be closed as anything else but Keep, but that is effectively saying that "any sporting event that is mentioned in the newspapers is notable". Without going too much towards WP:WAX, that means you could effectively make a case for (as an example) all 1,760 professional soccer games that happen in England every year. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed respective projects and fan bases are turning the Encyclopaedia into a sports newspaper. Mtking ^(edits) 20:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• How is that any different from turning the Encyclopedia into a fan site for fashion television shows that have absolutely no lasting notability?AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia running out of server space to the point where things that meet the WP:GNG aren't acceptable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is a reason that the sports notability guidelines don't consider regular games as part of a professional league series as notable just because they were played and reported on, and instead provide seasonal summaries. This is the solution that pro-MMA editors have been suggested to head towards but they fight to include every possible detail against global consensus for this type of information. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• What Masem said. Your average NFL or Premiership game, NASCAR race, major American college football or basketball match no doubt nukes your average UFC event for GNG-applicable coverage, and I'm sure that given the green light, there are any number of Manchester United or University of Nebraska supporters who would be positively eager to write articles on them all. If "routine sports coverage" is a valid excuse to shoot down an independent article for the next Celtics-Heat playoff match, it sure is heck a valid one to debar your average MMA event. Ravenswing 05:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• and another one kept that is just like all the rest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 21, it would appear that the MMA fan base has worn the other editors down ....... Mtking ^(edits) 10:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Or perhaps the other editors and moderators are simply tired of your crusade against MMA articles, realize the truth that these events are truly notable(we're still talking about them after a decade has passed), and that deleting them would weaken Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. I wonder how many people will be talking about the results of ANTM #19 in over a decade, yet you consider them to have lasting notability? Such bias proves you simply have an agenda to scrub WP of MMA articles.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

<outdent> I'm not sure if this belongs here, but there is another MMA discussion going on over at Talk:List of professional sports leagues regarding whether they qualify as a league or not, which has been prompted most likely by the same circumstances regarding all the MMA AFDs. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What's quite interesting here is that an event card as set of ~10 distinct and separate contests of 15-25min regulation time was mentioned numerous times in the past, yet critics continue to IDHT this basic reality. Each event page is already a collection of individual "games", and direct comparison of notability to X vs Y competitions would be a separate entry for each contest (ie 10 pages for each card). Agent00f (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I will observer that a solution was previously on the table (several times in fact) regarding how to move forward without having to invoke AN/I or AN every single time however the filibustering, polite disruption, point-making, IDHT, and outright obtuseness has been a (perceived) hallmark of the enthusiast community. A previous discussion to endorse general sanctions across the MMA article (and project spaces) had atrophied due to lack of commitment. It is my understanding that the Administrator Corps does not feel that the toolset they have does not endorse actions with respect to these users, therefore there are 2 solutions. First is to open a new discussion on AN regarding authorization of General Sanctions across the MMA article and project spaces. The second is to open an Arbcom case and get a set of discretionary sanctions applied to the MMA article and project spaces. As I'm immensely involved (and any proposal by me would be accused of being part of the cabal to destroy MMA on Wikipedia) I am not an appropriate user to move forward with either proposal. Hasteur (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What? You pretend to speak for the entirety of the Wikicommunity yet in reality it's you, MtKing, Ravenswing, etc. The exact same editors take part in these frivolous AfDs, the core group of 4-5 deletionists and the hordes of angry MMA fans who tire of this coordinated plan to ruin MMA on Wikipedia. Perhaps the Wikicommunity and administrators in particular don't agree with your suggestion of sanctions on MMA articles, hence none being applied.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack above. In no way was your response appropriate to my informing people of two options that have been on the table before. Your commentary here demonstrates the intrinsic flaw in the enthusiast's viewpoint. We are not out to ruin MMA on Wikipedia. We simply want the "walled garden" mentality to cease and for the articles to follow the same guidelines that other projects are required to follow. Are there counter examples where there are worse article? Entirely possible, but for the time being, the eye of scrutiny is on MMA articles. Is it possible that other sports will be touched by this plan to break down the walls and follow the guidelines? Absolutely yes. So to summarize, your premise is faulty and a personal attack on those who are attempting to uphold the policies. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. My post above is absent of any personal attack. Your argument is flawed as well. You say other projects are required to follow these same guidelines? No they're not. Wikipedia is full of fancruft(America's Next Top Model) that has absolutely no degree of lasting notability. The eye of scrutiny on MMA articles is not Wikipedia as a whole, rather it is the agenda of a few editors who can be counted on one, perhaps two, hands. If you truly wanted to improve the articles to adhere to Wiki standards, improve them! Instead it's one constant AfD after another. When those AfDs don't turn out the way MMA-deletionists intended, they simply nominate them again at a later date, with no attempt at improving them in the meantime.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

*Edit to add, show me one AfD for a UFC ppv recently not started by the MtKing, Hasteur, Ravenswing, TreyGeek, NewConnorMan, or the new POINTy troll Portillo. Just one. Most have been MtKing's doing. Not only does he brag about it, he also openly antagonizes MMA supporters without repercussion, blaming us when his AfDs are shut down without a 'delete' verdict. Sorry, but it is beyond obvious that you guys are not trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Truly, we're supposed to assume good faith, but your collective ruined any hope of that long ago with your antics and irritating smarminess.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading this debate for awhile now, and I really don't have a horse in this race, but I have a question with regards to notability and the like. First, yes I know other things are on Wikipedia, but what is the difference between the UFC PPVs and the regular WWE and TNA PPVs that have articles here? Are the wrestling PPVs consider inheritable notable? If so, what coverage/guidelines do they get their notability from? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe WWE is deemed notable per WP: Fabulous Costumes. JoelWhy? talk 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No! Bad JoelWhy! We explicitly discourage fabulous costumes here! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to Wildthing61476, their PPVs typically receive coverage from mainstream media sources such as The Sun and The Star (British national newspapers), Québecor Média (Canoe.ca) and the Miami Herald; not to mention extensive coverage from wrestling-oriented reliable sources such as the Wrestling Observer. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as UFC PPV events receive coverage from mainstream media sources such as Yahoo!, the LA Times, the Las Vegas Sun, as well as national newspapers like USA Today. Not to mention the extensive coverage in foreign countries like Brazil, Mexico, the UK, and Japan. Also the multitude of MMA-oriented websites such as Sherdog or BloodyElbow. Oh yeah, and other mainstream sporting media such as ESPN, Sports Illustrated, FoxSports, etc.AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that Brazil's two main national newspapers, O Estado de S. Paulo and Folha de S.Paulo, regularly cover UFC events, as shown here and here. Evenfiel (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm forced to ask the question, then - if MMA Event articles are well sourced and competently written, what harm do they do to the project? If it's a reputation thing, I've got a list of articles more damaging to Wikipedia's reputation than these. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that coverage in the Sun and the Star, while indicative of some cultural relevance, is not coverage in something that generally meets WP:RS. Also the Sun is owned by a major player in the PPV scene. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Regardless of Murdoch's many fingers in many pies, coverage by multiple national media sources (not just The Sun) is generally a reasonable claim to notability for article subjects. In response to AugustWest1980, I think your point is fair - if an event had such extensive coverage then I would tend to consider it notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AfD regular, sports fan, no dog in the MMA fight... I don't think the UFC pages are being deleted when challenged; certainly not lately. If there is a caucus attempting to delete them, they will become frustrated and shut down the disruptive mass attacks if more common sense (policy: IAR) and a lower level of mechanical adherence to the mantra of "three sources or bust" (guideline: GNG) is followed by closing administrators. High number events have adequate sourcing and, of course, the answer to preserving the low numbered events over the long haul is to find adequate sourcing for them as well. But I don't think this is any sort of crisis at AfD other than the minor annoyance of excessive cut-and-pasted challenges with no effort to follow WP:BEFORE. This, too, will pass. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• That is an excellent point. I believe the only UFC events that have been deleted were ones that went unchallenged. Anytime there is vocal opposition to it the closing admin rules it either "Keep" or "no consensus". Now that these AfDs are being heavily challenged seems those who nominate and support deletion get angry and accuse the "MMA community" of disrupting the process. Ha! AugustWest1980 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - One thing that really makes me mad is that the people putting UFC article up for deletion do not even check to see if there are good sources out there. They don't follow WP:BEFORE at all. They make no attempt to IMPROVE the article or check to see if it CAN be improved before they nominate it for deletion. Then, when I bring this point up in the afd debate, users like Hasteur have the nerve to tell me that WP:BEFORE isn't a requirement... only a guideline. It is absolutely ridiculous that users like Mtking and Hasteur constantly use WP policy to make their points, and when I make a very valid point that they are not even checking for possible notability before putting it up for deletion, they have the nerve to say it is only a guideline. Not-to-mention, when I'd search for sources myself, I can find sources from news agencies all over the world. LA Times, USA Today, Brazilian, Japanese, and European publications, etc. I even found sources in books and magazines using a google book search. It is ridiculous that articles get deleted if they are unopposed. So I have to run around defending all of the UFC articles because Mtking puts a bunch of them up for deletion at one time. I think if no effort is made to improve an article by finding sources BEFORE they are put up for deletion, then that nomination should automatically be thrown out. Gamezero05 21:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Again with the personal attacks. Great to see that the enthusiast community still knows how to sling a FUD bomb to derail and disrupt any forward momentum. Hasteur (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, there were absolutely no personal attacks there. I'm not sure you know what a personal attack is. I simply stated things that have happened and my opinion on it. You constantly playing the victim is getting quite old and tiring. Gamezero05 19:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, absolutely no personal attack present. Your attempt to "play the victim" citing nonexistent personal attacks will garner you no favor here. GameZero stated facts. Your cabal of MMA-deletionists never try to add sources or improve existing articles. You took one admin ruling from many months back, a ruling that vaguely implied some MMA articles could be consolidated, and then ran roughshod over years of work in the MMAProject using that one statement as justification for multiple AfDs. When other editors show up to protest you throw the wiki-jargon book at them, accusing any and every one opposed to deletion as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, canvassed voter, or SPA. You simply couldn't accept the fact that your plan to reorganize and marginalize MMA knowledge on Wikipedia is very, very unpopular. No doubt you will now point out the nonexistent personal attacks in my post. Knock yourself out.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Both your and Gamezero05's remarks prove my point. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and premptive attacks on the editor and not demonstrating content reasoning. Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Prove what point? I hate to keep this stupid squabble going, but what you are saying is just completely untrue. My paragraph that I wrote was highlighting a problem with nominating articles for deletion without even bothering to check for sources. How you took that as a "personal attack" is beyond me. And quite frankly, I'm getting tired of having to respond and defend myself against your pointless straw-man arguments. Gamezero05 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw... how cute, they learned a new keyword to disrupt debates. Tired of having to respond and defend yourself? Don't. If my postings are so out of line someone outside the enthusiast community will tell me to sit down. You commited an ad-hominem attack with It is absolutely ridiculous that users like Mtking and Hasteur constantly use WP policy to make their points, and when I make a very valid point that they are not even checking for possible notability before putting it up for deletion, they have the nerve to say it is only a guideline. Your continued insistance that this wasn't an attack and commiting yet annother attack on the person with You constantly playing the victim is getting quite old and tiring. again steps over the line. That you commit further attacks when you're being cautioned about personal attacks only demonstrates that you can't disassociate the user from the action. The fact that you claim I'm setting up straw man arguments, I point at the collection of UFC articles that are now on the AfD block that are in danger of deletion not because of any action that MtKing or myself took directly. So you know what, if I'm going to be tarred and feathered as a MMA deletionist, I might as well play the part. <sarcasam>Delete every single MMA article</sarcasam> Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ad-hominem attacks? I don't think you know what ad-hominem means. You seem to think personal attacks and ad-hominem attacks mean simply mentioning your name. Personal attacks would mean I attacked you personally in some way. An example would be if I called you a name. An ad-hominem attack would be if I used some irrelevant point to try to make an argument. An example of that would be if I said something like "John can't be good at basketball... he's a nerd". Being a nerd has no real connection to one's basketball playing ability. There are different kinds of ad-hominem attacks, but they all follow the same basic principle. And NOTHING I said was an ad-hominem attack. And NOTHING I said was a personal attack. I was simply pointing out FACTS that had happened, and used specific names to clarify exactly who I am talking about. If you'd like to see exactly where you said WP:BEFORE is only a guideline and not a requirement, it is right here: WP:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_21. Also, you accuses me of "personal attacks" yet you make smart remarks like "aw... how cute", and resort to calling me an "enthusiast" as if you are trying to discredit me as an editor because I actually like the subject I spend time editing. And you have the nerve to tell me that I'M out of line? Gamezero05 02:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason why UFC 21 got kept is simple, the MMA fans have created through various means including off-wiki canvassing and rallying calls such an atmosphere of total vitriol and disruption that no editor wants to go near it, you are guilty of it (and for the avoidance of any doubt yes I mean you Gamezero05), along with numerous socks of other indef'ed editors and SPA's the whole debate has been so poisoned to such an extent that any chance of a rational compromise went long ago. I can think of three or four good editors who have given up on MMA as a result, I hope that you feel mighty proud of yourselves sitting there in your Mum's basement. In fact it will make a good case study and essay on how as a single interest group can force it's agenda on the WP community. Also before you jump up and down claim this is an attack, no it is not it is explaining what has happened as I see it, so don't waste the electrons in replying if all you are going to do is talk about how much I have attacked you. Mtking ^(edits) 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How am I causing disruption? Because you aren't getting your way? Because I'm standing up to you guys who want to delete everything? I can't believe you are trying to blame this on "us"... the people who actually care about MMA. YOU are one of the people responsible for all of this "vitriol". You caused an uproar when you decided to start merging entire years worth of articles to one page and delete numerous other outright. So let me get this straight. We are editing MMA articles on Wikipedia just fine, then one day you and others decide to go on an MMA crusade and start merging and deleting everything in sight, then we try our hardest to stop that from happening, and now you are blaming US for the disruption? It is really quite unbelievable. I don't know anything about off wiki-canvassing or sock puppets or SPA's, since I'm not involved with any of that myself, so I really have no idea what to say about that. I don't know if that is even true or not. Plus, I find it quite ironic that you claim I am one of the ones causing disruption and I am responsible for "vitriol", yet you say things like "I hope that you feel mighty proud of yourselves sitting there in your Mum's basement", and Hasteur gets smart with me, yet you guys claim I am the one slinging personal attacks. Gamezero05 05:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You could not resist wasting the electrons could you, even after I told you not to; and it is not me making comments about basements it your colleagues, also don't bother wasting yet more time and effort by claiming you don't read the MMA forums as you have made enough comments to very clearly demonstrate you do. Mtking ^(edits) 06:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

AugustWest and Gamezero, you're approaching this discussion in the entirely the wrong way. Constructing arguments which make sense is not useful in a dispute predicated instead on leveraging inside processes. As an example of the former (ie arguments), it makes a lot of sense that subjects in close proximity in an encyclopedia should follow similar and consistent formatting, but arguing for this first pillar of wiki against blatant violation not only apparently fails POLICY but is considered a DISRUPTive nuisance. As an example of the latter (processes), defending hundred of pages against AfD's is wasteful and time-consuming whereas nominations are very cheap, and no amount of making sense will change this basic reality either. The only way these very disruptive and inconsistent changes to a very specific subset of pages can be reversed is to gain the support of some insiders with the political weight and know-how to tip the balance in the other direction. That's a very different kind of task to what you're twiddling away at here. 75.172.4.206 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, this thread was started to gather consensus on what, if anything, we can do to reduce the drama level regarding MMA deletions. One simple way which would have a noticeable effect would be to indefinitely block editors whose contributions at this point are basically yelling about how The Deletionist Cabal Is Ruining Everything Because They Hate UFC And Love ATM. There are at least two prominent candidates on this thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And I agree completely with that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The MMA debate actually raises several very good, very valid questions about sports notability, and these have yet to be answered. The problem lies at both extremes, those that want to keep everything, and those that want to delete everything, albeit with one side being somewhat more disruptive than the other. I gave up on trying to bring the two sides together once it became apparent that neither side was willing to compromise, even a little. Eventually, a settlement will be forced upon them all, which is usually the net result when two sides refuse to cooperate with each other: A solution that no one will like, but they will not like it equally. The sad thing is, a compromise wouldn't be that complicated if not for the bludgeoning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We have already compromised a lot. We agreed to the omnibus. We have been talking about splitting up the omnibus because it is too long. We are trying to work on this. All that we ask is that the numbered UFC pay-per-view events have their own pages. That is really all I am looking for. I am also wanting to improve the existing numbered pages. But I (and the rest of the MMA project) can't ever get any of this done when we are constantly trying to defend pages from deletion. Gamezero05 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you in particular Gamezero. You and I have bumped heads once or twice but I think we both respect each other and have generally treated each other fairly, even when we disagreed. I was trying to get the whole omnibus system redesigned, based on the input of everyone, when it became apparent that some were not willing to compromise. I don't have a preferred way, I just knew the first way was too rough to work. Everyone does try to paint the place like it is two camps, when the reality is there are two strong viewpoints, and half the people just lean one way or the other, and are not as extreme. But half the crowd ARE extreme in the "all" or "nothing" camp. The most vocal minorities are the ones being the boldest, which is why there is so much disruption. Consensus can't be reached when some are so reactionary. This is why I think eventually it will require an outside binding resolution to move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Also, you accuse me of "personal attacks" yet you make smart remarks like "aw... how cute", and resort to calling me an "enthusiast" as if you are trying to discredit me as an editor because I actually like the subject I spend time editing. And you have the nerve to tell me that I'M out of line?" "When other editors show up to protest you throw the wiki-jargon book at them, accusing any and every one opposed to deletion as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, canvassed voter, or SPA." I agree with Gamezero and AugustWest. Hasteur and Mtking love throwing potshots and condescending comments to MMA fans. But if anyone challenges them, they are instantly accused of disruption and ruining Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Could that be because we've been personally attacked by SPAs, IP editors, externally canvassed users, and editors in goods standing (Like yourself) for so long that the only way to get through to you is to drop the mask of civility and start throwing elbows with the same sort of abusive language that gets levied against us? Want our behavior to improve? start by calling out editors who level abusive statements to us and we'll be more reasonable to work with. Don't care? We can ride the Drama Merry go Round until someone gets so fed up with the incessant drama from the project that even more painful sanctions will get applied and the suporter croud will lose more content than what we have been willing to compromise for already. Hasteur (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"that even more painful sanctions will get applied and the suporter croud will lose more content than what we have been willing to compromise for already." I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with these types of threats. Any doubt that there is an axe to grind is all but cleared up with comments like these, coupled with the corresponding behavior. BearMan998 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, this is a true example of a personal attack and it's from none other than Hasteur himself. I have never personally attacked you so I would appreciate it if you can edit and interact in a civil manner. BearMan998 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I might be short-sighted here, but I can't see anything in that link that looks like a personal attack. Can you clarify? Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See his edit summary of "You already voted, now scurry back to your den." I made a simple mistake in my edit and that was his response to it. BearMan998 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the edit-summary. Yeah, a bit snarky, not sure if it was attempting to be a joke based on your user name. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment all I know is, Hasteur and Mtking cannot use an excuse like "other people personally attacked us, so we're going to personally attack people here". Two wrongs don't make a right, and nobody has personally attacked you guys in this discussion. Gamezero05 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment for the MMA crowd: I see that UFC 94 is a Good Article. Quality work like that is your best weapon to disarm your opponents. While you seem to be doing a great job on the athlete bios, I would suggest you get together and collaborate on a few event articles to bring them up to higher standards. Given the coverage Canada's major media are giving it, UFC 149 should be a relatively easy candidate once the event happens. The first one in Toronto that set an attendance record received considerable coverage, iirc. Show off a few more examples like UFA 94, and the arguments against their existence will whither and die. Resolute 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree Resolute. If there are any good things to come out of this whole debacle is that it has brought attention to the MMA crowd that 1) Wikipedia needs help in editing the MMA articles and 2) MMA articles which are a valuable resource to the MMA community and the general public are being deleted. There have been some very good editors who contribute to these articles however with all the nominations for deletion, I see them using their resources instead to fight the nominations and getting sucked into endless and heated arguments. BearMan998 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I recently made UFC 145 similar to UFC 94 in order to prevent it from getting deleted. And the article isn't even close to being finished. One problem is that the people who want to delete the articles (Mtking, Hasteur), don't make any effort to improve any of the articles. They just go around trying to get them deleted. Gamezero05 17:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets not kid ourselves here, the sources in UFC 145 that are from sources that WP would call reliable are routine primary news coverage or more about the fighters with a tangential link to the event. Lets take the cite from the impresive sounding International Business Times here as an example on closer invistigation you will acutaly see that it is from a user content blog. Where are the sources written after the event, with further analysis or discussion on the long term impact of this event? Mtking ^(edits) 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you happened to notice, the UFC 145 article is NOT finished. I never got around to finishing summarizing the results and also if you notice, I never got around to writing anything for the "subsequent events" section. If you are wanting sources for things AFTER the event, you are going to have to wait... because nobody has written that part yet. It isn't a finished article... remember, Wikipedia is a constant work in progress. Gamezero05 04:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that currently the event does not have demonstrated enduring notability (as per WP:NOT) it should therefore be redirected to the omnibus article until such time as it does. Mtking ^(edits) 05:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• "when it became apparent that some were not willing to compromise... But half the crowd ARE extreme in the "all" or "nothing" camp.". In general I (and the wiki record) would agree with Dennis's characterization of what happened. Back when I was still involved with this, I distinctive recall proposals which retain 80% of the original omnibus reasoning (if not the entire design of copy/pasting dozens of pages into one), with enthusiastic support, and being ignored completely by the omnibus designers (unfortunately there's nothing to diff for silence). Those among the userbase who felt their reasonable attempts to compromise weren't being addressed wasn't a uncommon experience (there was no reply to this). From a cursory look at the discussion today, this lopsided behavior has only continued, with targeted archiving of critical comments. Speaking of which, it's worth noting that the proposal above was also unilaterally collapsed as TLDR by omnibus hardliners, and this seems commonplace. When that sort of unbalanced environment persists, the combined outcry is rather unsurprising, and whatever solution should address this extremism. Agent00f (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• So let's get this straight, you made a proposal which recived enthusiastic support from one editor that in essance wanted to amend WP's notability requirement to say that if the sum of the parts was notabile than the parts are also notable, and you are seriouly wondering why the attempt to change poilcy was not taken seriously and was ignored when it was such a transparent attempt at derailing the discussison and continue your filibustering. If you should be in any doubt about how transparent your filibustering is, have a read of your RFC/U here or here including such quotes as he [Agent00f] has gone out of his way to be intentionally obtuse, redundant and verbose for the purpose of diluting and distracting from the discussion or and it is clear from Agent's behavior here [the rfc] --the personal attacks, the battlefield mentality, the accusations of gangbanging, the filibustering, the right vs. wrong ideology, et cetera. Mind you you have achieved something, you have forced a number of editors in the MMA project who were willing to work within the existing WP policies to leave the project. Mtking ^(edits) 03:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was you, Mtking, and a few others who made people leave the project. The project was going just fine before you and some others went on a crusade. You and a few others who have Wikipedia "know-how" come in and completely change how MMA is presented on Wikipedia, and when 95% of the people involved with the MMA project oppose you, you blame THEM for "disruption". It would be like a small, well-trained army swooping through a village destroying everything in sight because they want the land, and when the villagers try to fight back the small, trained army blames the villagers for being so difficult. Gamezero05 04:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So it's those established editors fault for wanting this project to be an encyclopedia and not a MMA fans results and gossip site, hm, maybe you should also read Agent00f's RFC/U as well.Mtking ^(edits) 06:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia will be no less of an encyclopedia with the inclusion of high-ranking MMA articles. And just because a few individual users have been disruptive doesn't mean the entire MMA-supporting side can be generalized as being disruptive. Some of us have valid, policy-based opinions, although many of them are repeatedly dismissed or overlooked with a high prejudice.

And without getting into a personal attack, I have to say I see a lot of irony in some of the claims being made. Both sides have plenty of guilt in the filibustering department, especially in the repeated echoing of "fails notability, fails notability!" when there has been plenty of consensus that it doesn't. Likewise, I find it quite humorous that the inclusionists who wish to maintain and preserve information are being considered disruptive, while the deletionist side that mangles useful articles and creates large amounts of drama and the resulting problems somehow claims that they are not disruptive.

Ultimately, I think a few editors on both sides really need to step back, and perhaps away from the issue altogether, simply because they are completely unwilling to compromise. That sort of adamant behavior is not beneficial towards reaching an agreement or consensus since they will never back down or admit fault. At this point, if anyone is simply unable to accept either the deletion of any MMA article or the existance of the top-tier, notable MMA articles, should really step away and take some time to cool down and return with more of an open mind. Otherwise, this argument will never die down. Zeekfox (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

This issue will never die down when the supporter community can externally canvas for new editors to come in and require established editors to have to prove the entire reason over again. Those of us who are left in the "enforcing WP policy" camp are the ones that refuse to take an exit from the debate because we know that any established editor who leaves the project emboldens the supporter community to continue their disruptive tactics. Hasteur (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of external canvassing? Ypsi.peter (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Good question. Hasteur, you continually accuse the inclusionist side of canvassing, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry. Where is the proof?

Also, a reasonable compromise was suggested. All numbered UFC events get their own page, all lesser UFC events and all lesser organization events get omnibus pages. The deletionist side rejected it. The inclusionists have continually gave ground in this discussion, seems the deletionists simply will not budge thus implying an agenda of erasing MMA knowledge and history from Wikipedia. They have even rudely suggested that inclusionists leave Wikipedia altogether, implying we don't belong here, suggesting we start a different Wiki proving that they do not believe the subject matter belongs on WP. AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

RE to Ypsi.peter Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Request for Sanctions against User:BigzMMA (Socking, Canvassing), Any of the multiple AfDS or disucssions that the hordes of non-wikipedians have been screaming for their want.(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 151,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch (2nd nomination),WT:MMANOT,WT:MMA,Talk:2012 in UFC events)Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason why we've suggested that the "inclusionists" found their own MMAPedia is because the articles that are being lobbied for are so far below the basic guideline that individual backyard events can get included. I think that some MMA articles do merit inclusion here (Like the Greasing contraversy given above). Given that all of the articles that have been challanged fall significantly below the level of inclusion, the Omnibus article is a significant step to reasonableness that the "deletionists" have put forward. Not every single MMA numbered event could ever be notable. The fact that we have to beat the point into the "inclusionists" with a spiked club only demonstrates the level of disruptive IDHT that the "inclusionists" are constantly practicing. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're misrepresenting the facts. First you say that the "inclusionists" are lobbying for such basic guidelines that backyard events could be included. Patently false and absurd. The "inclusionists" have stated many times that numbered UFC events are notable and deserve their own articles where other lessor orgs could have omnibuses. You mistakenly say "not every single MMA numbered event could ever be notable" is again false. Every Superbowl is notable. Every World Series is notable. Apparently every season of America's Top Model is notable. I just got through adding multiple sources to UFC 2, which someone POINTedly nominated AfD.

Movies, TV shows, reality television, usually the only references they have listed are sites like TV.com or IMDB.com, that makes them notable. Well every single numbered UFC has an entry on IMDB. Using the same judging criteria, wouldn't that make them notable? It's WP:COMMONSENSE, in 20 years no one will know or care who won Season 3 of Survivor or ANTM, but they will still be writing about and discussing UFC 1 and 2, just as people still discuss Superbowl 1.AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my obtuseness but I don't understand how those links provide evidence of external canvassing. Can you be more specific for me? Ypsi.peter (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My friend, you're coming to this with a very stacked deck. Before you post further you may want to consider reading over the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as your agenda and what you're aiming for is fairly obvious to me. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your constant veiled threats to new users are getting old Hasteur. It is obvious his agenda, he wants to participate in the events surrounding the destruction of MMA on Wikipedia.AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

From another editor in another thread, but very relevant and so far unanswered:

In the end, this really has become just an editing war where a few editors are trying to march forward, waving the banner of policy where it doesn't apply. You want proof that this is mostly an attack? Because it's UFC articles being targeted. There are plenty of pages out there for lower tier events that even the most devoted MMA fan wouldn't recognize as notable, but instead of trying to delete/merge THOSE, the editors on the opposite side are going after the most notable MMA organizations out there.

Whether pages should be deleted or not, why AfD nominate every recent and soon-to-be UFC article, but yet, don't even bother with pages for DREAM, Titan FC, or Cage Rage? If it were just a matter of "enforcing policy", then the AfD nominations would be targeted towards articles that truly aren't notable...not the pages people actually use and care about. Instead, this is clearly being done with ill intent. AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it's become very obvious that there is an axe to grind here which is made obvious by the constant threats of deletion and the specific targeting of these articles as opposed to certain WWE and boxing articles. With that being said, can we really say that good faith is being exercised by the aforementioned threat issuers?BearMan998 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be because there's a history with the UFC articles, therefore they're more closely watched, and what is done with other things, the "what about X?" argument, is irrelevant. But let's not let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, shall we? Let's instead use megabytes of text to sling mud everywhere about the anti-UFC cabal instead of improving the articles and their sourcing so that there is no question of their notability and relevance.

With the sarcasm hat off: the best way to refute arguments that something isn't notable, is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, or that it's part of an indiscriminate collection of information, is to improve the article with uncontroversially reliable sources that establish the event as unique, notable, and worthy of inclusion. Let the slings of arrows of outrageous fortune slide like water off a duck's back, and improve the article so that neutral users will !vote Keep. If, however, that can't be done, due to a lack of uncontroversially reliable sources to establish uniqueness, notability, and worthiness... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, yes those would be my words that were quoted. And I would like to point out that the mention of lesser divisions not getting AfD's wasn't a "What about X?" argument to keep the UFC articles, but rather a point that the AfD's were not made with such a noble cause as the deletionists try to make it out to be. The AfD nominators aren't interested in removing MMA articles that fail notability, but instead go on a crusade to strike down articles that are well-sourced and cover a notable event.
• Also, recent articles have been getting improved. Yet, it seems the opposition to MMA continues to be relentless, dismissing every possible source as being either primary (referring to the MMA-specialized publications) or a newspaper (pretty much everything else that publishes news). By those standards, 98% of Wikipedia should be deleted, right? Zeekfox (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• The first is WP:PRIMARY. I believe the second argument is not "it's a newspaper" but "it's WP:ROUTINE". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• In answer to Ypsi.peter (yet another MMA SPA) go to any of the MMA forums (such as sherdog.net) and search for "wikipedia" and you find your evidence, along with countless attacks on editors here.
• In answer to AugustWest1980 and BearMan998, your attempts to goad others to nominate articles for deletion (such as WWF events) won't work with me, if you think that they should be deleted, you always have the option of nominating them yourself, however as you are aware pointy AfD nominations by MMA SPA's are normally closed in very short order. Mtking ^(edits) 23:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to goad you into anything so that's a poor presumption on your part. BearMan998 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Try and goad you into nominating AfD? What an ignorant insinuation on your part. Trust me, I would be ecstatic if you never nominated another article for deletion ever again. I see you deftly jumped over the question posed by imagining insidious motives instead of answering.AugustWest1980 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what agenda you think I have or what sinister motives are behind my comments, but I can assure they aren't true. I read wikipedia articles a lot, of all shapes and sizes, but I've never been interested in editing. My questions are honest and simple, and I'm not trying to trick you or troll you or anything like that, I'm just trying to understand how this fits into wikipedia as a whole. As somebody who never edits I've never paid attention to this whole arguing facet of wikipedia. Ypsi.peter (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The AfDs

Since nearly all of these hardly had any discussion on the actual notability of the subject (and since they were well overdue - clearly many admins are steering well clear of the subject, and I can hardly blame them), I have closed all of them (apart from a couple that were clear Keeps) as No Consensus. At least this time they weren't disrupted by SPAs. I would suggest these aren't nominated again until a clear consensus on the applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT as they relate to MMA events is gained, with the input of a wide range of the community. As a side note, since it appears to be a problem related to a vague definition in WP:SPORTSEVENT, I went and looked at boxing, to see if there were articles on single world championship fights. The answer to that was "some of them", however I note that where they exist, they're usually very well sourced, and contain real-world background and coverage from many non-primary sources - see Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye, for example. If all UFC articles were up to this standard, there wouldn't be any argument about their notability. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

AFDing any of the UFC/MMA pages right now (short of CSD-qualified cases) is disruptive to the process; editors who are involved that are still nominating need to stop and/or been on a short block to chill for a while. There's a solution between "having no UFC event pages" and "having every UFC event with a page" that still needs to be figured out off AN/I, but those purposely disrupting the process do need admin action. If there has to be a formal proposal that no UFC/MMA related article should be AFD'd while this process is undergoing, then so be it. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, the discussion has been going on for months, it has been virtually stalled for months, it has let to mulple RfC/Us, SPIs, more blocks than I can count, meatpuppeting on both sides, and I would bet 100x more text in comments than the whole of every MMA article combined. I don't think we can flatly say that any and all MMA AFDs are disruptive without looking at the case individually. New unsourced future event articles are created all the time, for instance. Mass AFDs, yes, I would agree that is less than optimal and likely being done to be disruptive, but would have to look at the circumstances. I support the close of No Consensus in this case, for instance. If the time I spend mediating there has taught me one thing, it is that this will not be solved without a binding resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For every boxing article that is well sourced such as Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye there are UFC articles that are well sourced as well such as UFC 94. Similarly, there are as many boxing articles like Floyd Mayweather vs. Zab Judah or Andre Berto vs. Victor Ortiz which lack the non-primary sources and quality of Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye. I don't think the lack of non-primary sources should lead to automatic deletion as these were indeed championship fights which will leave a lasting legacy to the sport. Similarly, UFC championship fights leave a lasting legacy to the sport which is my main reason for supporting that they retain a standalone article. With that said, articles are always a work in progress and quality is always being built as seen by the improvement in some of the higher numbered UFC articles. Additionally, as previously stated, my stance is that only events with championship fights retain an individual article, the other events are not relevant enough in my opinion. BearMan998 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring by Leo Corbett

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

---

For the past several months, Leo Corbett (talk · contribs) has been edit warring on the various pages relating to Power Rangers Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His primary issue is the addition of a fictional character's surname, despite it not being mentioned at all in the events of the program. As is evident from his talk page, I have been advising him not to add this unverifiable information to articles (as well as to not reintroduce content I deduced as being overly unencyclopedic). He has seen fit to add this content as far back as November (when the show was on broadcast hiatus), in January (when it was still on hiatus), and again this afternoon (despite the inclusion of a hidden message stating it should not be used).

"Leo Corbett" is clearly not getting the point and has not listened to anything I have told him in his 8 month tenure on Wikipedia. He has not done anything except add this content that he's been repeatedly told not to. The only other edits he has made are to add trivial notes concerning broadcast dates in the show's episode list and large swathes of information on a trivial item in the program, along with a mention of a future cast member who has still not shown up in the show. I am tired of having to clean up after him and baby him when he clearly does not plan on listening any time soon as he insists upon this unverified minutae's inclusion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

40-something edits in 8 months hardly looks like edit-warring to me. What administrator action are you looking for? Blocking some kid for adding cruft to the article about their favourite TV show?
If you are dealing with the area of children's TV shows, expect childish editing. You can chose to tidy up after them, or not to tidy after them. You're not going to speed up the maturation of their brain with a WP:AN/I report.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

40-something edits in 8 months where one constantly adds back material that others have advised to be verifiable sounds like a form of edit-warring to me. Just long and drawn out. I appreciate that you were kind to Leo Corbett (talk · contribs) to point out the guide for beginners, but I can understand Ryulong's frustration and if it's not WP:AN/I report, there is nowhere else to air grievances like these. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If it were 40 mixed edits in 8 months it would not be edit warring, but 40 edits repeatedly adding in the same material repeatedly despite getting reverted each time falls under the definition of slow-motion edit warring and is as blockable as rapid fire edit warring. Whether their brain matures is irrelevant, the whole point is to dispense with sustained disruptive activities which this clearly is. Blackmane (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On those grounds, I propose that an official warning be given this user, and that any further disruption of this nature by this user be dealt with by immediate blocks of progressively longer duration, beginning at 24 hours. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Warnings are not just within the purview of admins, any of us can warn users. I've dropped a final disruption and an edit warring warning on their talk page. Maybe that will give them a heads up. (Note: I'm not an admin) Blackmane (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that no sysop or established editor in good standing has commented on this discussion, or has added comments to the user's talk page. I would suggest that this is because they have refrained from participation in the cyberbullying of a child.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Whether or not there has been a crossing of a Bright-line rule here, whether subtle or obvious, I strike my comments. Apologies will follow.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's because admins generally don't make any move on users who have not been previously warned about what they're doing * might have to strike this statement if it turns out that they've been previously warned. You might want to strike your suggestion that no "established editor in good standing has commented", which suggests that you find that those of us who have commented are not in good standing, and that there is "cyberbullying of a child" going on here. Both of those are personal attacks. Blackmane (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Those are indeed personal attacks; Shirt58, consider yourself warned. As for the OP issue, it's outside my area of exerptise, alas, hence my lack of comments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I'm not particularly insulted, because I can AGF it. But I'm surprised I'm not considered "an established editor in good standing." Well...the reason I can AGF it is that "established" is so loose a term that I can see how I'm not considered "established," but I'm pretty sure I'm "in good standing," since I've never been blocked and I believe the only warning I've ever had was "remember to sign, please." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to do an NAC on this one. Leo Corbett hasn't edited in a couple of days so nothing can be done until they come back. Blackmane (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Stumink, 88.104.219.74; spam of the rejected source necrometrics

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

---

User:Stumink and User:88.104.219.74 appear to be the same user cf: diff diff and note edit summary. I have only templated 88.104.219.74's page with the advertising spam note. Necrometrics is a source thoroughly rejected by WP:RS/N. Sturmink / 88.104.219.74's contributions seem to comprise solely of excess mortality edits; and they are unable to hear clear community opinion regarding an unreliable self-published source. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

At 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 88.104 and Stumink have been edit warring in a way which avoids the appearance of 3RR. I would propose that an administrator has a chat with them about their editing habits. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

necromatics is a reliable source. there is nothing wrong with using it. give it a rest. necromatics is not a soapbox or means of promotion, what are you on about. Also stop edit warring my reliable sources with reasons which make no sense. how is this website propaganda, scare mongering, Self-promotion or Advertising. Also regarding your accusations of me edit warring on Yugoslav page, i am the one trying to stop someone edit warring and my dispute with this edit warring was backed by numerous editors and no one backed them, so wrong again. please stop going around deleting my reliable sources and falsely accusing me of edit warring. stop edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are spamming links to unreliable external websites. Necromatics has been firmly rejected as self-published by a non-expert. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

He has re-added the source after getting a final warning in his talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this edit also includes the destruction of higher quality references than the raw html links previously provided by Stumink/88.104 Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• From taking a brief look, it seems clear to me that Stumink is adding information from an unreliable source. Necrometrics.com is not reliable - it is self published by one guy and wouldn't be reliable even if he were an expert (as the site has no editorial team). It has been rejected on at least two occasions at WP:RSN.

Stumink - my advice would be just to drop this; I really don't think the source you're using stacks up. Plus, the diff where you obliterate the Lancet source is particularly disturbing. You'll end up blocked if you carry on like this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How is necrometrics unreliable. It is a website which sources reliable figures and that is what i am sourcing. Filefoo continues to edit war my reliable figures by claiming the website is unreliable because the website is spam or promotion. How is the website this. They have given me no good reason not to use this website. They are edit warring. They never gave me a valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. When multiple editors form a consensus against you, you should resort to dispute resolution instead of just reverting them. If you are obviously right, then make that obvious to other editors. When an administrator is deciding whether to block you for edit warring, he won't care whether your version of the article is better. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to revisit the reliability of necrometrics, then taking the issue to WP:RS/N, the reliable sources noticeboard, which (as noted to you above) rejected necrometrics after detailed discussion as it is a self-published source by a non-expert. A consensus formed by WP:RS/N on source quality is usually quite strong. While RS/N is happy to revisit past discussions, given that the last extensive discussion was in February 2012, you would need to present strong and convincing arguments. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's still used in a few articles[1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that when you claimed that the website was unreliable, you said a nonsensical reason every time like advertising and you never linked those previous wiki discussions. Why should i have accepted what you were doing when you reason made no sense and no editors at that point had backed you. Just saying. Regarding the reliability of the website. The continued reason was that the website was unreliable was that it was some self published persons own work, when actually all the information is reliable referenced figures to other experts, not some random made up stuff. When this website is sourced, they are in fact sourcing experts sources like Eckhardt, B&J, Nat. Geographic and newspapers like the guardian. You say this librarian is not an expert but he is a published author and his work is cited in 45 published books and 80 scholarly articles. He might actually be an expert and he is heavily referenced. Wiki always accepts random historians and newspapers, so why is this guy not accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Question and comment Necrometrics has an exhaustive list of sources from which the site owner pulls his figures. Why is no-one looking for those books instead of using his site? As it stands, his site is a tertiary source already and is operating on a similar principle to Wikipedia's, so using Necrometrics as a source makes Wiki a quarternary(?) source. Stumink, the argument is that the site has no editorial oversight, i.e. there's no one checking over whether the author is referencing correctly. That isn't to say he is wrong, only that no one is checking it. Wiki accepts "random historians and newspapers" precisely because those sources have editorial oversight. Someone, somewhere will have checked the facts. Again, there are exceptions to the rule, hence the need for WP:RS to be followed strictly. The best option here is to use Necrometrics not as a source to be linked to but as a source of sources. Blackmane (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually did replace some of the Necromatics sources with the original source as said above, to stop people reverting and removing any casualty info or leaving incorrect figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is the way to go. Like I said before, if there is agreement between yourself and the other editors to pursue this course, that is to use the site as a source of sources rather than as the source itself, there should be no problem. You'll get the casualty info into the article, which makes you happy, and everyone else will see that reliable sources have been used, which makes them happy. Blackmane (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you read our policy on original research, did you read the threads indicated in the RS/N archive? Wikipedia does not accept random librarians trying to make extremely controversial original claims about excess mortality because random librarians are not statistical demographers or society appropriate historians. Each source used must itself be reliable, reliability doesn't "inhere" because a self published website cites reliable sources—wikipedia would be reliable if this were the criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again wiki original research rules only apply to wiki editors. Not that the website did this, but websites independent of wiki don't follow wiki original research rules. Why would they. Any demographer would have to do there own original research. Nothing on the website is original research. It is just sourced figures from a variety of experts or other sources. Wiki is reliable but you just use the source from which the info on wiki was derived from and source that instead. I am just saying there is no big difference between sourcing the website (with all the figures and sources), than with sourcing the original book. This guy is really not a random librarian, he is a published author, who has been sourced and cited by many scholars and published works. Anyway dispute has been resolved. Stumink

As Stumink seems to have agreed that rather than using the website as a source, they're going to hunt down the books and sources Necrometrics uses, I think this can be closed. Blackmane (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Dale Chock at Russian phonology

User:Dale Chock is refusing to acknowledge the agreement in the talk page that he needs to find a reliable source to back up a claim he wishes to make about Russian consonant clusters, a claim that sourcing thus far has directly contradicted. Before doing more exhaustive research, I had tagged the claim to request citation, which Dale continously removed[2][3][4][5]. In addition to edit summaries that show as much, Dale has also repeatedly asserted in the talk page that this claim does not need verification:

• April 28: "We do not need to prove that a particular Russian spelling is unrealistic just AEsos, in an attitude of linguistic chauvinism, finds it hard to believe it is realistic."
• May 2: "...about AEsos's insistence on demanding a citation for the quintuple sequence /kvzglʲ/, i.e., that this is pronounced as spelled. Contrary to what he would have us believe, Russian spelling shows Russian pronunciation, except for as noted in reference works."
• May 4: "About clusters of five, I've already explained that: the spelling is to be taken at face value. It is irrational to call for confirmation, and this has already been exhaustively explained."
• May 11: "At the moment, he also persists in the approach of manipulativeness and aggression, bringing us chapter two of a petulant fiction that I really accept the validity of the demand for a citation."

I should note that some of these quotes illustrate Dale's mischaracterization of my request as being one regarding a specific consonant cluster. As I have said repeatedly, the issue is whether clusters with more than four consonants are permissible in the syllable onset. Despite a lengthy justification where I showed the problems with Dale's claims, he has chosen to disregard both my points and the responses by two other editors that show agreement on his need to find sourcing. This includes a recent restoration of the claim in question[6].

And, as I have shown in the past at Wikiquette assistance, ANI, and AN3, this all comes amid talk page hostility where he accuses other editors of incompetence and bias. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 04:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the third complaint in a month by this same complainant against me about the same article, and although this one seems to raise a new point, all three otherwise make the same allegations. In this his latest complaint, the opening words are a lie, as I will explain. Please bear in mind that virtually nobody else besides him and me is interested in this article and our editorial disputes (I regret that nobody else is interested in the article).

I call attention to a fresh act of his bullying of me which immediately preceded the lodging of this complaint. Please note that there is a behavior pattern from this complainant, where a complaint to Administrators' Noticeboard against me is preceded by some act with a cunning, mischievous design. The most notable example is when he deleted comments I made on an article talk page and moved them to his own talk page, stating that that was a more appropriate forum for my remarks. (This outrage was documented in my response to Aesos's previous complaints to AN/I.) This time around, earlier this week, while he was awaiting a reply from me at Talk:Russian phonology, shortly before I posted it, this complainant took to taunting me with this message. He is referring to an article he had never edited and in fact has no interest in; he tracked my recent edits to stalk me. Notice the message's sarcastically exaggerated camaraderie and bonhomie -- remember, this is from someone who had just complained about me twice to AN. Evidently, there is an emotional escalation within him which gets reflected in a progression from a display of personal harassment to a lodging of a complaint with AN.

Regarding the single dispute issue he is now complaining to you about: two other editors took his side against me, and two days ago I discussed that on the article's talk page.("Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion", 23:29 4 Jun 2012) Therefore, Aesos is telling a lie in stating that Dale is "refusing to acknowledge". The reference to "agreement" is phony because all the "agreement" consists of is that a grand total of two other people have responded to his most recent discussion at Talk:Russian phonology, and they agreed with him. Just two days ago, before the complainant lodged this complaint, I made a comprehensive response to the his discussion topic.("Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion", 23:29 4 Jun 2012) Please note the complainant preferred not to discuss points of contention with me until twice failing to get me disciplined. Even then, he chose just one contentious issue out of many, and addressed it in repetitive fashion.

I fault this third complaint for selfishness (the complainant can't stand that I disagree with him, but conversely he disagrees with me); repetitiveness; and distortions. He uses rhetoric that insinuates that certain true things are false, while on other points he exaggerates. He proposes a "majority vote" criterion which doesn't exist (or at least it shouldn't exist).

One of the two persons to respond to Aesos's discussion point and take his side, Cnilep, did so with reservations, and more importantly, Cnilep did not address my arguments and did not even argue his opinion, he just stated his disagreement with my opinion. Even if he had addressed my arguments, I am not obligated to desist from my editorial stances just because nobody agrees with me -- especially in a situation where participation by third parties is feeble. The other person to take his side, the administrator User:Kwamikagami, is very biased against me. Notice that Aesos uses rhetoric insinuating that my charge of bias on Kwami's part is a fiction. It is a fact I have alluded to in responses to Aesos's previous complaints to AN as well as on Talk:Russian phonology.

Aesos also alludes to my objection that he is incompetent as if it weren't true. I have proven ad nauseam how ill informed and uncomprehending he is at Talk:Russian phonology, Talk:Diasystem, and Talk:Diaphone. (To mention just a few examples: for Russian phonology, during five years he confused a source's claim about word roots as being a claim about words; he uses multiple spellings for the names of his own sources; he has twice inserted Russian language examples while misstating their grammatical case or mistranslating them, gaffes which drew swift corrections by native speakers; and once when he addressed the history of linguistics, he characterized a diehard opponent of generative grammar, Trager, as an "early generativist", which is like confusing Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. Just two weeks ago in Russian phonology, he mistranslated a phrase meaning '(away) from friends, from among friends, on account of friends', as '(together) with friends' (a confusion of genitive plural with instrumental plural).[7] He's been participating in this article for five years!)

One last, tedious point, in response to "I should note that some of these quotes illustrate Dale's mischaracterization of my request as being one regarding a specific consonant cluster. As I have said repeatedly, the issue is whether clusters with more than four consonants are permissible in the syllable onset." He has obsesssively complained that I mischaracterize this particular request -- which is mischaracterization on his part. He has given two stories of how I mischaracterize it. The first time, I responded on the talk page, rejecting his story. This time, my lengthy contribution to the Talk page at 23:29 4 Jun (linked above) was devoted to that objection. Aesos gets a kick out of refusing to acknowledge that I acknowledge the true content of the objection. Dale Chock (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment

This case is simple: since our sources say Russian onsets may have up to 4 consonants, if Dale believes it to be 5, he needs a source to support that. Meanwhile, he has issues with civility and assuming good faith. — kwami (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Or, as seems to be the case, if Dale believes that there are exceptions to this 4-consonant limitation, he needs to find sources to support such a claim. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am responding here only because Dale Chock has referred to me in his response above. Anyone who is interested may view my comments on the article talk page. I am not quite certain what Dale Chock means when he suggests, "Cnilep did not address my arguments and did not even argue his opinion, he just stated his disagreement with my opinion." My comments there were not an argument for or against any individual; I merely stated my understanding of relevant Wikipedia policy and best practice. Cnilep (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocking IPv6s

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

---

IPv6 addresses are coming, vandalising (2001:4BA0:FFF9:178:0:0:0:2 (talk · contribs), 2602:306:252E:B239:C5B8:9799:59BC:2FC3 (talk · contribs)), and some even appear as open proxies (2607:F358:1:FED5:22:61B0:6B0A:BFC8 (talk · contribs), 2001:41D0:2:F3B8:0:0:0:15 (talk · contribs)). I've indeffed a couple in rush and believe we must add guidelines to WP:IPB and WP:PROXY. Jasper Deng started a related thread on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses#IPv6 and has a draft in User:Jasper Deng/IPv6. Admins need a simple message on how to block them. Materialscientist (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't we block them just like we block normal ones? I don't remember having any difficulty in blocking at that little IPv6 test wiki that they put up a couple of days ago. Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would you indef anyone, let alone an IP address, for a single edit inserting youtube links into an article? Please reconsider your action. In the absence of any specific instructions, they should be blocked no differently than IPv4 addresses. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Block in context (4chan-like mass attack, and that wasn't just a youtube link, as I recall). Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

YouTube x 3, actually, but we still don't indef IPs for that. IPv6 is new to most of us, and the block was reduced, so no harm done. Unfortunately, the learning curve on this is probably going to be steep. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I suspect that IPv6 addresses are less likely to be very dynamic in the near future (since the much larger address space means there's less pressure to allocate addresses on very short leases, at least until global population triples and all our toasters and hearing-aids become IPv6 capable) - in which case we might be less concerned about a long block affecting people other than the original editor. bobrayner (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am curious to know how dynamic they are now, and whether (some of) the supporting servers are open proxy like. About 1/3 of IPv6 addresses I've met today looked like coming through some proxy servers. Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

At the moment isps who are offering it are giving a 1-6month lease, but i believe there looking at static ips because there is more than enough ips to give ever device in the world today a static ip but it will be dyanmic assigned by the dhcp server so most user will think it will expire but it doesntAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Copied from WT:OP: No, IPv6 misconfiguration wouldn't cause that kind of URL encoding; that's pretty good evidence of a Web proxy, as is the changing of http to https (to avoid certain firewalls and Web filters). I have blocked 2607:F358:1:FED5::/64 and 2001:41D0:2:F3B8::/64 as Web hosting providers (FranTech Solutions and OVH, respectively). The former is actually a /48 range and the latter a /40, but MediaWiki won't allow us to block ranges that big. I can understand why (the OVH range covers some 79 octillion potential hosts, if my math is correct, and it's probably not), but that might need to be changed in the future, because ranges that big are being assigned. — madman 13:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That being said, even in context I'd have to concur that no indefinite blocks were warranted. — madman 13:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

ther enot really being assigned a huge block but a subnet of it, its like saying ip /16 means they have been assigned all teh ips in that range it doesnt neccessarily mean that but giving a /40 ip6 range does seem huge and strangeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. OVH was indeed assigned a /40 block and they're free to use every address in that block. RIPE database — madman 14:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That page also suggest they could have /32 block as well, but the /40 block wont be all possible ips in that ranges is wha ti mean if you where a assigned a ip4 100.0.0.0/8 it doesnt mean oyu have all the ips up to 100.255.255.255 it depends on excat allocations whihc ripe doesnt always tell you but would mean they have a lot of ips as with your ipv6 example they will have a hell a lot of ips but not neccessary all of htem, does that make sense? if not i dnt think i can explain it better since my english is poor, but i dnt think it will matter to much as that sort of block shouldnt be nessary and ad min can block idvidunal ipv6 address i thinkAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that doesn't accord with anything I learned as a network administrator. The network I administered was assigned address blocks by two different ISPs and we were free to use every address within those blocks save for one or two addresses which were used by the routers the ISPs gave us. Address blocks may be subdivided, but they may not overlap.

To use your example, the address block 100.0.0.0/8 may be assigned to an ISP (or some other local Internet registry). The ISP may subdivide that block for particular customers (registering the subdivided blocks with the appropriate RIR or not, as they wish), but they do have use of all the addresses in that block; they're all routed to the ISP. If they've given a customer a particular address they can't use it for their own purposes, of course, but they're free to reclaim it; they're the ones doing the routing within their block. But I don't want to argue that any more.

As for my range block, it's the same kind of block we apply to IPv4 ranges per the policy of open proxies. It's preventative given that there has been evidence of open proxies within that range, more open proxies may appear at any time (they're easy to set up on any hosted server), and there's little collateral as no contributors are expected to edit from that range. If a contributor does need to edit from that range for some reason, he can request an IP block exemption from a Checkuser. — madman 14:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the issues of course is things are still in a major state of flux with lots of transition mechanisns e.g. 6to4, Teredo, tunnel brokers; each with their own assignment policies. Then again, perhaps things will be worse when direct IPv6 becomes common as each ISP has their own assignment policy. BTW, tunnel brokers are an interesting issue, I wonder if they may be more receptive to our community abuse response team then many ISPs. Definitely I know SixXs who I've used before is sometimes said to be fairly strict. 2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41 (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

When the next MediaWiki deployment is done, the rangeblock limit will be raised to /32. Currently you can only do /64.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, rangeblocking a /64 is less effective than blocking a single IPv4 address: it's expected that ISPs will hand out /56s to individual users. --Carnildo (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not 100% correct; users only get /56s if they need address space or otherwise request it. Most if not all users should only get /64s. In some ways, being less effective is a good thing: a whole office building does not need to get blocked for one employee's mishaps, and rangeblocking will always be an option. In other words, a primary reason for IPv6 deployment is to avoid collateral damage from when one IPv4 represents an increasing number of different users.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editor refusing to discuss edits

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

---

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

Over a week ago I became aware of an IP editor making contentious changes to season articles for The Next Food Network Star, Next Great Baker, etc. Despite numerous attempts to engage the editor in discussion via his talk page, he refuses to discuss his edits and instead simply restores them to the articles if his changes are reverted. Because he continued to edit disruptively and refused to discuss, a report was filed at WP:AIV, but this was rejected with a suggestion to file a report here.[8] Rather than do this immediately, a last ditch attempt was made to force the IP to the discussion table, by asking for The Next Food Network Star (season 6) and Food Network Star (season 8) (two pages where the IP was very active) to be semi-protected.[9] However, instead of discussing his edits to these pages, the IP has simply moved on to other pages. Another editor contacted the admin who protected the pages and he was warned the IP.[10] As expected though, the IP has completely ignored the warning and continues to edit disruptively. A resent example is this, where he has removed contestant information, changed colour schemes and removed references, amongst other things. I reverted these changes today, but the IP simply reverted both edits that I made,[11] one of which was fixing the infobox title and not related at all to his edits.[12] This is typical of the IP's editing style. An earlier edit, at Next Great Baker (season 2), removed "plainrowheaders" from the table (plainrowheaders is required by WP:DTT), formatting, added inappropriate capitalisation and, like many of his edits, changed colour schemes.[13] I corrected the inappropriate changes,[14] but tody realised thaey've been restored to the article.[15] Since the latest warning, the IP has moved onto List of Chopped episodes, where his edits are being disputed. It's not possible to resolve any issues with this editor if he refuses to discuss matters. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm the second editor AussieLegend refers to. This is the greyest case of disruptive editing, and oddest, editor I've ever encountered. I've run across this editor occasionally in the past, and found a few questionable edits, but no worries. Recently, he/she popped up and began serial editing several of the elimination shows, notably The Next Food Network Star/Food Network Star's main article and various seasonal articles and Chopped (TV series) along with another program I don't watch. This editor does make some good edits, but among them are too many questionable ones: color changes for cosmetic reasons, removal of sourced and/or relevant content in what appears to be an attempt to make the various seasonal articles uniform (I think...), erroneous names of food items and misspellings of the names of food items. The problem arose when he/she ignored a variety of warnings, refused to discuss and limited his/her responses to an occasional contentious hidden note -- all the while reverting, and reverting, and reverting... ad nauseum. Nothing anyone did budged the editor: this is his/her private playpen and the articles will be as he/she wishes, come hell or high water, even in the face of two articles being page protected and a warning on his/her talk page from an admin. The page protection did have one effect; the IP requested the right to edit the protected articles on their talk pages, demonstrating he/she is able to understand Wikipedia procedures when it suits him/her to do so and to communicate in English. But playing by the rules? Not on the horizon. Most troubling, though, is the sheer number of edits he/she makes, particularly small, fiddly, sometimes pointless edits. As I commented earlier, it's as though he/she is editing the article to the point of destruction. Somewhere, in all these changes, there must be 3RR violations in addition to the IP's failure to discuss, failure to work toward consensus, presumptive ownership of articles (an accusation I find easy to fling around, but which might actually fit this editor) and general disruptive editing. --Drmargi (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yet another example of the IPcontinuing to revert without explanation.[16]
• Examples ability to communicate in English that were mentioned by Drmargi.[17][18] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)]

I just added a detailed summation of some of the issues with Chopped (TV series) and a final warning. The complete refusal to respond to all the warnings is stunning. I think were we to check carefully, we'd find 3RR violations by now. --Drmargi (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any questions? --AussieLegend (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not enough drama for the denizens herein, I guess. Got a deck of cards, Aussie? --Drmargi (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should have called the thread "User:AussieLegend - potential suicide". That seemed to get a quick response below. Apparently somebody quoting song lyrics is more of an issue than an unresponsive, disruptive editor who keeps bulldozing his edits into articles with no regard for any other editor. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 48 hours. GedUK  11:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully we might finally be able to get this IP to talk, although I must admit to not having high hopes. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness. I'm not sure it's going to have much effect either, although I did see some signs of sentient life via hidden notes recently. But at least, we got some back-up at last. --Drmargi (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Ban for editor who refuses to sign any Talk page posts

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

---

I just noticed a dispute at 'Wikiquette assistance' where an editor (Midcent) is complaining of being harassed by another editor because Midcent won't sign any of his Talk page posts. I found the entire Wikiquette thread difficult to follow because each time Midcent weighs in, he doesn't sign his posts there either.

While I recognize that it is not a strict policy to sign each and every post, this behavior by Midcent is disruptive and makes regular discussion much more difficult. I will occasionally forget to sign a post, and I occasionally go and sign a post another editor when they forget. The problem I see here is an editor who simply refuses to abide by a simple community standard and is causing problems as a result.

As such, I recommend that a topic ban be implemented on Midcent on all topics where he does not wish to sign his posts, until such time as he demonstrates a desire to behave more in line with community standards on this. While Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is only a behavioral guideline, and within that signing of posts is described as a "Good practice", Midcent is taking this to an extreme. I found his complaint on Wikiquette exceedingly difficult to follow and wasn't entirely sure who was the complaintant until I checked the History. This kind of confusing behavior is unnecessary and stubborn and I feel that a topic ban in the manner described above is probably a fairly light remedy and while I expect that it will probably lead to a block later, it seems to be a reasonable first step. -- Avanu (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The user has been here since June 2, 2012 and you two have him at ANI screaming for a ban because he doesn't sign talk page posts correctly?!?!? A trout isn't big enough, I hope the boomerang is. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't because he doesn't sign correctly, it is because he insists on NOT signing, even after being told by a lot of people that this is as confusing as heck and he just feels like he's going to do whatever instead of taking a moment to look at why people are confused by his actions. Not signing is understandable if you're new. Continuing to behave in problematic ways after you've been asked to shape up is not. -- Avanu (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose - Signing talk pages is good practice, but ultimately not required. The editor has been here 5 days, and you're asking for a ban because of something that is a strong suggestion, at best? I think you're going about this the wrong way. - SudoGhost 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just look what he's doing. It's just pure and deliberate disruption for no reason. Why do we want him? DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a BAN is a bitey request for obstinate behavior. He can choose to sign posts and participate anywhere he likes. If he wants to not sign, he can stay on his own Talk page and talk to himself, rather than confusing the heck out of the rest of Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it absolutely is bitey, and has no basis in any guideline or policy. Signatures are not required, there is no rule saying so, only "good practice". Want to enforce signatures? Make it a rule, but don't have something be a suggestion, then scream bloody murder when they don't follow what is supposed to be, at best, suggestion. - SudoGhost 19:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

based on responses here the community doesn't share your view.... and in fact he's now blocked. DeCausa (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sudo, if you have a good alternative suggestion, I would love to hear it. I suggested a ban, because it doesn't prevent the editor from editing. FuturePerfect has implemented a block, which does prevent the editor from editing. I felt that a ban was a reasonable and decent balance, given the situation, but there may be some approach I didn't consider, and I am open to hearing your suggestion. -- Avanu (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Then the community needs to change how WP:SIGN is worded, because there is an issue here, a discrepancy between what is written and how it is being handled. I'm not saying the person not signing was correct, not by any means, but how this was handled wasn't correct either. - SudoGhost 19:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect, you've missed the point. This isn't about WP:SIGN. It's about deliberate disruption for the sake of it. This isn't a newbie. DeCausa (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge thread with above: Could an admin take a look at this user. He apparently refuses to sign his posts. Sounds trivial, but I just noticed this at WQA where he brought an issue. The WQA thread is impossible to follow because he won't sign his posts and God knows what it's like on a talk page he posts at. No reason given why he won't do it - just looks like disruptive behaviour for the sake of it. DeCausa (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not required. I'm not going to sign this post. Please let me know if you do not know who this is.

Then again... Carrite (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• The above unsigned statement is clearly a desire to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I said as much over at WQA, but the actual blunt wording here is pretty obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ban- Other than obstinance, there is no valid reason for a good faith editor to refuse to sign their posts. Ergo, we are not dealing with an AGF editor. We are dealing with one that has already wasted plenty of time and energy and refuses to budge. I've had my say @ WP:Assistance and I am moving on to better use of my time. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"we are not dealing with an AGF editor"? That's not what AGF means. Your comment suggest a lack of AGF on your part. - SudoGhost 19:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It does. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Midcent, you're kind of proving the point for us there. You obviously recognize that there is a potential for confusion, since you say for us to 'let you know if we don't know who it is', which seems like a logical impossibility since if I don't know who you are, do I just post a question saying.. hey, whoever that guy is that I don't know, could you tell me who you are? If we all behaved like that, we would spend all day trying to sort out these conversations. It isn't difficult to sign a post, and I would think you would have realized that by now, and this is kind of just silly. -- Avanu (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Recommend short term block to give the user a chance. Past that, just indef; we generally don't community ban such new accounts. --Rschen7754 19:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've told him I'll block him indef if he doesn't start behaving cooperatively. This is not a newbie who hasn't yet understood how the software works, or who simply forgets to sign. He does it deliberately in order to annoy. This project is made for people who cooperate. If a user deliberately refused to cooperate, this isn't the right place for him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Let me be frank: I don't care about whether or not you sign your posts. It is a minor annoyance, and I can check the histories to confirm if I need to. It is rude, but it is allowed. What I do care about is that you are flaunting the fact that Wikipedia doesn't require this, and are literally taunting people with this fact. That is disruptive and clearly against WP:POINT. Myself and others have been known to block someone for doing this, in a skippy minute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, since he continued. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)I'm not happy with a ban for something small. However the problem with talk pages is that a comment could be attributed to another editor who is responding to the same preceding comment. That is simply not acceptable. Add to that the difficulty of following a discussion with a number of comments that are not signed and you have a mess that becomes difficult to follow. If as it it appears above, this is being done to flaunt a loophole in the rules and to annoy, then using a hammer to get the editors attention may be completely justified. So yes, if a short term block does that, then go for it. This may also suggest that we need to review how open ended the requirement to not sign talk page comments should be. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed sounds pretty clear to me. I'm surprised to see people telling Midcent that he's not required to sign in discussions, because our sig guideline clearly states that he is. A topic ban, as originally suggested, seems to me to be missing the point, which is that this is disruptive behavior, especially somewhere like WQA or ANi, where it can be difficult to track down an unsigned post in the page history. I would normally say that a block would be overkill - Midcent is far from the first newbie to have signature woes - but in this case it's obvious that Midcent is aware of the guideline and choosing to flout it to make a WP:POINT. So, good block by Future Perfect, and I would recommend that the block stand until Midcent agrees to behave non-disruptively and according to our policies/guidelines. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I missed that! FWIW I made a small update to that page at Wikipedia:Signatures#Dealing_with_signatures.27_behaviour_issues to reflect community norms, but what you note, Fluffernutter, may make it redundant. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter, the Talk Page Guidelines don't make it a requirement, they just say it is a Good Practice. (and also, guidelines are less strict than policy, which is why we've been saying it is technically optional) -- Avanu (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, while I understand what you're trying to point out, guidelines are really not optional in the way you mean. "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" is the applicable description, and as it indicates, users are expected to follow guidelines except in exceptional circumstances, like where following the guideline would go against common sense. Users generally are not permitted to blithely break guidelines just because they feel like it. In this case, there's no common-sense reason or exceptional circumstances; there's just an editor who doesn't think he should have to do what he's told he has to do, and he's being purposely disruptive in his flouting of the guideline. It really doesn't do him any favors to tell him he doesn't have to do something that community consensus says that everyone has to do unless they have a very good reason not to. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I feel dumb for having missed that. Perhaps the lede of that page should be reworded to make that more clear? It is easy to miss as a single brief mention tucked into a subsection of the page. - SudoGhost 22:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)xBIGINT Good block. As evidence of the disruption being caused, even in this very discussion specifically about an editor and his edits (including to this very discussion), there isn't even a link for that editor to help me see what's going on. Remedying...

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

If he can decide to help build the encyclopedia that's great, but I'm not seeing much evidence of that having happened rather than lots of drama for its own sake. DMacks (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm really scared that several admins seemed to have suggested that signing discussions is not required when that is factually in err.    Thorncrag  20:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I see that it is required. Always had been told it wasn't. It doesn't come up often enough to need to check, and the disruption was high enough that the signature itself was no longer the issue, the POINTyness was. But I do stand corrected as to my previous belief that it wasn't required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good block IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And hard time for not paying your parking ticket! Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Complaiant cant preudice the discussion with calls for ban and limits. Thats false as it is. Warning/short term ban (at MOST) if decided by the consensus jury for this...BBOMERANG would be extreme too though, ut closeLihaas (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Er, what was that?? DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse Lihaas ... earlier today he suggested that we could not deal with the entire behaviour of someone at ANI, only a sandbox issue. His foot might be in his mouth now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Righteous. The policy (before ErrantX's clarification) stated Signature use that is intentionally and persistently disruptive may lead to blocking under the disruptive editing policy. Emphasis mine. Policies are not legal statutes requiring every infraction be explicitly listed. Nobody Ent 20:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just an fyi for everyone. The user has been editing from at least two IP's, refusing to sign after being advised to so, long before June 2. \

96.40.134.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

159.53.174.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In fact he's still editing using the latter. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What a waste. Join the community; sign your posts. Even as he tries to "close" the situation, they still don't sign. Apparently not a great loss at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The postings by him are still readable because he is the only one who isn't signing his posts. So, by not signing, he effectively is signing his posts. Count Iblis (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Count, I was thinking about removing your sig but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good block. Signing posts isn't an option, it's a rule as noted earlier. I recall a couple of years ago [actually 3 years ago this week] there was a user called "Docu" or something like that, who refused to sign until he was threatened with banishment. Oddly enough, he was an admin. But at that point in time, the "you must sign" rule was made abundantly clear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as a follow up question, is it even worthwhile letting Midcent keep their talk page access? At this point, they've moved from "I'm not signing because there is no policy that says I must" (which has obviously been soundly disproven) to "I'm not request an unblock until Fut. Perf comes back and sorts things out", which is just plain childish. Blackmane (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding the "YesAutosign" template to his page. If he deletes that and continues to refuse to sign, it will be clear that he's just jerking everyone around, and removing talk page access would be reasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, shucky-darn, they've locked the talk page. So much for that experiment. FYI, I have the "YesAutosign" template active for myself, to cover those rare occasions when I forget to sign. I don't know why it isn't simply automatic for every user, but whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

SK Foods

After several attempts to have the article SK Foods deleted as an attack page, with allegations that it was all a media fraud, this article was turned into a lengthy POV whitewash of the company, and making all sorts of unsourced BLP allegations and accusations against named publications and named individuals. For example, "Mr. Salyer was a victim of prisoner abuse nearly losing his life to health failure, at the hand of convicted prisoner abuser, [name redacted]" (this had a source, but the source says nothing about abuse of Mr. Salyer).

I've reverted it all back to the stub it used to be, but a look at the pre-revert version shows masses of this - read it and cringe. User:StoneforGoliath is the author of all this, and presumably is responsible for the IP edits too. I've also put a temporary full protection on the article until what to do about it has been decided.

Why am I bringing it here? It's late and I'm tired, and I can't face a closer examination of the article right now, but something needs to be done - maybe block the editor (who has had one IP blocked, assuming it's the same person - all IP addresses are coming from the same region of France)? Or maybe extend the protection? But some admin action is needed - and sorry to dump it on others here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In the edit history there are three different editors attempting to correct the issues with the SK Foods page, however Boing! said Zebedee is protecting the stub from improvement. That editor is clearly trying to protect the people behind the issues and is not really a Wiki editor. There are literally a hundred thousand people in witness now in the SK Foods issues and they want the issue handled properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneforGoliath (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for "issues" to be "handled properly". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK seems to apply here too. If the guy suffered in prison, that's unfortunate, but it's really got nothing to do with the food store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Textbook WP:COATRACK. If the "incident" is notable, then it should be titled as such, but right now, the article is everything Wikipedia is supposed to not be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the most notable thing about that store was the legal case, then that could be the focus of the article, as it seems to be at the moment. The question might be, is the store really notable at all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Conpsiracy theories are not relevant here Blackmane (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[BLP violations redacted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneforGoliath (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I've been over the pre-revert version of the article a bit more closely now, and it was packed with unsupported criminal allegations against a number of named individuals and named companies, and original analysis based on a huge conspiracy theory - there were sources cited, but they did not support the claims being made. It was an egregious violation of WP:BLP policy, which I think should not be allowed to stand in the article history - so I have rev-deleted all of the offending versions. I also think the hatted allegation just above constitutes a serious BLP violation and it should be rev-deleted too, and if nobody disagrees I will do that shortly. Regarding User:StoneforGoliath, I think what is needed is a warning not to break BLP policy again, followed by an indef block if the same kind of editing is repeated. Notability? Well, SK Foods was more than a store - it was a major supplier to the tomato produce market. But if there are doubts, maybe the best thing to do is take it to AfD and let the community decide. I'll leave it a little while to see if anyone disagrees with my take on this, and if not, I'll go ahead with these proposals. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Said hatted allegation makes me wonder if WP:COMPETENCE might be in play too... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No argument on revdel. I'm debating sending the article to AFD, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for nominating it - it was better coming from someone other than me, I think, and I shall keep myself uninvolved from the AfD discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• OK, I've left an explanation/warning at User_talk:StoneforGoliath#SK_Foods_2, and I've unprotected the article. I should be able to handle it now - thanks for the help, folks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • And they've started adding masses of blame-avoidance puffery and "this company was wonderful" stuff again, so I've reverted again and given a final warning - I will block next time. (Just noting this here because we appear to have someone very persistent and I want to be as open about my actions as possible) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Just poking around a bit... but is this also part of the issue? - J Greb (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps. Looks like he has a whole nest of UNDUE there. Not sure if MfD is appropriate, but it might be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Same unsupported criminal allegations against named individuals and organizations, which is a blatant BLP violation - I've deleted it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Y26Z3 and Legal threat

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

---

Y26Z3 (talk · contribs) has been trying everything under the sun to get their preferred version on the Lusitanic article. The discussion and intent aren't the issue, but the way the editor is going about it is becoming increasingly concerning: after coming off of an edit warring block, there was suspected sockpuppetry, leading to the article being full-protected, and now personal attacks, (I don't know how else to interpret "you are insignificant" and "use your brain cells") and now the user is making what appears to be legal threats. WP:LEGAL directed me to take this here, so here it is. - SudoGhost 04:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I dont think WP:DOLT applies here; so blocked.--v/r - TP 04:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

McSly Harassment

Hi. Few weeks ago, I worked with McSly concerning the article École nationale de l'aviation civile. We worked fine together and the job end by this nice message on my talk page : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.13.85.217&redirect=no#.C3.89cole_nationale_de_l.27aviation_civile : "Thanks for implementing the changes. I closed the discussion on WP:DRN.--McSly (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)". Everything was fine. Yesterday evening, this contributor, who was looking carefully on my contributions, proposed two articles (Fabrice Bardeche and Marc Drillech) for deletion only one hour after it has been accepter by KTC. Moreover, he proposed two more articles for deletion I have created : Marc Houalla and Gérard Rozenknop. Seeing that the other contributors voted to "keep" these articles, he started to do harassment and personal attack on two contributors who accepted my articles and with who I have friendly good relationship: Excirial ‎ (he put on my talk page a very nice message) and KTC, by writing "a word of caution" on their talk page with a lot of wrong information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KTC#Word_of_caution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F. This is completely harassment and personal attack. All the other contributors are friendly and (I hope) happy of what I do to improve Wikipedia. Please do something to stop him doing these things. All the articles I propose are reviewed by another contributor with much more experience than me. I love doing things for Wikipedia, but with no harrasment. Thanks a lot in advance. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Was anything that I said to KTC or Excirial inaccurate in any way? --McSly (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is some advice needed here for both sides. First to the IP who originally posted the complaint: I don't think what McSly has done amounts to personal attacks or harrassment. It's reasonable to follow up a blocked contributor from one Wikipedia who starts to make very similar edits to the same topic on another language. McSly might even be mistaken that you are blocked on fr-WP but it's still reasonable for them to investigate the curious coincidences. Can you confirm, 80.13.85.217, whether you have edited similar articles on fr-WP? Have you been blocked from there? If McSly is mistaken, then it would be better if you calmly and politely pointed this out rather than bringing it to ANI.

Secondly to McSly; while I understand your motives for questioning this IP, even if this is someone who is blocked elsewhere we really need to look at their edits here and judge them on their merits. I agree that the two articles on Fabrice Bardeche and Marc Drillech are borderline but even they have their defenders at AfD, so these are not clear bad faith article creations. The articles on Marc Houalla and Gérard Rozenknop moreover are very obvious Keep candidates, and both are likely to be snowed very soon. You really shouldn't assume that just because you have doubts about the editor who drafted them, the articles themselves are deletable.

To sum up, I don't think there's anything here at the needing administrator action. 80.13.85.217, I suggest you should be as honest and open as possible about accounts elsewhere and your history on fr-WP, to avoid all doubt. McSly, your vigilance is admirable but don't let it get in the way of making objective judgements about the actual quality of the articles you send to AfD. A more collegial and less confrontational approach from both of you should be possible to achieve and would be a good outcome. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kim, thanks for the feedback. About the AFDs, given the edit history of the IPs, the page for Fabrice Bardeche and Marc Drillech look promotional and a way to increase the number of links to the IONIS_Education_Group which he seems to like a lot. For Marc Houalla and Gérard Rozenknop, well both of them were deleted as not notable with quite a big margin on the WP-fr ([19] and [20]) which is why I listed them here. I was also planning to afd the other former directors later but I guess I'll skip that part. Different Wikis, different rules I suppose.

On the rest, yes I just wanted to make other editors aware that the IP(78.239.175.7 (talk · contribs) and 80.13.85.217 (talk · contribs)) have been blocked for among other things embellishing and adding promotional material to private school articles.--McSly (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy paste from my talk page: "I can only talk about my contributions. On French Wikipedia, after couple of day, McSly decided that myself and another contributor are the same person. After investigation, this was wrong, the two geographical locations are not the same : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Vérificateur_d%27adresses_IP/Requêtes/mai_2012#Demande_concernant_78.239.175.7_et_80.13.85.217_-_12_mai. He has done everything he could to put me out of the French Wikipedia and he is doing the same here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KTC#Word_of_caution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F. I don't understand why because I didn't know him before. So I was blocked for 6 months due to the contributions of somebody else. Honnestly, no big dill, because I decided for the rest of my life to don't work on French wikipedia anymore. I really prefer the rules on English Wikipedia, I love English language and I really prefer the way of working here : when you are not sure about an article, you write it and he his reviewed by an experimented contributor who decided to accept it or no. Moreover, when I see how the other contributors are nice here, friendly, try to help you (especially when you don't have a lot of experience), give you advise, I am much more happy." 80.13.85.217 (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, would you care to provide any diff from me showing that I'm trying to "put you out of wikipedia" ? the only edit I have on the admin page over there is from February to notice that you are whining a lot [21]. You are forgetting to mention that when you say that 78.239.175.7 (talk · contribs) and 80.13.85.217 (talk · contribs) are 2 different persons, absolutely no one believes you ([22]) (see WP:DUCK). And lastly, since your block on WP-fr is "no big dill [sic]", would you care to explain why you've been using all those sockpuppets ([23]) to go around it ?--McSly (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

These sockpuppets are not mine and the persons who ask is now blocked for at least 3 months. You can see how honest I am on my talk page or here. Concerning "try to put me out on French Wikipedia", yes of course, you can see : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile#Historique_des_directeurs, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/17_mai_2012#.C3.89cole_nationale_de_l.27aviation_civile or http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:80.13.85.217. And what you are doing here is really against you. Can you explain me the goals of your two messages : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KTC#Word_of_caution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F? Don't you think you go too far, and it is really harassment and unpolite? Can I do the same with the editors who like you? Please also consider the time lost for other editors and myself. It is much more nice to write article instead of fighting like you, no? 80.13.85.217 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are citing general discussions about content where all the other editors agreed with me and disagreed with you and me notifying other editors of your block with the reasons the admins gave, which is factual. Don't see anything at all that does not fall under normal operations. About you denying that 78.239.175.7 (talk · contribs) and 80.13.85.217 (talk · contribs) are the same person or that the other IPs are not your sockpuppets, I suppose that anybody interested could check the edit pattern, read WP:DUCK and reach a conclusion for themselves. So far, it seems that the conclusion has always been pretty clear and obvious. --McSly (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

IP, according to this page on fr-wp this IP address is blocked there for 6 months for adding false information to articles. I asked you above if you'd be open and honest about affairs there - can you please clear up what this is about? Is it you? Why were you blocked? If it's no big deal, why haven't you appealed and had the block overturned? I am prepared to defend your edits here on en-wp on their own merits, but my willingness to do so reduces when we don't get clear, convincing answers to what is going on here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

McSly, you didn't answered my questions. Can you explain me the goals of your two messages : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KTC#Word_of_caution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F ? The other editors are not good enough to decide if an article is accepted or not? The other editors are not good enough to decide if somebody is doing good job or not? Or is it against me? You can also write to Nathan2055 because he just gave me a Barnstar? For Kim Dent-Brown, thanks for taking care of this. The only thing I want is to be able to help Wikipedia without having McSly looking all the time what I am doing. As explained above, concerning the French Wikipedia, they have considered (even the geographical locations are not the same) that I am the same person as somebody else and they blocked me for the contributions of somebody. But finally, the person who ask me to be block, is now herself blocked for 3 months and they are going to decide to block her for much more time. But that's another discussion. What I don't like, is these two messages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KTC#Word_of_caution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F. It is so nice when you can help to improve wikipedia without fighting with somebody else (and for no reason, according to me, these two messages are unacceptable). 80.13.85.217 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you are blocked for among other things inserting false information, since it looks like you are reproducing the same text coming from WP-fr here and since it is likely that the other editors don't speak French and therefore may not be able to check the sources provided thoroughly, I sent them a quick message to make them aware of those facts and to quote myself, "be careful when reviewing his submissions". Which is, considering your past, an extremely mild statement. --McSly (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My past on French Wikipedia is very short. And you know better than me that it is not "for inserting false information" but for contributions of somebody else. I like to be judge of what I do, not what others do. So I can do the same? I can write to other writers to say something against you? Please be serious. What you are doing is not nice at all. Why are you doing this? Because you don't like me? What you do is forbidden by Wikipedia. The other two editors, as you can see, didn't reply to you and didn't care about. And my past here is awarded (see my talk page). Also, please consider that the rules are not the same. Here, an ip cannot create itself an article. You should read this: "This was created through AfC, discounting an argument of self-promotion" --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC). I think a good thing, as Kim explained above, is you forget me. You do your work on Wikipedia, and I do mine. And we both take care of not crossing each other. What do you think? Everything was fine until yesterday, why you suddenly decided to fight me? 80.13.85.217 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

80.13.85.217, arguments such as "I'm being blocked because of what somebody else did" do not ring true and the more you repeat them the more suspicious I become. If your block on fr-wp has no merit, appeal it. Until you do, I'll assume it was justified. Given this odd background I don't think McSly has overstepped the mark in alerting others to your history there; so personally, I find your complaint at the original post to be unwarranted. If you had come here to en-WP and said "Here I am, I'm blocked on fr-WP but I've learned from my mistakes and I want to make a fresh start" then personally I would have had no problem with you. As far as I can see your article edits here have been acceptable and, indeed, I think McSly was wrong on taking at least two of your articles to AfD - but the AfD process will take care of that, and I trust editors there to come to the right conclusion. If you continue to make good article edits you'll have no problem here, but given your lack of frankness over your fr-WP account you must accept that people here will be watching your edits closely. I read French pretty well, and I will be among them. I won't post any further here as I've said my piece; I suggest the two of you follow my lead and let this thread die, unless any other editors want to chip in. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that the article's being created by 80.13.85.217 are the exact same articles that were deemed problematic at fr.wiki - just machinetranslated into English. I don't know why AFC doesn't catch that but in any case submitting articles that you have been made aware are problematic in fr.wiki through AFC in en.wiki does not inspire my confidence in good judgment. I think that we should ask AFC to step up the quality control lest they come to be used as a tool for legitimizing articles of dubious merit. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Submissions are judge solely on the merit of the content according to the AFC reviewer personal understanding of en.wp policies and guidelines. The fact that a similar article might have been deleted in a different language Wikipedia is not a matter of considerations. fr.wp doesn't make en.wp policies and guidelines and vice versa. Who wrote it also doesn't and shouldn't come into it. In terms of the language issue, it's not perfect but as long as it is reasonably understandable, then it is my personal opinion that it should be accepted providing it meets all the other considerations such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. Prose and grammars can alway be improved upon later. It can't be improved upon if the article doesn't exist at all. There's already understandable complaints that AFC ask more from newbies submitter in terms of their articles meeting WP:MOS and other various rules before acceptance than we would from someone who just go ahead and register an account and creating it in mainspace themselves. I can only guess the number of articles in mainspace tagged with various cleanup templates that wouldn't be accepted at AFC and yet at the same time wouldn't be deleted at AfD. AFC isn't WP:FAC or WP:GAC, it's not there to wait until an article is perfect before it can be accepted. It jobs are more akin to WP:NPP to ensure obviously bad entries aren't created. Let's not ask too much of newbies editors, or for that matter volunteer reviewers. If you disagree with a decision, then PROD is that way, and AfD is over there. -- KTC (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The substance of my argument is that it seems that it can be a possible and even useful way for an advocate or COI editor to submit articles via AfC because he would then be able to argue that the article has been "approved" and that he is not responsible for any problems, and that a COI cannot exist if AfC editors haven't noted any promotional content. That would obviously just a way of using AfC to game the system. I did not intend to launch a criticism of AfC's work which I am sure is fine. But the problem is that the process seems to provide a loophole for COI editors and advocates. (note that I am not assuming the IP to be guilty at this point just noticing that the process has a loophole that he could be exploiting if he were a COI or advocate editor)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't deny that there are editors who have a COI utilising AFC. For that matter, I'll concede that there could well be COI editors that attempt to game the system using AFC. However, my question to you is what's your alternative? The standard suggestion to a editor with a COI is to {{Request edit}} an article in question so that another (non-COI) editor can take a look. I don't see how this is any different to what's happening at AFC, except we're talking about creating of a new article on mainspace rather than editing of an existing one. Content that's written by someone with COI doesn't automatically imply a problem. The issue are with potential NPOV violation. If as you state, a (truely) netural 3rd party don't see a problem with the actual content, then it's not an issue even if the original writter have a COI. By that, of course I don't mean if another editor notice a potential problem, then they can't raise it, but just because someone with COI can use AFC isn't a problem. In fact, I'll rather such a person submit an article through AFC for a second pair of eyes than to create an account and create the article straight in mainspace. -- KTC (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, part of the benefit to AfC is to allow for possible issues, including COI, to be resolved (net result being an article that is within guidelines). It is not "gaming the system," rather, it is utilizing the system for one of its intended purposes. That AfC volunteers are held to be so easily manipulated is not something that fills my heart with gladness. In fact, that (to me) is worse than McSly's actions, as I can (barely) consider the possibility of McSly's good faith. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What's going on over at Wiki Project Lebanon?

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

---

There is suddenly some very odd activity over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lebanon!

New editor removing a great deal of page content and talk content - and other odd edits on other pages linked to Lebanon.

Could do with oversight ! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• I reverted everything and left a note to the user. Since all their edits are confined to a very narrow time interval, it is unlikely they ever show up again.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you - I will keep a watch! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Murder of Lin Jun and Luka Magnotta

Could an uninvolved admin please take a poke at a situation here? Put in simple terms, Luka Magnotta is the only suspect in an infamous Canadian murder. He's had some previous minor notoriety (not enough to warrant his own article at that point), but some editors wish to move the article to Murder of Lin Jun. IMO, the requested move could be considered "no consensus" at the absolute best, and more likely rejected. None the less, some editors have chosen to fork the former article to the latter title anyway (via a copy-paste move without attribution) while others have reverted and redirected the Lin Jun article back to Magnotta. Rather than allowing a multi-editor edit war to escalate, I would appreciate if someone could settle the requested move (it has run for about a week now) and place the article at the title they feel has consensus support, perhaps protecting whichever redirect is left behind - or even deciding that both articles are valid. (I will leave notices of this thread at both article talk pages, but won't at any individual user talk pages since I have not commented on any editors by name). Resolute 14:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Luka Magnotta#Re-forking of this article. Resolute 14:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Do note that there is a third option, which is to leave the unduly weighty play-by-play on Luka Magnotta Internet self-promotion right where it is and WP:SPINOUT just the Murder of Lin Jun (which currently is pretty much the latter half of the article) to Murder of Lin Jun. A spinout is not a WP:Content fork and can be legitimately proposed with {{split section}}; I'd already used {{edit semiprotected}} to ask that tag be placed on the section "Murder of Lin Jun" (the one notable event in what was otherwise a non-notable mess that failed AfD twice Luka Magnotta, Luka Rocco Magnotta in 2008) but one user is attempting to prevent the split (spinout the murder itself) from even going to any form of vote. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not so much that they want to move it. The problem is there has been an ongoing RFC regarding the move wherein the majority oppose a move but there's no clear consensus and now instead of moving it, opponents of leaving it at Luka Magnotta are creating a content fork. BLP1E doesn't apply because he's notable for more than just an alleged murder and has appeared in the news media going back nearly 10 years. Additionally, the claims of "weight" are nonsense, just another misuse of guidelines to try and force a preferred version. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

10 years? Really? There was one false rumour in 2007 in which he claimed (using Internet sockpuppets) to be romantically involved with Paul Bernardo's notorious accomplice Karla Homolka only to then run to the Toronto Sun and deny the "affair" (likely not notable, as the event was of his own fabrication). There was some animal abuse noted by the UK Sun tabloid (sibling publication to News of the World) in 2010 and that's about it. The murder is notable, he was Interpol's most wanted international fugitive for a few days, but consensus is (two AfD's) that he was not notable in 2008, period. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The murder is notable for sure but not Eric. Caden ^cool 14:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Unfortunately for you, the clear majority of editors disagree. This conflict is a procedural issue, so there's really no need to begin rehashing everyone's opinions on the notability of the murderer vs. the murder. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont care if the majority disagrees with me or not. The fact is the murder is notable while Eric isnt. Caden ^cool 15:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but majority rules on Wikipedia. Deal with it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Um Crakkerjakk..care to explain your edit summary: "Narcissism is so unbecoming." Caden ^cool 15:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that the creation of the fork is a blatant end-around the RFC (which is no consensus) and an attempt to get the article deleted? Your denials are bogus and you keep (deliberately) missing the point. A 4 year old AFD means very little and has nothing to do with the entire body of coverage. There may not have been enough to write an article 4 years ago, that does not mean that what he was doing 4, 5, or 6 years ago, which received coverage, does not come into play whatsoever. Whether or not he started the Homolka rumors himself as a publicity stunt is irrelevant, as we have MANY articles about people whose notability is built on publicity stunts. He also appeared on a gay lifestyle broadcast [24]. I can go on but obviously nothing I say will make any difference since you're determined to get this article deleted. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The murder investigation is notable. The nonsense about Homolka is not, as he in all probability fabricated that himself. The consensus from the original two AfD's is valid. The rest of this is a classic WP:BLP1E, except that the page is now becoming a WP:HATRACK for every claim about the suspect, notable or not, to be picked up by media desperate for anything that looks vaguely related to the case and then dumped here even if much of it is really not news. All of this "Internet controversy" does need to be checked for notability even if it is supposedly sourced. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We've had the discussion of a proposed move for over a week. The clear majority was opposed to it. I'm not attempting to prevent a vote on a split (as I've repeatedly stated on the talk page numerous times). I objected to the forking of the page while the discussion regarding a move was still ongoing, let alone the fact that no discussion to fork was even proposed before it was done (which I believe should be proposed only after the discussion regarding the move is concluded). Bottom line - there are a couple of editors who are throwing a little tantrum because they didn't get their own way with regards to their proposal to move (even the original editor who proposed it has conceded that it's failed), so they're trying to side-step the process by taking it upon themselves to fork the article (flagrantly disregarding the fact that this action had already been reverted several times). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you were attempting to prevent any discussion from leading to a vote on the split here and again here. This is not constructive. I don't agree with the two pages overlapping in their entirety, but {{split section}} on the "Murder of Lin Jun" only is a valid WP:SPINOUT and should be opened for debate. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary. That edit was deceptive. It was not signed by the editor who created it, and gave a distinct false impression that IncredibleHulk had begun a new thread and then posted in it. It was basically the equivalent of attributing words/intentions to IncredibleHulk without his knowledge (as can be clearly seen when the previous edit of the page is viewed in it's entirety). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If your objection is that an edit is unsigned, there's {{unsigned}} or whatever SineBot uses... no need to remove content added by others. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but the editor did sign their post right above it in the same edit. It wasn't an oversight. Even if it was signed, where it was placed was deceptive and distorted another editor's intentions without their knowledge. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear enough at this point that your intention is to oppose even the conduct of a talk-page debate on the ({{split section}} on "Murder of Lin Jun") based on your edits at Talk:Luka Magnotta#Split. That section contains a {{edit semiprotected}} requesting "Add {{split section|Murder of Lin Jun|Talk:Luka Magnotta#Split}} to the top of the section 'Murder of Lin Jun'." You opposed adding the tag because you wanted to silence the debate on any WP:SPINOUT and the {{edit semiprotected}} was closed with "no consensus" on the basis of your objections alone. Please let the discussion on the WP:SPINOUT take its course instead of attempting to silence the debate itself before it starts. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated before. I'm not necessarily opposed to a split (I honestly have no opinion on the subject). I'm opposed to having two overlapping discussions/votes happening simultaneously. I said in the discussion to move thread over two days ago that a split could be one possible solution to a move. It's sort of difficult to float the idea that I was opposed to something I suggested over two days ago before this current discussion. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the article has been "created" [25] (for the 5th time) and the open move request is considered "settled"[26], with users involved suggesting to start a "merge discussion". Skullers (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have two articles that say basically the same thing, one of which is a copy-paste move without proper attribution. This is clearly an end run around a move discussion and is fairly disruptive. Can an uninvolved admin please wade in to help settle things? AniMate 19:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a straightforward violation of WP:CONTENTFORK, where "redundant content forks" are listed under "Unacceptable types of forking". The content is not merely redundant (i.e., an alternate take on the same topic) but word-for-word cut-and-pasted for the most part. Disputed opinions over the correct title of an article are settled through WP:RM, not by a cut-and-paste copy to a new title. Doing such a cut-and-paste while a proposed WP:RM to that very title is still in progress is particularly disruptive. Although administrator intervention would be helpful, I think this is straightforward enough that any editor can step in and revert. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. What has been split out is basically one section, not the entire article. This is by design. I have no objection to using {{split section}} and discussing this, but no one appears to want to do so. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No matter what you say it still is a copy paste move without proper attribution. Sorry the requested move discussion didn't go the way you wanted it to, and I'm sorry the parent article is semi-protected and you can't edit there. Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Luka Magnotta and this fork was only made when it started to look like consensus was against moving to the fork's location. AniMate 19:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, cut and paste moves or splitouts without attribution are copyright violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The proper way to fix attribution issues where the source is known is to add the attribution, not delete content for the sake of doing so. Otherwise, we might as well ask any of the other-language wikipedias who used content from en: to go and delete all of those pages right away.

There is no ongoing {{split section}} discussion on Talk:Luka Magnotta, just the WP:RM of the entire page. The split of the murder itself to Murder of Lin Jun should be discussed but WP:RM is not a substitute for doing so and the outcome of WP:RM is not a vote for or against splitting the page (which has some severe WP:BLP1E issues which remain unaddressed). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to turn the article back into a redirect. You can initiate a discussion on the split at Talk:Luka Magnotta. AniMate 20:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried requesting {{split section}} be added to the section "Murder of Lin Jun" and this was declined. That step is necessary to start the WP:SPINOUT discussion. I'd suggest discussing this before redirecting anything... especially since the redirect you propose implicitly states a WP:BLP is guilty of a WP:CRIME for which he has not yet been charged nor tried. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the template and a section to discuss the possibility of a split. AniMate 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it's considered as an administrative action on your part, but I've removed the template because imo opening another vote at this time will only make things worse as there's already at least 3 different threads on the same issue. Skullers (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There is only one thread of !votes on whether to split the page, not three. The proper way to get the template to point to that one specific thread (and not others) is {{split section||Talk:Luka Magnotta#Split discussion}} — not arbitrarily removing the template while the discussion is still open. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored the template. Isn't there a talk page template for it, like for move requests? Didn't seem like a way to officially open one but it is already underway. Skullers (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, spinout is based on article length, and it does not justify a split on those grounds. You've used it as a rationale at least 7 times now, and it is not a valid reason as it is. Skullers (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Luka Magnotta article should be kept and the Murder of Lin Jun be moved into the other article. Thats my take on this.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• HELP Can we please get an uninvolved admin to look over the RFC and make a determination of consensus so this dispute can end? The Garbage Skow (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Fram refusing to stop mass category creation while RfC is going on

Over the last several days, a discussion has occurred at User_talk:Fram#Categories regarding Fram's creation of more than 5000 categories since the beginning of March. Several editors have expressed concerns about this mass creation. He was asked to initiate an RfC to discuss the matter, which he dutifully complied with. Subsequent to the initiation of the RfC, Fram has continued to create categories in a similar vein (albeit targeting only modern categories, and restricting himself from more ancient ones). I have asked him repeatedly to please stop the creation of these categories until the RfC concludes. Fram has refused to stop, creating 16 more categories today [27].

All I am asking for is for him to stop this category creation until the RfC concludes. I think this is a reasonable request.

Please note: I am NOT asking for someone to evaluate whether the category creation is right or wrong. That will be handled by the RfC. Would an uninvolved admin please step in to address this issue? I have notified Fram of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

3000 is mass creation and shouldn't be done without prior discussion, 16 isn't really "mass" and is less of a big deal. 69.228.171.139 (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

However, both those 16 and those 3000 are part of the ~5000. And some of the recent categorisations of (dis)establishments are also questionable (though before the start of the RfC: Category:1536 disestablishments in Sweden contains Börringe Priory, a priory that was never in its established life in Sweden, but in Danmark ("The kingdom of Denmark became Lutheran in 1536 under Christian III, a staunch Protestant. All religious houses and their attendant income properties reverted to the crown for disposition."). The building the priory is housed in is now in Sweden, so the castle is now an establishment in Sweden, and it is disestablished in 1536, but having it as a 1536 disestablishment in Sweden is confusing). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Note, those 5000 are the category creations only. Fram is using AWB on his main account to implement these categorisations, of lately hundreds, and hundreds earlier and thousands earlier. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This looks to me like some sort of spill-over from the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case. All those who have posted here were arguing over this sort of thing at the arbitration case. Something to bear in mind when trying to decide what needs doing here. See in particular what Fram posted on their user talk page here, and note that Kumioko (who was also one of those engaged in extensive debate at the arbitration case) has nominated some of these categories for deletion (see Fram's user talk page). The individual actions may be fine, but collectively I am concerned that what is happening here is driven by animosity that may be lingering from the arbitration case. This may need to be raised on the arbitration clarification pages to decide whether those who were arguing at that case need to avoid each other for a few weeks to a month to let things settle down. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat again

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

---

user:86.129.42.113 please block. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked by Elockid Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 Nobody Ent 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

American Third Position Party

Moved here from WP:AN Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is always interesting, but I wanted to get some input here. Is this edit completely nonconstructive, or may there be some actual relevancy to NPOV policy buried somewhere in the string of capital letters? Reverting for now, but let me know. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps going to AN was a bit of an extreme move. I strongly feel, though, that this article has been in need of tighter oversight for quite some time. Discussions on the talk page rarely result in any kind of constructive consensus, so I skipped that venue entirely. Anyway... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm fed up with people changing my well intentioned edits. I am only following Wikipedia guidelines, and these hordes of users keep trying to put their POV into the article. Not all legitimate sources describe the a3p as white supremacist, rather as white nationalist, and the party clearly rejects the supremacist label on their website here: http://american3rdposition.com/?page_id=195. In addition the bias from SPLC and ADL against pro-white organizations is well known. Slaja (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any rejection of the white supremacist label at that link. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus on the talk page of the article is that "white supremacist" is the most reliably-sourced description. Slaja's POV may be detected from their position that the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League are biased against "pro-white organizations"! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that User:Slaja has a pretty severe ownership problem with the article, as can be seen from his edit summaries. He also appears to be prone to serial reverting up to the edit warring bright line. Further, his edits appear to be pushing a specific POV regarding the subject, and he actively discourages any attempts to unskew the article towards a neutral standpoint. Like many POV-pushers, as seen from his comment here, he responds by attacking and accusing NPOV editors of non-neutral editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Slaja's contributions are not only non-contructive, but disruptive and tendentious POV-pushing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

While you all think you can live in your delusional world, you can't any longer by the fact that I have cited proper sources that describe A3P as "white nationalist". In addition if you again look at the material of the party itself, it clearly denounces the label supremacist. I've read their entire platform and there is nothing in the slightest bit supremacist about it. Where are these media sources getting opinions from? Hmm?? Could it possibly bias emanating from jewish organization like the SPLC and the ADL? STOP MESSING WITH MY CORRECT EDITS. Slaja (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Slaja's at it again; could somebody who hasn't been actively dealing with his edit-warring please impose a 3RR block on him/her RIGHT NOW? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also that according to Slaja we are "corrupt" "hordes" and that he/she will never be silenced! (Ironically, I do ride with the Great Dark Horde, although I am not Jewish.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think hordes is also sometimes used as part of Asian hordes. A bit on a par with the Yellow peril and the Domino theory. Still pretty much part of white supremacist philosophy. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting an interaction ban between Writegeist to me (R-41) and the reverse from me to him

I, R-41 and Writegeist got into an argument a few days ago that resulted in both of us being highly uncivil towards each other. I requested that Writegeist no longer comment on my talk page, I told the user that I would no longer talk to them on their talk page. He has done so, but has used his talk page as a soapbox for statements of defamation against me, noting multiple examples of negative or uncivil behaviour by me while not mentioning any positive behaviour by me. I told Writegeist that if he has a problem with my behaviour he can report it here to Administrator's noticeboard. And he is correct that I have been uncivil in the past few days, but he has also been uncivil to other users. In fact it was an uncivil remark to a WQA volunteer named IRWolfie- (who reported him for trolling in response), that got me angry at him. Here is the diff that shows Writegeist deleting the section he created as a defamation section against me and that I responded to, deleting it in frustration over me returning to edit my response: [28]. As can be seen in the way Writegeist wrote the comment it is an example of Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. Also, it is not appropriate for a user to use their talk page to intentionally make defamation about a user.--R-41 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:BOOMERANG, Writegeist will very likely bring up that I have been highly uncivil to him and a few other users. I plead guilty to violation of WP:CIVIL in recent behaviour towards Writegeist and on WikiProject Yugoslavia, I acted in frustration and violated it. However in spite of my disagreements with other users such as Direktor on WikiProject Yugoslavia, I have agreed with Direktor in the past and have cooperated with Direktor.--R-41 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Back to the point of my request. As the interaction between me and Writegeist has been almost completely negative and that we have a strong dislike for each other, I am requesting an interaction ban between Writegeist to me, and that it include a ban on conversation about me per the criteria described on Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban as "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;", along with all the other criteria for interaction ban. In order to address potential concern for such behaviour by me from Writegeist, I am additionally requesting an interaction ban on me to Writegeist.--R-41 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not provided sufficient grounds for Writegeist to be sanctioned and have even said that you yourself should be sanctioned. You have made numerous complaints about other editors and should now stop. This discussion thread should be closed. TFD (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, what is it that's wrong with me then TFD? I don't know, I get frustrated - I have had a really REALLY crappy two weeks in the real world - I had a relatively peaceful but still emotionally-upsetting breakup with my partner whom I've been in a long-term relationship with in the last two weeks, so don't be so snippy about me - I've tried to be civil, and yes I have been uncivil because I am f-ing mad at myself. I gave you the diff to look at, but you won't even consider it because you think I am a pain on Wikipedia If you, an administrator whom I have discussed with and cooperated with in the past won't take me seriously, then what can I do? I am not crying wolf here, this user is making defamatory comments about me on his talk page after I requested that we no longer have interactions. I simply do not want this user to make defamatory comments about me on his talk page or elsewhere. Is that so wrong to ask for it? Please go ahead and ban both me and him from talking about each other any further anywhere on Wikipedia, I don't want to be hounded by this user's defamatory comments anymore.--R-41 (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw the comment you made TFD and removed, but I will address its content. I did not post this exclusively due to the personal problem I am having - I said that because that is probably the main reason why I have been highly aggravated and admittedly very uncivil in the past few weeks. I specifically said exactly what I am requesting, Writegeist has been writing defamation about me on his talk page after I requested that he no longer post on my talk page and told him that I would no longer post on his. He has continued to make remarks about me and defamatory material about me on his talk page, as I showed you in the diff. If he wants to report my uncivil behaviour he can report it here. I am asking for an interaction ban - it would only ban him from talking to or about me and me talking to him or about him. That is it.--R-41 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Requesting an iban is pointless, because you can simply choose not to interact with someone if you wish. What you are actually asking for is some community sanction to be placed on Writegeist to proscribe him from talking about you on his talk page. I can't see how this is appropriate - I can only see a handful of mentions of you on his talk page and none of them constitute defamation as you claim. The diff you posted is a silly comment by him which doesn't really accomplish anything, but I can't see how it's uncivil really, he's entitled to his opinion. If you don't like what you read on his talk page, my simple suggestion would be not to go there. Just ignore it; who cares what he writes on his talk page? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 05:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What do I do if Writegeist interjects in a discussion that I am in, and posts comments that show every bad thing I have done in the discussion? He did this on WikiProject Yugoslavia. Am I supposed to run away from anything that I was at that he enters into? The definition of defamation on Wikipedia corresponds with what Writegeist did in the diff I posted here, the definition includes "the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image". I have ignored his earlier comments I noticed he made, but what he did write about me on his talk page about my editing behaviour is important to me, because it demonstrates he is carrying a grudge against me and I believe that measures should be taken so that he is not able to interject in further discussions I have, with the express intention of discrediting me or personally attacking me there.--R-41 (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if you want to get legalistic about it, it's not defamation because it's true. Look, you can't stop editors from posting diffs about your previous activity on wikipedia. If you feel this damages your reputation in some way then the best way to remedy it is to start acting constructively (and may I say that this ANI report isn't a good start). Look, you've mentioned already that you're having a tough couple of weeks; may I make the suggestion that maybe it's a good idea to take a break for a bit? Editing whilst in emotional turmoil isn't a great formula for progress. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Writegeist has removed the section from their talk page. If you want to stop interacting with an editor -- just stop interacting. There's a whole slew of User:Nobody Ent/Secret list of editors I totally ignore editors who, over the years, I've concluded me interacting with will not help Wikipedia, so I just ignore them. It works so well I've actually forgotten most of who's on the list. Long term, what you'll find on Wikipedia is no one is much interested in assisting editors who themselves are not following appropriate practices. Given some of your recent posts e.g. [29] it's in your best interests to keep a low profile rather than initiating posts on AN/I et. al. Nobody Ent 10:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"it's in your best interests to keep a low profile rather than initiating posts on AN/I et. al." Damn straight, I already admitted here that I've been uncivil in past while due to frustration; I attempted to avoid this by asking Writegeist to desist from writing any further comments about me on his talk page, he refused to answer that. The difference between me and completely self-interested users is that I am willing to accept punitive action for my behaviours - so there is no need to warn me to "keep a low profile" - because I honestly don't care about WP:BOOMERANG - it will bounce back and forth between me and Writegeist for a while - and I fully admit that both me and Writegeist have been unacceptably uncivil to each other, I say go ahead and place an interaction ban on us - that's what I asked for and I said that I would accept it for myself - me and Writegeist do not like each other at all, we are both guilty of WP:UNCIVIL towards each other. Without warning or sanctions, it is likely that Writegeist will interject like he did at WikiProject Yugoslavia into topics I am addressing to attack me, so an interaction ban for both of us towards each other seems to be a completely reasonable action even for me, since as you say my behaviour has been intolerable. But since administrators do not agree with me, I will desist, but will note that I am normally a conscientious editor who seeks cooperation with others, the barnstar I have on my user page is from a user I disagreed with who congradulated me for my courteous behaviour in spite of our disagreement.--R-41 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a cup of tea -- you should see all the "stuff" Writegeist has written about me, and kept on his user talk page for years now, in the belief that someone will believe his interpolations into old discussions. I rather think he keeps track of my every edit at times, and seems to show up in discussions simply because I am there <g> where he has never shown up before, but there is an essay on how to deal with such "preoccupied fellers" on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

From what you say Writegeist has done, that sounds like WP:WIKIHOUNDING, but evidence would be needed to demonstrate that, but it seems entirely feasible and worth investigation since Writegeist has suddenly shown up on material about/or involving, you after having a substantial dispute with you, and him suddenly showing up on material about/or involving me. But beyond suggesting that you can open up an investigation, Collect, I will not endorse it because I do not know the background of what happened between you and Writegeist.--R-41 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For those here who have claimed that what I've complained here about is not significant, I will note a statement on policy about WP:HARASSMENT: Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place. That is what has taken place on Writegeist's user page, the diff demonstrates this, and upon being asked by me on whether he would desist from using his user page of deliberately posting sections that intend to portray me in a negative manner, Writegeist refused to respond to the question I made about it.--R-41 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As per a suggestion that a user who looked at my posts here has stated, he says that TFD is not an administrator, and that no administrators have arrived yet, and suggested that I use a boldface font requesting review by administrators. Therefore I will follow what that user advised me to do and request that administrators review my request for interaction ban: I am requesting review of this by administrators--R-41 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL

I am reporting a WP:PERSONAL attack on me by User:Soapfan2013 and 219.79.90.44 for creating personal attacks for the way I handle my talk pages. Yes, it may not unorthodox, but I will close a conversation if I feel it is not in an unhealthy discussion place, and I do not want to violate WP:PERSONAL, which Soapfan has on numerous occasions. And it's gone on long enough. I'm tired of being attacked by people on this site who do not know me or do not like me. And I want something done about it.

Refer to these edits: 01 02 03

I do not appreciate being called a baby by users for the way I use my talk page. How I edit and code my talk page, etc. is how I do it to avoid conflict and keep me somewhat WP:CIVIL, which these users are not months/weeks following the small conflict between members and it keeps me calm and helps me walk away from situations which would prove volatile. I agreed to work with Soapfan on furthering their work in editing soap opera articles following a WP:SOCK case, and that faltered due to us being unable to work together in situations, and since then, they seem to be badgering me around things, and I do not appreciate such. I've had several IPs attack me several weeks ago, and it's deterring my wanting to edit here at Wikipedia. I've progressed a lot of soap opera articles by bringing notability and WP:V to them. And situations like this are really hinging that. I realize my past my not have been the most grey, but within the past 4-6 months, I've really been working on staying out of conflict, yet it seems to want to attract to me, especially from said member. I try to remain civil headed and clearheaded, and we all get caught up in a moment, hence why we're always advised to walk away, which is what I always tend to do. But people don't want to let it die, and I'm tired of it.

I've told Soapfan to no longer post on my talk page, and they refuse to comply and at this point, it's distressing that they have such a fixation on me. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 05:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked several of PJ/Soapfan2013/User:Onelifefreak2007's socks in the past. I've given him another chance with this account, because he'd been quiet for a while and seemed to be handling a return to editing well when I finally figured out that it was him editing. Posting this on Musicfreak7676 was unacceptable and I'm waiting for a response from him and am very much considering blocking him. That being said Musicfreak7676 you are constantly in violation of WP:Civil. You shouldn't have to close or archive discussions to keep yourself civil, you should just be nice. It's not like you're editing in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here. It's soap operas. You get angry and threaten users with "being reported" whenever they make edits you disagree with. That you've found a sympathetic admin in Daniel Case is mind-boggling, because though you are often technically right your attitude is downright awful. AniMate 06:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I have people constantly down my back, like you, coming at me and making total judgement on me, my closing off arguments and discussions is how I handle it. It's how I resolve it and close it off and feel resolved, and keeps me from going back into the discussion. Yes, I may not have the best way of addressing things, I do not deny that, but I don't calling people babies, etc. And AniMate, I truly feel like you, as well, have a personal issue against me as you've made it clear you "watch" me. I feel as if you don't WP:Assume good faith around me. And AniMate, I'm a he, not a she. I'm not trying to create another conflict, I'm trying to end it. That's all I'm trying to do, so I can go on editing articles and making articles a better contribution to the site. I'm not doing to either to seem as superior to anyone, either. And I'm not saying that's what you're saying I may or may not be doing, I'm just doing this to stop this bull. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 06:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies about the gender confusion. I keep an eye on all of the soap opera articles and users. I've been active there and know the socks to look out for. Musicfreak, assume good faith is a two way street. You never seem to do so. Rather than leaving polite messages for those who make edits you disagree with, you almost always threaten to report them. That is not civil. That does not assume good faith. Rarely do threats of reports lead to cooperative editing. I watch you for the same reason I watch PJ, because you both have a history of treating other editors poorly. AniMate 07:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, blocking a shared IP for 24 hours with no warnings for calling someone a baby seems a bit harsh, but whatever. I totally agree with AniMate's WP:PETARDic assessment, especially the bit where he mentions sympathetic behaviour over a sustained period by an admin who should know better. There are specific rules on how and where to request blocks and protections, and for good reasons. Neither MusicFreak nor Daniel Case were following them. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've informed Daniel Case that this thread is also discussing him. May I remind people that if you criticise others here it is only polite to tell them. ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I would have, but his talk page is protected. Not a good start for a conversation, is it? 219.78.114.94 (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with Daniel Case or his actions... I'm just rolling my eyes at the super friendly person he's taken under his wing. AniMate 10:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

When an editor asks another to stay away from their talkpage, that's usually considered appropriate - no matter what the reason is behind it - those who continue to post there after such a warning are usually guilty of some form of harassment (except admin actions, of course). If an editor chooses to close conversations on their talkpage rather than to be baited into arguments, that's also quite fine - commendable, actually. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually. Request is a more accurate description than warning. The close boxes are fine but not actually commendable -- archiving is preferred. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a fine block. And there really aren't specific rules on Wikipedia -- we even have a rule that says that. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, not rules, but you know exactly what I mean. There definitely exist more appropriate channels than prodding your buddy admin, as explained in the policy of this site (here and here). This has the obvious (to me) advantage that such requests are dealt with more impartiality and fairness, and therefore situations like this are more unlikely to develop. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've only gone to Daniel because I've been told by other members to go to Daniel, especially when it concerns soap articles. And whether I archive or close off conversations, it's how I do it. I archive every 3-4 months to keep it in my organization. I'm just irked at the fact that I've asked for PJ aka Soapfan to not post on my talk page because it's clear we cannot co-exist and work together. Our personalities do not match together. Recently I have been taking things to the vandalism report section, I have. And I've been using the warning template. And AniMate, instead of rolling your eyes, you should have come to me and told me you didn't find it appropriate that I was going to him. Simple as that. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it is that you needed help understanding that your ways needed changing, too. And Daniel did not give you this help.

But that's OK, I think you eventually found it somewhere else and you are trying to better yourself. Cheers to that, and best wishes for the future. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay... well, I believe you're the IP that I originally reported hence you're obvious involvement. I didn't find anything anywhere, nor do I believe I needed help. This whole post wasn't about me learning anything, it was to stop the obvious harassment against me. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure mate, have it your way. But there must be a reason why you are getting so much shit, and i my view that is strongly related to how you treat other editors. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the problem here. I thought the topic was simply that Musicfreak was attacked, not that his ethics were up for review. I have to say, early closure and archiving can be unorthodox and sometimes counterproductive, but that is purely on how he handles his talkpage, not why. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

History of Champagne RM closed by an involved admin

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

---

This section was auto-archived without closure.[30] IMO, the nature of this complaint is such that something or other should be done, so I am relisting.Kauffner (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic has an closed an RM at Talk:History_of_Champagne [31]. There are several reasons why this action must be reversed and the issue reviewed by an uninvolved administrator:

1. "An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may not be seen as unbiased” (WP:RMCI). Amatulic closed a similar RM as “premature” several weeks ago.[32]
2. "Any editor who has participated in a move discussion, either in support of the move or in opposition to it, will very likely not be seen as an unbiased judge of that discussion.” (WP:RMCI) Amatulic has referred to the proposed change as a “common lexical error”.[33]
3. An admin is considered WP:INVOLVED if he has, “current or past conflicts with an editor". I have reported this issue to ANI previously.[34] Amatulic has also made various accusations against me.[35]

The direct involvement of editors affiliated with the champagne industry, who may have little experience on Wiki but understandably feel passionately with regard to this subject, creates a heightened potential for conflict for interest. I hope the discussion can be reopened and proceed while being monitored with appropriate rigor. Kauffner (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly seems inappropriate for Amatulic to close that RM. For the first two reasons rather than the third but inappropriate for sure. Perhaps he/she would consider reopening it before someone else does. --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at my contributions in this dispute can clearly see that I was not involved in any sense of WP:INVOLVED. Any "participation" on my part was to comment in an administrative capacity only, not to promote a point of view in the dispute. Any "current or past conflicts" were manufactured by Kauffner himself, and the past "accusations" were administrative in nature. Finally, the implication that I have anything to do with the champagne industry is similarly out of line.

As to the RM itself, it clearly went beyond its 7 days, and clearly the arguments showed no consensus. If any other admin would have closed it differently, I'd be interested to know the reasoning. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're involved or not but the appearance of involvement does exist because you closed it once before. If you've closed it once there really is no reason to close it again. Plenty of other admins out there. The simplest, drama reduction course of action is to reopen it and let someone else close it. --regentspark (comment) 13:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't reduce the drama, because the next closer would be a "drive-by admin". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken.--regentspark (comment) 17:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Kauffner's upcoming block for beating the head horse well past the point of disruption well be a welcome sight for anyone who drinks either Champagne- or Bordeaux-styled wines - or indeed, anyone who edits such articles. Maybe Mosel is next? Rhine? Anything else? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I have to admit as a wine editor, Kauffner's actions have been a bit disruptive. We already went through a long, contentious discussion at the main Champagne article that failed to gain consensus last month. So soon after he goes after a peripheral article to get the title of History of Champagne (an article about both the wine and Champagne region, mind you) changed? What was his goal? To create internal inconsistency with both the Champagne article and the standard capitalization used on every other wine history article (see History of Chianti, History of Sherry, etc)? With so many reliable sources[36][37][38][39] using the standard capitalization of Champagne, it is clear that there is no "threat" to Wikipedia that makes this battle worth raging on so many fronts for Kauffner. It just seems like a heavy-handed way for him to make a WP:POINT for something that less than a month ago he couldn't garner consensus for. Truly it would be nice to have a break from this or can we expect another go around next month on another peripheral article like Grower Champagne or Champagne in popular culture? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "an article about both the wine and Champagne region, mind you": This is not an accurate characterisation of that article. It starts off with "The history of Champagne [linked in article to Champagne (wine), not Champagne (wine region) or any other geographic area] has seen the wine [own emphasis] evolve", indicating up front that the article is primarily about the wine. Whatever local history is in the article is included insofar as it can be made to relate directly to the wine. Granted, that may be partially because the wine is much of the region's history, but the fact remains that that article is primarily about the history of the wine. No comment on the rest of the dispute here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well not to threadjack this too far, but as the original author of this article I will point you to things like the 2nd and 5th paragraphs of the lead, the Early History and the World War I and II sections as well as numerous other places in the article where the history of Champagne the wine is closely intertwined with the history of the Champagne people and wine region. I wrote the article that way because that is how the reliable sources describe it. Truly only the small English influences and the even smaller From sweet to brut sections could be thought of as exclusively dealing with the wine but throughout the rest of the text it is clear that the history of the wine and the history of the region are deeply connected. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that perhaps a topic ban from Wine and Wine-region related articles (broadly construed) might be a necessity for User:Kauffner as it appears his intent is to disrupt across the gamut. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, passion is not disruption. Disruption was caused by an unnecessary, premature second close of a discussion by the same admin. All that was required was to let it run it's course count the votes, determine consensus. If there is a pattern of disruption an WP:RFC/U would be in order. Nobody Ent 21:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Playing Russian-Roulette "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" when a decision is made is, indeed, disruptive. We have another editor on this project who's in deep water because he doesn't think diacritics belong in an English encyclopedia - now we have one who doesn't believe that city/region titles need to be capitalized. What a gigantic fuckup of the English language by both. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the disruptive parts of Kauffner's tactics (at least with wine articles) is the heavy-handed, backdoor ways he tries to jam his wishes through. With Champagne, when he first encountered differing opinions to his wish to lower case everything, he went ahead and did the edit anyways. He sort of rewrote WP:BRD into Discuss, find objections, Do it anyways which was terribly bad faith. Then after he encountered further difficulties in getting consensus to change the main Champagne article, he starts WP:FORUMSHOPping and going after these peripheral articles like History of Champagne--first in the middle of the original of the Champagne discussion and then a month after. One can only guess that he hopes that if he gets the right mix of WP:RM regulars at a moment when other editors who are concerned about his changes are busy with off-wiki life that he gets one of these backdoor consensus through--perhaps to intentionally create inconsistency among a mass of articles so that they may eventually have to succumb to his will. That, again, seems to be contrary to the Wikipedia spirit of building consensus and good faith editing. It's like an editor wanting to get the iPod article changed to Ipod and after failing to get consensus on that main article starts going after the iPad, iTunes and iPod mini, etc articles until eventually he gets his way. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth noting the that Amatulic originally got involved in this issue at Agne's request.[40] I was surprised to discover that asking your favorite admin to close does not actually violate WP:ADMINSHOP. Kauffner (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If I was actually asking my favorite admin to close, then yes it would. But as you can see by actually reading the diff I was asking for advice on how to deal with this in the most civil and responsible way--even if that meant walking away. See my last line "What are your thoughts on how best I should proceed? I greatly respect your opinion and if you think I should back down or go another path, I certainly will." I take pride in conducting myself WP:CIVILly and responsibly and after years of editing on Wikipedia, I know that when things get heated it is best to step aside and get an outside reality check. That is not adminshopping in the slightest. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, that was a crass and rude comment to make ("asking your favorite admin"). Admin shopping means asking multiple admins until you get one that does what you want, not applicable here. Having worked with a specific admin before is not against policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Where did this come from? Anyway, you have a nice day, too. Kauffner (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment while I agree that it would be best if someone else had closed the discussion the closure itself seems sound. I don't really think there is any possibility of another admin not closing this as no consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Nangparbat again and again and again

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

---

user:86.129.42.0 please block Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Collect

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

---

User:Collect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bush family

• First removes a table diff (with "rm non-RS source - genealogy from "personal research" is not considered reliable per se")
• --then removes its sourcing diff (with "rm ELs not chosen to present facts on the family genealogy per se" given as the rationale)

This violation of basic wp:EDIT page (esp. wp:PRESERVE) has the appearance of blatant vandalism.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you could have noted your problems with the Pratt Genealogy, the Pratt-Romney genealogy, the problems inherent in using SPS and not RS sourcing in genealogical material inserted into multiple articles, and, of cours, you could have asked me on my UT page about this, and even maybe have notified me of this. You didn't. Cheers. BTW, WP:PRESERVE does not remotely apply here, it refers to properly sourced material poorly presented etc. Note that there were repeated discussions about linking Huntsman to Mitt Romeny etc. in the past - and the general opinion was that genealogical stuff which is not strongly sourced is not encyclopedic. Collect (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Bush is no different - when making "genealogical claims" the same standards for sourcing apply as to any claims. The genealogical trivia contest should be considered pretty useless <g>. Collect (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi User:Hodgdon's secret garden - as per my understanding good faith edits WP:AGF are never ever blatant WP:Vandalism, perhaps you should retract that allegation - thanks - Youreallycan 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also that Kitty Kelley's book was the EL I removed - I suggest that a fair reading of WP:EL indicates that her piece was not related to the genealogy of the Bush family at all. Also please look at the mish-mash which is given as the "family tree" and consider whether it is sourced per WP:RS and also whether it has any remote encyclopedic value. Another of the "reliable sources" I removed was "Bush's Satanic & Witchcraft Bloodlines." ConspiracyPlanet.com. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please explain how the rmvl of the sourcing to wp:RS Kelley / Random House could be in gd faith?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The place to go to is to assume it was and then discuss it - Bush's Satanic & Witchcraft Bloodlines." ConspiracyPlanet.com., hello!!! - IMO, there is nothing to see here that requires administration - I suggest a return to discussion on the article talkpage is far preferable to this location.Youreallycan 15:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)First - her book is not about the genealogy. It offers no material about the genealogy which is not present in the article, thus is not valid as an EL. Second - the material in the book was widely criticised as being specifically unreliable (the one major exception to RS standards is where the source has been widely shown to be unreliable - which is the case here). Cheers - but there is no valid rationale for using Kitty Kelley as a reference for genealogy at all. BTW, the article is subject to WP:BLP rules. Collect (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read wp:EDIT. Whereas this page indicates that sourcing issues can reasonably be template:Fact-tagged, it plainly says only to delete controversial assertions. Nothing in the chart you removed is in dispute.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User Maunus Censoring Race (Human Classification)

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

---

Maunus has edited into the Cluster Analysis section the view of philosopher Joseph Kaplan that human geographic genetic variation does not cluster, because the sampling is wrong and the plotting algorithm contains assumptions. The Human Genome Organisation released a study in 2009 which found that human geographic genetic variation does cluster, using high resolution sampling and assumption free PCA. Maunus wants that take out. Which one should we go with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:12:1072:EC7D:4743:C486:6971 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for a content dispute - this is for behavior issues. You should head to WP:DRN. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes to first, no to the second ... start with Talk:Race_(human_classification). Edit warring warnings to both editors... Nobody Ent 16:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

BOOOOOMERANGG!!. Page protected, OP blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This was almost certainly Mikemikev. Edits from Imperial College London with usual vocabulary, usual article. Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Archivesharer redux 2.0

Please see here and here for past reports. A user 24.97.221.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now seems to be following this issue by editing the archives, dunno if it's the same user or a meatpuppet. There was consensus to ban previous not no action on that. Cheers, Яehevkor ✉ 17:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to include the difs [41] and [42]. Яehevkor ✉ 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked as a WP:GIANTDUCK, restored the ban discussion for closing below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal of paid editing sockpuppeteer

Cross-posting this here because this is where instances of the behaviour have previously turned up: there is currently a proposal to formalise the de facto ban of a paid editing sockpuppeteer over at the administrators' noticeboard. WilliamH (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's actually at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Editing ban proposal -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone refactored my original header. WilliamH (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Unequal treatment from an admin

Hello,

This is regarding recent exchange of messages on talk pages User_talk:Thisthat2011 (own), User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke, and User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee (admin). The issue also involves a user User:Sitush.

The admin had warned me here(User_talk:Thisthat2011#June_2012) of 'personal attacks on other people', 'constant snide attacks on User:Sitush', and then block here over a discussion here(User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#For_admin_Dougweller.27s_attention).

On inquiring details on how he reached these conclusion to give warning, he has avoided presenting details and is accusing further 'so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only'. It appears somehow to be personal attack sweetened with a 'please', a behavior himself warned me against.

He had done something similar earlier User_talk:Thisthat2011/Archive_1#March_2012 here too, which he immediately rectified himself.

So I would like to know why he is warning to myself, but has avoided warning himself and user:Sitush for exactly doing the same. The behavior is inconstant w.r.t. users.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not acting in an admin capacity in that exchange, and so there is no question of my having misused my admin tools. The issue here is not one my my taking sides - as I make clear, I am carefully avoiding taking sides in the dispute, which is between Sitush and Yogesh. But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here, in disputes that do not involve you. If you have a problem with his behaviour, make a report at to the appropriate venue - as Sitush says, put up or shut up. Now, what admin action do you want taken here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

North American League

Resolved

 – Assuming I didn't screw things up (the second time, the first time I kinda did...), it should be all good now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but User:NostalgiaBuff97501 attempted to create a disambiguation page at North American League. I have no issue with this, but instead of moving the original page (and the associated edit history) to North American League (baseball), the user simply copy and pasted the page content to the new page and then edited the original page as seen by this diff. Basically what is needed is for the new page to be deleted, the original page reverted to the baseball content and then moved back to North American League (baseball). Once this is done, then the disambiguation page can be created at North American League. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've managed to sort things out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Joshtaylor1998 at Mercia

This is a new user who is making substantial changes to the Mercia article - all unreferenced, unencyclopedic, ungrammatical, etc. I've reverted him a couple of times, with warning edit summaries, and a warning on his talk page. He has not responded at all, but has continued to make edits. I would hazard a guess that his user name reflects his year of birth - his edits suggest that he is a young and enthusiastic user, but someone who is unwilling to engage in discussion. It's not vandalism, so I'm reluctant to revert again, but it would be useful if someone could take a look and try to persuade the editor that he needs to learn how to edit collaboratively. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Archivesharer redux

In relation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#user:Archivesharer. The indef blocked user is now back with the IP 68.174.69.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) doing the same old re-factoring edits etc, see their contributions. For what it's worth, I also added to the SPI. Яehevkor ✉ 23:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected User talk:Archivesharer for a month and blocked the IP as a WP:DUCK for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, The Bushranger. Яehevkor ✉ 11:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs, he also removed any mention of Michael de la Force from WP:BLP/N, which can't simply be Undone due to changes afterwards. I'm going to go through and try to fix his "courtesy blanking," since it's nothing of the sort. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

May de la Force be with you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

And now this and this from 156.111.18.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Legal threats? Яehevkor ✉ 17:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Recommend blocking the IP as the language borders legal threats.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Now this and this (with personal attacks) and continuing. Яehevkor ✉ 17:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've manually archived the BLP/N thread here, so it can be watchlisted for further vandalism. Also, the IP claims to be using Columbia University's computer system, so an email to one of their sysadmins might be prudent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be back as Globalenquirer (talk · contribs), editing the archived comment. - SudoGhost 13:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal

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

---

Given the fact that Archivesharer (talk · contribs) and his band of merry socks, IP and otherwise, are determined to keep returning over this incredibly WP:LAME name-removal issue, issuing repeated legal threats, vandalising, and displaying an epic level of WP:IDHT (including now claiming, regarding his supposed client, that it is "Not possible for an American to have this name" [43] - !!!), I propose that Archivesharer (and his socks of renown) be determined to be community banned from en.wikipedia.

• Support as proposer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The net worth of this user is disruption.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User has a severe lack of WP:CLUE and a bad case of WP:IDHT. Once the article on Michael de la Force was deleted, Archivesharer decided he could remove any mention of Mr. de la Force, including on the AfD page, BLP/N and even user Talk pages. I'm having to watch the relevant BLP/N archive because, as expected, Archivesharer created a sock just to remove mention of de la Force from it. This user obviously does not understand what he's doing, and refuses to listen to advice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  I've semiprotected the archive page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oddly for someone who has a "desire to have not be a part of or included in Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation" [sic], he does not seem to object to using Commons as his hosting service [44]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious support. Nothing of use has come from this person. Яehevkor ✉ 23:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support from my IPhone, no less. Disclosure: I weighed in on this nonsense as an IP. For several weeks this has wasted the time of numerous editors. Also support contacting Columbia, with copies of disruptive edits made from the university's facilities. This would be appropriate given the multiple statements implying that Columbia was considering legal action against Wikipedia-- the university ought to be informed of these claims, and have the opportunity to find the user. JNW (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Restored this from archiving, can an uninvolved admin close this? Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Perth

A recent WP:RM (initiated by myself) from Perth, Western Australia to Perth was closed by JHunterJ (talk · contribs) as "moved", and the page was moved. A short time later, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) reversed this closure [45] and moved the article back.[46]

See Talk:Perth, Western Australia#Requested_move for some subsequent discussion between JHunterJ and Deacon of Pndapetzim.

There are a few problems with this action by Deacon of Pndapetzim:

1. The usual procedure would be to take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. Doing an instant reversal in this way is wheel-warrish. (Also, it is bad form to edit a archived move discussion with a prominent "Please do not modify" in red at the top)
2. Deacon of Pndapetzim has a userbox indicating membership in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland. Since Perth, Scotland was a former capital of medieval Scotland, and Perth, Scotland was the "rival" of Perth, Australia as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the WP:RM discussion, this at least creates the outward appearance of possibly having a personal stake in the outcome, and for this reason alone it may have been an unwise action.
3. In his reversal comment, Deacon of Pndapetzim appears to question JHunterJ's integrity by stating "Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close."[47]

See also this note by JHunterJ regarding the formulation of his closure summary comments.

I would ask an uninvolved and impartial administrator to restore the original closure outcome of the WP:RM and move the page back to Perth, and then anyone who wishes may naturally start a review at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Did Deacon remove Perth without any explanation? That seems highly suspicious. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now it seems Deacon did have an explanation. Deacon stated in this thread on JHunter's talk page that there was no consensus and the overturn was justified. Upon reviewing the discussion on the Perth talk page, it clearly shows that there was no consensus, with a hodgepodge of supports and opposes. I have to say, I think Deacon was justified in overturning the closure. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon is definitely right. There was no preponderance of opinions either way, and when a discussion is split 50/50, you can't declare consensus one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And this isn't wheel warring, it was a single revert. It doesn't happen that often, but it is acceptable and it was explained. JHunterJ or others can take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review if they so choose, but nothing improper happened here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

D should have taken it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As I've explained, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:RMCI indicate a move -- the !votes that were based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies were a consensus for the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, hoping the drama would be minimal here. This was a case of a highly controversial discussion, clearly having reached no consensus, being closed in favour of one particular view and being reviewed afterwards. Moreover, one to which the closer expressed a preference in the close rather than, as he is supposed to, summarize discussion and carry out whatever its conclusion is. I think my closure should be relatively uncontroversial. No admin with any relevant experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus (see my comments on the page in question).

PS, there is no established procedure for reversing RM closes, but neither is RM a binding process that would necessitate one; it is perfectly normal for page moves to be reversed when they are made in this fashion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin with impartiality and experience and the serious claim. You are an admin member of a Scotland project who disagrees with my closure. Stop insinuating that that could only possibly have occurred if I suffer from some admin character defect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlog

Just FYI... There's a long backlog at WP:RPP. A couple of items have been waiting for attention for almost two days. Zagalejo^^^ 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)