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

User talk:ChristianandJericho‎

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

---

Resolved

 – C&J has been reblocked indef by User:Fetchcomms, WP:CIR. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a close for this thread but it's going to take some time. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd wait, as discussion is still on-going.--Crossmr (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:ChristianandJericho‎ seems to be making a lot of CSD/AFD errors as well as leaving a few inappropriate warnings, for instance a 3RR warning on Future Perfect's talk page. After CSD rejections and other warnings the user wipes their talk page. I don't think the user is acting in bad faith, but could an admin take a look at the contrib history and determine if any action or a warning is needed? Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 09:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

They identify themselves as 13 on their user page, so perhaps maturity is a factor here. They also note their membership in WP:WikiProject Pornography, where age is no barrier to participation, apparently. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe neither of these statements - particularly the second, as he never appears to have edited in this area. I have left a warning [1] - if he makes another stupid nomination, I would think another block would be in order, and given his previous three, I'm thinking a block of several weeks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how one can refute this, editing aside. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Block him, he's disrupted many articles, including my own. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to be disruptive, but I was never warned by an admin, also most of my CSDs were confirmed and deleted so fine I'll read the WP:Deletion thing before I nominate an article for deletion --ChristianandJericho 13:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been blocked three times, now you come back to disrupt again? Indefinite block is needed here. Colofac (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made over 700 contrustive edits to wikipedia, I believe what I did was right and I can join the WP:Porn is I want to, there is no age limit --ChristianandJericho 14:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are the perfect example of why there needs to be a minimum age limit for joining Wikipedia. It's quite obvious that this website exceeds your maturity levels. If you think being a member of a porn project is the reason why this debate is taking place, you only serve to further validate my opinions. Colofac (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, despite the fact that in some jurisdictions it would be illegal for someone to sell you (or possibly even just show you) porn, there is no restriction on a 13 year-old editor joining Wikiproject Pornography. Sorry if you thought my criticism was directed at you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-admin, I'd say that if someone (a) claims to be 13 years old, and (b) declares that they want to be part of the porn project, this is sufficient grounds to block, simply for bringing discredit to Wikipedia. If ChristianandJericho can't see that, he lacks the maturity necessary to be a useful contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an edit war about the redaction of the comment above by Delicious carbuncle. The comment is so disturbing that I insist it stays redacted until the matter has been resolved. Hans Adler 15:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please leave it redacted. It has obviously been taken in a different light than intended. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was clearly sarcastic, but one needs to know you to see this. Sorry for bothering you. Hans Adler 16:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho, you should probably stop nominating anything for deletion, except perhaps in the most obvious cases, until you get some more experience. You should refrain from making statements, such as that you are active on a pornography project, while simultaneously listing your age; this creates the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are seeking to provoke people or get attention rather than seriously edit. I also hope you will not be offended if I suggest that a reading of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, in either the original form I wrote it or its current incarnation, might be useful to you.

Delicious carbuncle, some of your comments above are not helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I move that the user be indefinitely banned, it's obvious he isn't here to contribute within the rules, and given his previous history (No less than 5 blocks), it would be foolish to AGF as he will just throw it back in our faces. Colofac (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't say I agree with a minimum age restriction, since I've seen some users claiming to be middle and high school students, who are actually studying research techniques and grammar for a grade, handle that stuff better than some users who provided evidence they were university professors. In fact, based on my personal subjective experiances, the good university professors tend to be exceptions (the bad ones get banned for incivility over their WP:OR not being accepted, and the good ones realize their degree means nothing here). However, Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, so their laws do kinda apply here. There means there probably should be a policy of "no kids allowed" on the porn wikiproject. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ian, I agree that your suggestion of an age restriction on WikiProject Pornography (and possibly other WikiProjects) seems like an obvious and common sense move. I hope that a proposal of that action results from this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that would mean that every editor would have to send a copy of their passport to the WikiMedia foundation to verify that they are old enough. Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are a lot of websites that accept a representation from the user as to the user's age. Of course, this is a legal issue and should probably be evaluated by Wikipedia/Wikimedia's lawyers. As an aside, I'm not sure that the pornogrpahy project should be the ones deciding.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not made any edits in WP:Porn because I have been busy, but the subject of pornography interests me (SUBJECT not content) --ChristianandJericho 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I bet a lot of 13-year-olds could say the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not wipe out my talk page, I archive it about 1-7 days --ChristianandJericho 16:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it interests you, you're 13.--v/r - TP 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you giggle when you see the boobies? I bet you do. Colofac (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho, your interest in the subject pornography is entirely valid (despite the snide comments above). I have already been chastised for trying to make this point in a more subtle way, but let me spell it out - many of our article about pornography also contain pornography. While it may seem to be obvious what a "fluffer" does by simply reading, even this article contains an image which many people would say is not suitable for under-age editors due to the unexpected appearance of a penis. I hope you understand why people may be concerned about your self-professed interest in pornography topics. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Age verification would be impractical, but we could at least hold ourselves to at least the standards 4chan manages and ban people who admit they're under 18. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no age limit (or maybe it's 13+) for wikipedia, okay here's the deal

1. I stop tagging articles for deletion without a good reason. 2. I will contribute more to WP:Porn (you don't really care) --ChristianandJericho 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The only deal I will accept is your indef blocking. You have 5 previous blocks, the last of which should have resulted in an indefinite anyway - quite how you got around that is amazing. Colofac (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds do you think he should be indefinitely blocked? Also, what do you mean "deal"? This isn't a negotiation. I find it interesting that you've been here for a few weeks but are already calling for several members to be banned on flimsy premises. See WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for reasons we actually do block. either way (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not up to you is it? --ChristianandJericho 16:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia as a whole has no age restrictions, Wikipedia's servers are located in the U.S. and so U.S. laws do apply here. U.S. law says "don't give kids porn." Wikipedia could get into serious trouble (social and legal) for allowing you be a part of the Porn WikiProject since you have admitted you are underage. Right now the debated options are:

A) You do not contribute to the Porn WikiProject

B) You do not contribute to the entire encyclopedia

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

From a non admin perspective unless an age limit is set which it hasn't been for that project he hasnt done anything wrong there up to now. An age limit should be set and he shouldn't be allowed to edit within that area again until he is older. In terms of nominations for deletion more care is needed there and he should be discouraged until he is more competent. To me a ban as such isnt needed unless he chosses to ignore which he might. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a lawyer it is sensible, given draconian punishments, to run screaming away from anything involving kids and anything sexual. That being said, it isn't obvious to me he's breaking the rules. And he hasn't edited there, he has just declared himself part of that wikiproject. I would remind C and J that discretion is the better part of valor and he may be well advised to remove his claimed age from his user page and otherwise lie low for a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Would that "U.S. law", whatever that is, were so simple as don't give "kids" (whoever they are) porn. The law at the federal and state levels on issues of sexually explicit materials and minors (who are defined differently by different laws) is far more complex than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do I think he should be indefinitely blocked? Well as User:Ian.thomson has pointed out, his exposure to such material is illegal, add onto this his repeated abuse, bans block log here and use of sockpuppets. Colofac (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What "material" is illegal to expose him to? The same material that anyone can look at on Wikipedia? Some hidden material? What law? And why should we "enforce" a non-existent age limit against him in particular, just because he chooses to admit his age? If he deserves a block, it's for other behavior but not about this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to look at what I've posted, I've never actually advocated that he be blocked for claiming to be part of the Porn WikiProject. I said that there should be bans for anyone claiming to be underage. Bans are different, he would still be allowed to edit everywhere else. While anyone can go and look at any part of the encyclopedia, that's the parents'/guardians'/schools' problem. But by coming here and claiming to both underage and part of WP:Porn, we're open to at least a media campaign of "Wikipedia endorses minors working in Wikipedia porn!" All states define 13 as a minor. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(This comment has been 'moved up the thread out of order at the request [2] of 28bytes)The original complainant states there is no bad faith editing on this users part so take the opportunity to analyse this users behavior to make better guides for AFD's. When a good faith editor is making errors, it's because the Docs and guidelines are misleading. Hijacking the discussion into age, age+porn, and america is the whole world is unhelpful, and that discussion goes elsewhere. ChristianandJericho has no reason or obligation to disclose his jurisdiction this suggests to me he may live in a tribal place where he could already be married for example. Or if he lives in Texas, Mexico, Canada, or new hampshire he may have to wait till he is 14. There are also many places where 50 year olds are jailed for reading or possession of porn. So this editor may be acting in a perfectly legal, logical and normal manner as he is entitled to do depending where he lives. Application of Wikipedias Current community guidelines is appropriate. ANI is no place to change the rules, or apply personal ones. Penyulap _talk 05:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you should stay clear of stating legal principles ("All states define 13 as a minor"). Maybe you'd care to provide 50 sources for your statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I contribute to wikipedia as I have been given rollback rights for being a "trusted user" --ChristianandJericho 17:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, I was just starting to edit at the time of "sockpuppets" so and I only used on IP and one account and many users post their age on Wikipedia --ChristianandJericho 17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not CandJ's parents or teachers. It is not our job to prevent him from what he chooses to do, and it is not illegal for a minor to join a porn wikiproject. I don't think he can be blocked or topic banned for being too young to edit in the area. We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you know. If we are to put an asterisk on that, I think it takes a broader discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The porn project is a distraction from this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's not our job to enforce the "greater good". — Kudu ^~I/O~ 00:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I became aware of this editor in June when they were a disruptive IP inserting BLP violations into articles. If I recall correctly the ChristianandJericho account was created to evade the block the IP had earned for edit-warring over one of those fake "you have new messages" boxes on their talk page. In my opinion this editor has improved since those days, but would still benefit greatly from a mentor, as they still have a ways to go in the competence and policy knowledge departments. Aside from completely missing the point in this thread (no, people aren't wanting you to get more involved in porn articles) there are head-scratchers like giving a final warning to an editor for having external links on their user page. Anyone willing to mentor this editor? This editor willing to accept a mentor? 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not me, but he says on his user page he is willing to be adopted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not lawyers, it is pointless and off-topic to speculate on such matters. 28bytes (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(edit conflict)Wehwalt, does federal law not say that pornographic materials are not to be knowingly distributed to people under the age of 18? If it isn't, pretty much everyone outside of the legal system is fairly convinced it is. I fully acknowledge that we can ignore minor users who view or edit porn related articles. I said bans for people claiming to be under 18. I have never said we should do anything about people either claiming to be 18 or working on porn articles, but not both. If we know that he is under 18, and we know that his work is directed at the porn articles, we are knowingly providing an underage person access to pornographic materials. While individual users are not going to get in trouble directly, the site being in trouble does cause trouble for those who like to read and edit Wikipedia. If I am mistaken about the federal law, you still cannot pretend that this does not at least give the media a chance to get into a moralistic shitstorm. I am not saying he should be punished or retroactively punished. I would prefer that people quit associating me with that position. I am not saying he should not be allowed to edit the encyclopedia, just that we would be safer if we did not allow users to both claim to be underage and edit porn articles. We already place restrictions on who can edit what articles, which is why "anyone can edit" has been dropped from the logo. To draw an offline comparison: a bookstore which has porn can hire underage workers. If the underage workers look at porn on their own, the bookstore can claim they didn't know. If the underage worker volunteer to organize the porn section, wouldn't the bookstore open itself to being charged with knowingly distributing porn to a minor? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Addendum: I personally don't care if C&J works on porn related articles. He just needs to log out before doing so to cover Wikipedia's ass, so that Wikipedia's legal representatives can claim we didn't know he was underage. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC) But then Wikipedia isn't in the business of distributing porn. An article about porn isn't porn. Count Iblis (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC) A number of articles contain images that can only be described as pornographic (and are only encyclopedic in context). Are you really willing to risk letting a judge figure out the difference between distributing porn for business purposes and distributing porn for encyclopedic purposes? A judge in a country where many states still have anti-sodomy laws and gay people aren't allowed to marry? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC) You really need to abandon your entree into the legal arena. So many of your statements are legally incorrect, and some of them are wildly incorrect. Your proposal about covering Wikipedia's ass (above) is particularly alarming.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave the legal argument to the WMF. Ian.thomson can email them if he is that concerned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I also have no comment on the Porn project membership, and agree that it should be up to WMF. However, to return to the original issue, this user's deletion tagging is extremely problematic. I've had to decline several speedy deletions; in and of itself that's not terrible, but the fact that xe rarely responds to those concerns is. And, to clarify, the user doesn't "archive once a week"--it's actually about once every 2 days. Then, yesterday, it turns out that the user has switched over to making spurious AfD nominations (see this complaint on xyr talk page). So, I think it's time that this user take a mandatory break from deletion tagging of any type. If some user is willing to mentor ChristianandJericho on this issue, that might help, but for now the disruption needs to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like confirmation from ChristianandJericho at this point that he will not make any more deletion nominations without the agreement of his mentor, should he find one, and no deletion nominations whatsoever should he not find a mentor. Absent that confirmation I would be open to supporting a topic ban and/or competence block. 28bytes (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A complete block for a good faith editor is destructive to the wikipedia project. Better docs, or a civil word is called for. Or make the CFD process a little more complex for newbies to access. Penyulap _talk 05:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, your complaint can't really go anywhere, as it would need you to point out where ChristianandJericho has broken the rules, it REALLY helps a lot if you put up diffs (links to the exact place he did something wrong) it also helps if you can suggest a solution, although that is not needed. ChristianandJericho as you have said is not doing anything bad on purpose, just making mistakes. That's allowed. Is there anything you know of where he has done something wrong, plus been warned about it by an admin, and ignored the warning from the admin, and kept going ? Penyulap _talk 06:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really have a complaint, I was just concerned about the large number of mistakes the user was making. I wasn't looking for my "complaint" to "go anywhere" except under the eyes of an admin who could decide whether the user needed something like mentoring. Since the "complaint" is general, I didn't provide diffs as a cursory look at the talk page explains it clearly. With that said, I'll keep your comments in mind if I ever decide to persecute a newbie. N^oformation ^Talk 12:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho has made simple newbie mistakes and has made an apology here showing respect for a more experienced editor. We need more editors like ChristianandJericho time to close this one or what ! Penyulap _talk 06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Just tagged another article for speedy deletion BUT for a good reason as the user was attacking admins and using profanic words --ChristianandJericho 09:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you tagged a talkpage. Colofac (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I tagged two articles a talk page, and a vandalism page, which got deleted --ChristianandJericho 09:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

User just tried to report me on wp:AIV. Is this kid for real or is he really this thick? Colofac (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering your edit-warring on his talk page, I think an interaction ban between the two of you might be a good idea. Find something more useful to do with your time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The user is Wikistalking me, I feel that it is hard to edit when he is constantly trailing me. Colofac (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your problems (and the problems) with ChristianandJericho, edit warring to preserve the barnstar speaks for itself. I presume you weren't aware of WP:OWNTALK and the rights of user to remove nearly everything from their talk page at their absolute discretion until it was pointed out to you. Even so, while I can understand why people may mistakenly feel the need to preserve warnings and similar messages, trying to preserve a barnstar which is supposed to be a sort of honour (even if it was seemingly misused here) makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This user keeps adding random barnstars to my talk page, also he is spamming my talk page and removing AIV reports, also user is Attack me (check talk page history) --ChristianandJericho 11:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Do you giggle when you see the boobies? I bet you do." At 13? He's not 8. Most 13 or 14 year olds on average have (illegally) viewed hardcore pornography and seen most if not all of the entire works in lurid detail. Usually some old dirty 70s or 80s videos of one of your friends' parents with a sound track like this LOL, or a thieved Mayfair or Penthouse with some ageing tart on the cover nicked by the paper boy and sold to you. C'mon he's 13, the hormones are off the scale, and remember what it was like to be his age. Beats me though why he would want to contribute here when he could be scouring the internet for naughty sites and images. Or has his parents blocked em all LOL. But to be honest I think there should be an 18 requirement for joining WP:Porn as it seems illegal LOL. But if he's stupid enough to declare his age...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to set an age requirement, fine, but don't mock me our call me stupid --ChristianandJericho 15:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to get defensive, I was actually defending what it is like to be a 13 year old (before you were born) and treating what you are likely knowledgeable about with some humor I thought. But anything with pornography and age 13 in close proximity is going to attract a mass of unwanted attention and send out alarm bells. This discussion is more about that than you invalidly tagging articles for the chop. I know being 13 you feel a lot older amd more mature than it seems to us but from our perspective it is a very bad look to have declared 13 year old contributing to articles about hardcore pornography. A friendly word of advice would be to drop your user page tags and messages with attitude and get on with writing articles about wrestlers and stuff and try to keep a low profile. Why not try to get some collaborators and try to promote some articles like the legendary Hulk Hogan to WP:GA? Feel free to ask me if you want any help on anything. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Admin comment: This ANI has been raised about concerns of inappropriate CSD tagging and/or other aspects of page patrolling. The only seriously disruptive behaviour by ChristianandJericho appears to be the immature approach to a process as fundamentally important as NPP. I suggest a topic ban from patrolling new pages until this editor has made 2,000 good manual edits to mainspace. Any involvement as a minor with page related to pornography should probably be the subject of a separate discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to mentor the user, if that's satisfactory to everyone. Swarm ^{u / t} 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Kudpung is right. A lot of the comments here have been most unconstructive, and totally unfair to ChristianandJericho. I support the proposal for a topic ban. If ChristianandJericho would like to accept Swarm's offer of mentoring then that should be a helpful step forward. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, SudoGhost asked me first --ChristianandJericho 09:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to be a disruptive editor, but I would like to start/continue editing in WP:Pornogrpahy --ChristianandJericho 09:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User:ChristianandJericho has agreed to mentorship under these guidelines, which hopefully covers all of the concerns found in this discussion. It is my hope that mentorship will resolve these issues, and User:ChristianandJericho's willingness to agree to these guidelines is certainly a good sign, and I intend to move forward with User:ChristianandJericho from here. Thank you. - SudoGhost 09:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fantastic, I didn't see that someone else had offered mentorship. The self-imposed restrictions should be sufficient as well. Thanks, SudoGhost! Swarm ^{u / t} 10:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to drag this out any more than necessary, but we still have a self-identified 13 year-old who is listed as a member of WikiProject Pornography and has a userbox that says "This user is a hard-core member of WikiProject Pornography". Mentorship seems like it might help address the other issues, but the "hot potato" issue of an underage user working on porn articles has not been resolved. SudoGhost, do you think you can do something about that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He has agreed not to edit porn articles, at least temporarily. As a general rule, I think the issue needs to be decided upon. Swarm ^{u / t} 15:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing I'll be honest about, I will fight to edit it that area eventually --ChristianandJericho 00:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments like that are precisely why some of the editors commenting above have concerns about your editing at WP:PORN. Someone suggested that you lay low for a while and edit other things, to let the drama die down, and that's sound advice - which you promptly ignored. And that's concerning. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't commented prior to this, but I've been following the conversation, and frankly I'm not seeing anything remotely encouraging here, and the lack of block is beginning to boggle me.--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing though, when I joined WP:Porn I made sure there was no age limit, anyway I'll lay low for awhile but when the drama dies out, I'm going to edit those articles --ChristianandJericho 14:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho, your argument seems to be that there is no "rule" against you editing porn articles, and you are right. That doesn't mean that you will be able to edit articles on pornography. Even if you wait until the drama dies down, someone like me will come here and ask that you be blocked. And you will be blocked, because having a 13 year-old editing porn articles is going to look really really bad if the press gets wind of it. I do not claim to know what laws might apply here, but I suggest that this has enough of a smell that any US-based admin who acknowledges knowing about this would be wise to block you unless they wish to find themselves in an unpleasant situation. Let me ask you a question. You feel that you, a 13 year-old, should not be restricted from editing articles on pornography (most, if not all, of which contain explicit images) - do you think a 10 year-old editor should be restricted from editing those articles? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on Jimbo's talk page.--v/r - TP 16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion Despite the lack of policy violation, I believe it would be in WP's interest to ignore all rules here and slap a broadly construed topic ban on ChristianandJericho with regards to Porn articles until such time as a clarification is made by WMF. --Blackmane (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The user has already accepted a voluntary restriction. Swarm ^{u / t} 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If the user has agreed to your terms and the discussion is immaterial, then why is the userbox still on his userpage?--v/r - TP 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This diff [3] where he offers to lay low and come back to the articles later doesn't seem to show him accepting a voluntary restriction, unless he's laying low for five years. Or here [4] where he says he'll fight to edit those articles eventually. Dayewalker (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And? If he actually violates the restriction (which he has abided by thus far), there may be a basis for a ban. However, it's unnecessary at this point. Swarm ^{u / t} 18:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to strongly concur with Penyulap that the thing about age and WikiProject porn is an unwelcome hijacking of the discussion. The RFC is running something like 10-0 against the proposed restriction. This is a non-starter of an idea. Just please, would the closing admin look at this issue without reference to the age thing, and declare that he is making the decision based on the deletions and prior blocks only! Wnt (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And? he's explicitly stated that he plans to re-engage in edits in that area and fight to do so if necessary. The maturity level just does not seem to be here for this user and it looks like he's going to cause a large time sink with his behaviour, as he's already done, and that is not a net positive. Send him packing for 5 years to do some growing up and then let him take another stab at it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no rule against editing in that area. They haven't caused any disruption in the area. The disruptive editing was entirely unrelated. Do I think a 13 year old should be focusing on porn-related articles? No. Do I think the community should act as a WikiParent and ban him just because we don't like the idea? No, and here's why: the proposed age limit restrictions have been overwhelmingly rejected. We can't ban someone for failing to meet an age limit, while simultaneously rejecting said age limit. So, unless someone is actively planning on proposing a topic ban or a community ban, I don't see what else talking is going to accomplish. Swarm ^{u / t} 00:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Moot point now

Blocked

I've blocked C&J indefinitely owing to disruption, along with their behaviour[5][6] after agreeing to these editing restrictions. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Regretfully, I agree. C&J doesn't seem to understand that, regardless of whether or not the rules say he can do something, doing it is not doing him any good. I'll leave him a message to see if I can explain it. Also, I stuck a header on this for ease of navigation. lifebaka++ 00:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at some of the evidence, and I at least slightly disagree. I still believe there is a chance for "mentoring back to reason", and the disruption is minor and yet still related to the whole WikiProject Pornography scandal. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 00:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the indefinite block stops 'mentoring back to reason'. Remember an indefinite block is not a 'permanently block' and instead often a 'block until we are resonably certain we can trust the editor to edit again' which in a case like this is 'until they have reached a mentoring agreement and understand they do have to obey it if they wish to edit and understand why their previous behaviour was unacceptable under their agreement (and we resonably believe they will obey it)'. Note that the DGAF issue was part of what lead to his block and while easily resolved it was not part of the pornography problem. As for the porn issue, actually I find his behaviour which lead up to the block in some ways far worse then the porn issue. IMO regardless of how you feel about the fairness of the porn restriction, if he's going to agree to it he should obey it. Despite his age, I find it hard to believe he really can't understand why some people are concerned about it even if he doesn't agree with them. And therefore I find it hard to believe he didn't appreciate his attempt to keep himself listed as an inactive member was basically highly disruptive wikilaywering around an agreement or conditions. I know a few people believe this is an acceptable way to do things if they feel the agreement or conditions are unfair but IMO this is generally fairly disruptive on wikipedia. If you don't agree with something, either fight it openly, follow it despite you disagreement or leave. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked C&J as he's agreed to further restrictions. This isn't a comment on the above porn fiasco and if the user goes against the agreement, any admin can feel free to reblock. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

and the time sink just marches on. It is a comment on the porn fiasco since it's part of the restrictions and he's still stating his intent to directly return to it once this process is finished. By unblocking him you're commenting on that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen time and time again, that mentoring is a wonderful way to learn about en.WP, for the mentor. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, they were blocked for violating editing restrictions and ignoring an explicit warning, not for saying they'll join WikiProject Porn once the mentorship is over. We're not their parents, we're not responsible or liable for them, and there's currently no consensus that I'm aware of that would prevent them from doing so if they wanted to. I don't think your comments are justified. Swarm ^{u / t} 20:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit restrictions which involved Project pronography right? The current proposal to age limit was mostly rejected on a technical basis. We don't know every user's age so how can we enforce it? While the proposal won't pass, several did support it and But Seb hit the nail on the head with his support !vote. We also haven't heard from the foundation on the matter. It is one thing to have articles with images in them which may be considered pornographic open to any random person for reading. It's another thing to have a self-identified minor explicitly state that they're going to make those articles an area of their focus.--Crossmr (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone addressed the account name with him? It almost seems like its indicating two people are using it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian and Jericho are the names of two wrestlers, that's what I assumed he was referring to with his choice of names. Dayewalker (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But that could've been uncovered with a simple google search. Crossmr, seriously, there is no reason to keep dragging this out. I understand the concerns, and if they cause disruption, I'll be the first to support a reblock. And, if we decide as a community that this particular user can't edit that particular area because of his young age, I will wholeheartedly support that too. However, short of that happening, this ANI thread is degenerating into unnecessary drama. Completely unnecessary, in fact. The problem has been remedied. The user has a mentor. They understand that they're on their last chance. I encourage you to keep an eye on them if you're suspicious, but as of now, the most damage that's being done is the drama caused by throwing more logs into the fire (i.e. dragging this thread out longer). I would respectfully ask that, for now, you let it go. Swarm ^{u / t} 00:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what my name stands for my two favorite wrestlers --ChristianandJericho 02:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

There has been a relevant proposal regarding minors and pornography-related articles. I encourage anyone here to weigh in and/or offer a different proposal. Swarm ^{u / t} 19:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

Let me see if I understand this. This user was blocked on 20 September not because of their competency, but because of issues their refusal to give up their "membership" in WikiProject Pornography. They were unblocked with conditions and mentorship. After only three (3) mainspace edits, they were blocked for competency issues. I guess that means we don't have to address that issue of this 13 year-old editing porn articles anymore. What do we do about the general case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Of minors editing pornography articles? We'd have to take it on a case by case basis. The proposal was rejected on technical grounds (or it will be) since we don't age verify, but if someone identifies as a minor and then proclaims a strong interest in project pornography, then we'd have to look at that as a community. Frankly, I can't see what a 13 year old can bring to project pornography anyway. They're unlikely to be SMEs, have incredible experience in the area, or even be that well versed on the nitty gritty and background. Potentially they could do wikignome stuff, but why limit that to pornography?--Crossmr (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

God forbid they are an SME or have "incredible experience in the area"! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, you say that this is something to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but perhaps you could outline circumstances wherein a self-identified 13 year-old would be welcome to edit pornography articles? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a policy discussion and belongs at VP, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thirteen year olds in general shouldn't be editing anything on Wikipedia, much less pornography articles. Jtrainor (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Attempted character assassination

A recent thread on this noticeboard refers to "the alleged plagiarist Grutness". Grutness has been an admin for over six years, and is one of Wikipedia's more consistent, prolific and useful contributors. He seems highly distressed and has withdrawn from the project. The original allegations [7][8][9][10] were presented in the form of militant attacks by Rjanag, who also alleged Grutness was a liar. It is understandable in the face of this onslaught, and in the absence of editors coming to his support, that Grutness retreated in despair.

As will be seen throughout the threads and related threads presented here, Rjanag is always right. Once she has made her decision, that's it, and she seems willing to go to any length to suppress contrary views. She appears unable to listen to reason, and repeatedly asserts she will not reconsider anything once she has made a decision.

Comments from other editors on this issue can be found primarily here (these are the views Rjanag sought to suppress). Rjanag not only failed to establish Grutness was a plagiarist, but according to her own standards, Rjanag is a plagiarist herself. On the issue of lying, Rjanag did not convincingly establish credibility issues with Grutness, but simply bulldozed him into the ground with an a priori assumption of guilt. It is unfortunate Grutness did not hold his ground and fight back. He may have been overwhelmed by the savagery of the assault.

Bringing matters to a notice board like this seems to me a last ditch thing to do, but Rjanag made it clear this is the only remaining option. I would like to see other editors assess this situation, and the redress I seek is that Rjanag should make a full and adequate apology acceptable to Grutness, on Grutness's talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the administrators' incident noticeboard. It is difficult to see what administrative action is being sought here. Demanding that people make apologies to editors who have ostensibly left the project is not really within the remit of the admin corps, no matter how much polemic said demands are attached to. It's understandable that Grutness felt deeply insulted by what happened, and the project would be better if he returned, but there's not much that can be done with the tools to remedy that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(Ec)What is the purpose of this thread? The incident happened over a week ago. Users other than me agreed with the plagiarism concerns. I specifically said that I didn't see anything more to discuss, no one else asked me to do anything, so I recused myself from the rest of the discussion; the last sentence of your message to me on that talk page suggested to me that you didn't want me to comment further either. What is the point of digging all this back up a week after it ended?

Also, I don't see how I've sought to suppress any views. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well that is a typical Rjanag-style response. You know very well Rjanag, that I already replied to your claim that other editors agreed with your plagiarism allegations. My reply was included in the diff you just gave. Since you are pretending you haven't read it, here it is again:

You say there are editors who have "agreed with the plagiarism concerns of the original version of this article", that is with your false plagiarism claims. I can't find these straws you are clutching at. Surely you don't mean Flagstaff1? If so, his supposed support of you was the subject of an ANI. Nor is there another supporting editor on some talk page linked above, unless you mean this one. That is just someone saying that he hasn't time to look into it, but the the duck evidence you initially presented was strong. Yes, well I would have thought that too, if I didn't take time to look into it. That is precisely the problem, that you skillfully present what at first blush looks like a convincing case, but it falls apart on closer examination.

It is also disingenuous of you Rjanag, to cherry pick a diff from that message to you when you know very well that I had second thoughts about trusting you any further, and had retracted that last sentence. And you say you don't see how you've "sought to suppress any views". I gave you the diff above. Here it is again. You tried to hide a direction to views opposing your own by placing the direction on a nomination talk page, where nobody would ever look at it. Another administrator dissented and took you to task about it. And you ask, "What is the point of digging all this back up a week after it ended?" It never "ended" Rjanag, and I took four days, not "a week", to respond. I already explained I was going to persist [11]. There is an absence of core decency here that rankles, and I find I can't work productively anymore in this muck. I feel like a lazy coward for not trying to put things right. It seems impossible to engage Rjanag at a rational level. It is really depressing if what you appear to be saying is true Chris, that even when it drawn to their attention, administrators will simply ignore matters like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors who expressed concerns about the writing include SL93, MaterialScientist (contrary to your creative reading of his message, he explicitly states there that the evidence of plagiarism is difficult to dispute), Crisco1492, and Bbb23 (who did not call it plagiarism, but nevertheless said the writing felt "wrong"). The other user who has been involved in this dispute, Carcharoth, as far as I can tell said that I should have given the editor more time to improve the article, rather than saying that the article was already OK (Carcharoth, you may correct me if I'm misunderstanding).

Regarding the "suppression" thing, this has nothing to do with trying to suppress views. I have for weeks now been enforcing the DYK nomination system, which includes not allowing edits to be made to archived discussions (a rule that is also in place at AfD, ANI, and many other locations); if you look through the history of WT:DYK you will see I have done this to several other editors and it has nothing to do with wanting to "suppress" dissent against anything. I certainly don't feel like Carcharoth "took me to task" about it; we had a disagreement and discussed it like adults without flinging loaded words at each other, which is more than I can say about you. Please refrain from using unnecessary fire-and-brimstone prose (accusations about people "suppressing" disagreement or people "retreating in despair") if you want to have a civil discussion about the issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So you still seem to be insisting plagiarism occurred. Now that's a really serious example of "flinging loaded words" about. So, to use the language the way you use it, what about your own plagiarism? And in a featured article! --Epipelagic (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think that article is plagiarized, you are welcome to nominate it for WP:FAR. But I think you need to read WP:Plagiarism and brush up on what plagiarism is, if you think that article is comparable to the wholesale copy-pasting that happened at Tom Skinner. I have nothing more to say on the matter of my article here, as it is a content issue not relevant to this topic; if you wish for more comments you are welcome to raise the issue at a more appropriate forum. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... --Epipelagic (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, in keeping with your usual style, your list of your supporters doesn't survive examination either. It gets too tedious, so I'll just mention the first of your claimed supporters. It seems to have escaped you that this supporter didn't support you on your plagiarism allegations at all, he never even mentioned them. He just baldly announced that Grutness was a liar, and then detailed some rather shoddy ways he had treated Grutness. I posted some queries to your supporter which he reverted. That fellow and Flagstaff1 seem to be the only real company you have on your crusade. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not on any crusade. I reviewed a DYK nomination, pointed out that it didn't meet the criteria (which it didn't), and failed it for that reason. I would be just as happy to leave it at that. You're the one who wants to keep reviving the issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also notice that Grutness is still editing, which is what people who say they're "leaving the project" often do. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Epipelagic, but this isn't really an AN/I incident, despite you being correct in what you have written. I haven't discussed it further, because there was no point. Rjanag got the idea that I was plagiarising, and then when I explained what had happened, (s)he accused me of lying. There's no point in carrying it any further. I cannot prove that what I have said was true, and even if I was able to do so, it is clear from Rjanag's comments that I would not be believed. I have left Wikipedia. Since the incident I have made one edit to an article, that which Rjanag has helpfully pointed out, when I was researching a subject and was surprised when Wikipedia took me to a page other than the one I expected (I added a hatnote). One edit, compared to over 10,000 in the previous three months. So technically, Rjanag, you are right that I have edited since then. But you're also right that it's ended. My years of work on Wikipedia have been irreversibly soured by your unjustified, unwarranted slanders, and I am currently not contributing to the project. Grutness...wha? 14:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the editors here, but at the core of the issue is plagiarism. I've read through the original ANI thread as well as the diffs with that and find that there is a lot of talk about plagiarism but no evidence. ?There's a great deal of "take my word for it, I know what I'm talking about". --Blackmane (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's all at Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner. The user nominated an article there, I reviewed it, and pointed out my concerns. That's all this is, a review someone disagrees with; it's a content issue that Epipelagic apparently wants me to apologize for. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence for close paraphrasing, and some for close paraphrasing before the source in question had been cited. That this blew up into accusations of plagiarism is unfortunate, but irrespective of that nobody forced Grutness to retire ("retire" of course being very much a subjective word in the history of wikidrama) and posting to ANI (especially in the manner Epipelagic did) is not an effective way of reversing that. Grutness is still presently free to return if and when he wishes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've got it. The system upholds administrators behaving like Rjanag. My behaviour is wrong. Note to self: Look away, keep your eyes averted. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is absurd to portray this as some sort of admin abuse when a) Rjanag did not use his tools in the incident in question and b) Grutness is one of the project's most experienced administrators. Frankly, all this sort of factionalism (conducted as it has been on the main drama board) does is negatively impact the perception others have on your objectivity. FWIW I've no stake in this particular issue at all and have collaborated with Grutness many times in the past. I've got a low opinion of GBCW actions in general, however, especially when they lead to this sort of attempted retribution from sympathetic third parties. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 00:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I never portrayed this as "some sort of admin abuse", just as plain abuse. I haven't asked for any sanctions against Rjanag, certainly not admin sanctions, merely that she do the right thing and acknowledge the impropriety of her attacks by apologising for them. I wanted to see if that was possible on this board. I accept with Rjanag that cannot happen. If by objectivity you mean Rjanag's systemic and creative reframing of the facts, then no, I don't aspire to that at all. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you weren't asking for administrative attention (and just wanted to communicate with Rjanag), why did you post this at ANI? Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I explained why in the opening statement above. It is impossible to communicate with Rjanag on matters like this; she is always relentlessly right, hunkered into a rigid unchanging position impenetrable by reason.[12][13] It is true she is skillfully, if robotically correct as far as administrative style goes, so in that sense it can be said that this is not an administrative matter. But there are wider ethical issues here. Can ordinary editors, who came to write an encyclopedia, get a balanced hearing on matters involving blatant injustice? Or is it necessary first to spend years immersed in a Byzantine morass of guidelines, observing and learning how to align with the machinations of admins? If it is just a matter that the person who studies and plays the system best prevails, then Rjanag prevails. Or is there some board on Wikipedia where natural justice, basic decency, common sense and keeping things simple, also have a place? If this board is not that place, where is that place? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you keep insisting that my status as an administrator is relevant to this matter. Any editor can review DYK nominations and anyone could have pointed out the same issues I did. I was not at any point during this issue acting "as an administrator", and I never used any administrative tools in this dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, and I am not "insisting". What is your point? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for you to keep complaining about "injustice" from the "machinations of admins". This has nothing to do with adminship. I meant every word of what I said in my review of Grutness' poorly-written article, and I would have reviewed it in the same way if I weren't an admin. So you can just leave your issues about evil administrators out of it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this has nothing to do with adminship. That was what I just implied above, "...is it necessary first to spend years immersed in a Byzantine morass of guidelines, observing and learning how to align with the machinations of admins?" Just let it drop Rjanag. You never seem to absorb what I actually say, but just go rigidly back to your original position. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Demanding apologies of anyone rarely works, admin or not. Best forget it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still confused what you expected to achieve here since this is not Rjanag's talk page. If Rjanag does not wish to respond in the fashion you desire, so be it. Posting here was never achieving anything since this isn't their talk page and you concur there is nothing that needs adminstrative attention. You didn't need "first to spend years immersed in a Byzantine morass of guidelines, observing and learning how to align with the machinations of admins" to see that but use simple common sense. If someone does not respond in the fashion you desire when you communicate with them directly, posting in some random other place isn't likely to make them change their mind. There's no 'name and shame' board on wikipedia where you can post things and people to try and force them to respond to defend their reputation. If you wish to start an RFC or whatever of Rjanag's behaviour, this is the wrong place. Nil Einne (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course some action is required-- has anyone checked some of Grutness' other articles to see if a broader copyvio investigation needs to be started? Relieved to see this problem is now being detected, at least some times, at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Followup-- it also appears that Epipelagic started an article talk page section aimed only at disparaging Rjanag's contributions, and that Epi could benefit from a good read of our talk page guidelines. Looks retaliatory, pointy and disruptive, not intended to improve the article, belongs on user talk (if anywhere), and I don't see the value added to Wikipedia in shooting the messenger when DYK is finally working to detect copyvio, plagiarism, close paraphrasing, and cut-and-paste. I reviewed some of Grutness' older (now delisted) FAs and found them 1) poorly sourced, and 2) too old to search for instances of copyvio. I haven't reviewed any of Grutness' newer work, but it would be helpful if this noticeboard would focus on the issues at hand rather than the petty interpersonal charges. I'm mystified at why this DYK ran anyway, after it was cleaned up, as that doesn't seem to be good practice, but I guess someone decided it was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• On the issue merely of how we address these kinds of issues: I think it is extremely important to flag and fix copyright problems as soon as possible. It's important that editors who are not using the community's approach to plagiarism and close paraphrasing start to do so as soon as possible. It's also really important that we don't lose good faith contributors who can be brought into line with the community's approach to either of those issues. The ideal outcome is that we all wind up on the same page about what these things are, that our articles are written accordingly, and that everybody keeps happily contributing to Wikipedia. I agree with Chris here; I see some close paraphrasing. However, the duplication detector does not find wholesale copy-pasting, and neither do I (though, again, there are some sections that need revision). When something is "copied word-for-word", the duplication detector looks more like this. (Assuming Country Studies doesn't relocate on me. :))
  
  It's good to keep an eye out on issues and work together towards repairing them, but I really hope that as a community we can focus on fixing problems, keeping people. Our guideline on plagiarism suggests some approaches to this emotional issue meant to reduce distress and help us reach that ideal outcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Like I said at the DYK review page, to me it looks very much like large chunks of the article were copy-pasted in and subsequently changed around a little bit (changing a word here and there). In the examples I listed at that page (Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner) this seems fairly obvious. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Wholesale copy-pasting is different than close paraphrasing. I agree there were some close paraphrasing concerns. But while wholesale copy-pasting is hard to do accidentally, close paraphrasing is frequently an inadvertent issue. Again, it is important to find and clean problems. :) I've put a ton of time into doing that over the last four years, and I have found that quite a few people who have had close paraphrasing issues have been able to alter their approach to meet Wikipedia's and subsequently do quite well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple RfCs

Dear Administrator, yesterday, the article on militant atheism was appropriately locked due to continued edit warring. One RfC was already opened and is still receiving comments. However, today, User:Binksternet started two new RfCs, which has not been the policy over the past few months of discussing, obtaining consensus and then changing the article. I reverted the creation of the two new RfCs and asked the reviewing administrator who is mediating issues on the talk page to determine whether starting two new RfCs was appropriate. However, I was reverted back and do not wish to edit war on the talk page. If it is, I am willing to restore the two new RfCs and apologize for my action. I have informed the creator of the two new RfCs to please wait until a response from the reviewing administrator is received. Could you please comment on this issue and watch the talk page? Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy to limit RfCs on talk pages. The article was locked to promote discussion, and discussion is what I am after in opening two RfCs. There is no formal mediation underway, and Master of Puppets, the locking administrator, has not shut down the talk page. In fact m.o.p. specifically called for discussion! The RfCs will stimulate discussion. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to start two more RfCs at the same time that one is already going on at the talk page, User:Binksternet. Please revert what may be considered disruptive editing until we have a response from the reviewing administrator, User:Master of Puppets. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I concur that the page was properly protected, with an aim to foster discussion. But I'm unclear as to why the existing RFC could not be (or was not being) used for that purpose - nor do I see how three separate RFCs would do anything to clarify matters. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here's my input. Technically, there's nothing stopping the two parties from starting ten RfCs each. The fact that there are three ongoing discussions is not against policy. Therefore, it is not within my power to limit the amount of RfCs. However, given that I've been mediating the page for the last two months, I'd suggest waiting the current RfC out before starting another one (or two) - having three discussions underway may prove hectic.

Again, I should restate that I am not saying not to do this. How the parties choose to conduct themselves is not my decision. I would recommend letting the current request for comment run its course before starting another two, but if others feel that's not the right way, then so be it. m.o.p 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Then explain your position to Anupam who is using your authority as an excuse to violate talk page policy. See here. He's been using your authority to get his way on this page for a month now. What are you going to do about that? Will you warn him for removing other people's talk page comments and edit warring? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that I have any experience with the history and problems with the article but in this particular case I would suggest leaving either a combined or both the other RFCs open may be advisable despite the problems. It seems to me if consensus is reached to either split and particularly to turn the page into a disambig page, discussion over the LEDE may become redundant. Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And no doubt that is why Anupam is willing to go as far as to remove the comments of other editors and edit war over it in order to keep these RfCs off the talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect User:Griswaldo, your allegations of WP:OWN have not only been dismissed by the reviewing administrator, but by other editors as well, including User:Lionelt, User:Cody7777777 and NYyankees51. Moreover, I did not unilaterally remove the two new RfCs today but asked the reviewing administrator if starting two new RfCs was appropriate. He also did not think that starting two new RfCs was appropriate, as indicated by his response above. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne, actually there was an RfC to split the article this past summer and it was closed as "no consensus" to split the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC several times) Not that I have much involvement in RFCs but I don't believe there's any 'one at a time' requirement. In some cases it would be better to raise or merge issues in to an existing RFC but if they are mostly unrelated issues I don't see anything wrong with two simulatenous RFCs and indeed think I've seen it done before. 3 does seem like quite a long and in particular, the issue of whether to split the article or it should become a disambiguation page seem quite related so I don't personally see the need for seperate RFCs on those 2 issues. P.S. Under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography I found there appears to be 2 ongoing for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. P.P.S. While it's good you stopped, I would suggest removing the RFCs in the first place was not advisable. I don't see any reason why it was that urgent, if you felt the admin would remove them then it's best just to leave it up to them unless there was a history of rejected RFCs from that user on the page. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

They seem to be covering different topics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is 100% correct. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The two new RfC's don't overlap with the other one. They deal with a problem that many of us find more essential than the one Anupam is discussing. The first RfC has also been ongoing for over a month now. Also, I would like to add that Anupam has violated the talk page policy here, but not only deleting the new RfCs but edit warring to keep them deleted - [14], [15], [16]. While Master of Puppets doesn't believe that there is an ownership problem with Anupam's edits, many of us don't agree. I would like another admin to review this. I posted diffs of ownership on MoP's talk page - HERE. Of course this latest attempt to delete good faith RfCs might just take the cake. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect User:Griswaldo, your allegations of WP:OWN have not only been dismissed by the reviewing administrator, but by other editors as well, including User:Lionelt, User:Cody7777777 and NYyankees51. Moreover, I did not unilaterally remove the two new RfCs today but asked the reviewing administrator if starting two new RfCs was appropriate. He also did not think that starting two new RfCs was appropriate, as indicated by his response above. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? You said above:

I reverted the creation of the two new RfCs and asked the reviewing administrator who is mediating issues on the talk page to determine whether starting two new RfCs was appropriate. However, I was reverted back and do not wish to edit war on the talk page. If it is, I am willing to restore the two new RfCs and apologize for my action.

Are you now saying you did not remove the RFCs? Because a quick look at the page history suggests your first statement is the correct one. The fact you initiated a discussion with the mediator (rather then just removing) is a good thing but as I said above, I don't think you should have removed it in the first place since even though you may have genuinely believed it having simultaneous RFCs on different issues wasn't allowed and Master of Puppets would stop it, there was no reason why it was urgent to remove the RFCs. Master of Puppets response indicates that while they would prefer there to only be one RFC, they also concur you should not remove the RFCs. In the absence of anything else I don't personally see the need to make a big deal out of this but I do hope you agree not to remove RFCs again without very good reason and understand why you shouldn't have removed the RFCs (not just because there's nothing stopping multiple RFCs but because it was best to let others handle it).

Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Nil Einne, thanks for your response. Yes, I reverted the addition of the two new RfCs to the page and left a friendly note on the creator's talk page, informing him that I was checking in the the reviewing administrator whether it was appropriate to do so. I apologize for removing them as I said I would do if my actions were deemed to be incorrect. As I indicated in my statement to the reviewing administrator, I was not opposed to the idea of holding those RfCs. I just thought it might be less confusing if we did once at a time. I hope this helps and once again, I apologize for my actions. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 17:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been on articles from time to time that had several RFC's going on, covering different topics. Master of Puppets questioned having 3 going, not for any policy reason, but just for possibly adding to the chaos. But if there are multiple independent issues, then multiple RFC's can be very appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem here with the new RfC's. They pertain to a different question than the RfC that was already in progress. I'm also concerned by Anupam's attempts to WP:OWN the article with his filibustering and attempts to intimidate other editors by misrepresenting statements of the mediating administrator. I'm having a very hard time assuming good faith here on his part- it seems that he wants to discourage further discussion. Very troublesome is his repeated removals of the RfC's and his denying doing so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

For all those not in the know, a previous RfC on splitting the article resulted in no consensus. m.o.p 22:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that the user who closed it retired after getting three months worth of blocks just one year for edit warring on religious themed articles [17]. aprock (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Anupam violating WP:OWN

I would like someone to look into the issue of Anupam's editing at this entry. Some of us think he is violating WP:OWN. These editors have said so on Master of Puppet's talk page -Abhishikt, Snalwibma, Mann jess. I provided diffs to Master of Puppets regarding this issue as well. They can be seen User_talk:Master_of_Puppets#Diffs_of_WP:OWN. Anupam's deletion and edit warring over the two new RfCs is the latest example of this, already mentioned here and also listed on MoP's talk page. I'm not particularly keen on the idea that more than one admin now knows about that and has not warned him officially not to delete other people's talk page comments, and not to edit war on the talk page. The over all pattern of ownership that he exhibits on the talk page can be seen in the diffs provided to MoP. An RfC of months ago that he opposed ended in "no consensus." Another more recent RfC that he supported was closed in his favor by Master of Puppets (despite only having a 7-5 margin I should add). He uses these two facts to shout down those who disagree with him on the talk page and to revert people trying to make changes to the entry. When he does this he cites the authority of MoP who decided the RfC. In the last episode he went so far as to cite MoP's authority as he deleted talk page comments and edit warred over it. Can an uninvolved admin please review this matter?Griswaldo (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect User:Griswaldo, your allegations of WP:OWN have not only been dismissed by the reviewing administrator, but by other editors as well, including User:Lionelt, User:Cody7777777 and NYyankees51. Moreover, I did not unilaterally remove the two new RfCs today but asked the reviewing administrator if starting two new RfCs was appropriate before doing so. He also did not think that starting two new RfCs was appropriate, as indicated by his response above. Part of the issue here, is that User:Griswaldo, User:Snalwibma, & User:Abhishikt were part of the dissenting party in the consensus introduction RfC; as a result this is a dispute issue, not one of WP:OWN. Moreover, User:Griswaldo, there was no consensus to remove the information. In fact, three editors, including myself, User:Cody7777777, and User:Turnsalso expressed our disapproval with the information being unilaterally removed. User:Snalwibma did not discuss the removal of the information but did so unilaterally, which is why I reverted him once, two anonymous IP Addresses reverted him several times, and User:Cody7777777 reverted him. The removal of information was not performed after consensus. You did not even add a single comment to the discussion that was taking place about the topic! Instead, you reverted the reinstatement of the consensus version and are now stating that I was violating WP:OWN, despite the fact that I was not edit warring, and even engaged in discussion with other editors on the topic. As such, it is totally appropriate that User:Master of Puppets protected the article (preserving your revision by the way) because you were not following the injunction given by the reviewing administrator: Also, any further changes should be discussed on the page. We've only got consensus on this proposed versions (and loose consensus at that) - please do not attempt to subvert said consensus by making undiscussed changes. You also ignored the page notice given to create a spirit of discussion, consensus, and then change. As a result, do not criticize User:Master of Puppets, but look to yourself for violating consensus, edit warring, and posting rude messages, when you never bothered to discuss your edits in the first place. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am another user who dismisses User:Anupam's WP:OWN accusations. Just because he has made many contributions to Militant atheism, does that imply he owns the article? Geremia (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you stop repeating that falsehood about not removing the RfCs? You removed them, then you asked for advice on the matter from the admin, and the whole while you kept reverting, before this admin ever replied (and his reply in the end doesn't even support your removals). How is that not "unilateral?" Nil Einne also challenged you on this above. Here are the diffs, again - [18], [19], [20].Griswaldo (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing your accusation of WP:OWN, which has been thoroughly refuted, not my mistake which I apologized for. Please stop trying to frame me because your dissenting position was not in line with consensus. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet formally weighed in on the question so I will: I think Anupam exhibits article ownership problems in several ways such as using the first person in talking about article issues, and in berating and demeaning article editors who do not agree with him. Anupam appears to own the article by responding to each opposing discussion in an RfC. Anupam shows ownership problems by challenging the person of opposing editors rather than the argument forwarded, and also by wikilawyering about policies rather than addressing the issues brought up. Anupam has driven other editors away from the article because of this obsessive ownership style. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Pure unadulterated WP:BOLLOCKS. Anupan presents persuasive arguments which engender consensus with a majority of editors at the article. His positions have enjoyed majority support a number of times. His current Introduction proposal has 9 editors supporting and 5 in opposition. He doesn't have to own the article, he owns the discussion by virtue of his erudition. These attemps to censor him are pathetic. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved admin) Nobody "owns" a Wikipedia discussion under any circumstances whatsoever, just as no editor "owns" an article. There is no special virtue accorded in discussion as a result of the persuasiveness or "erudition" of the arguments an editor presents -- it grants no special authority. Consensus is also not arrived at by a simple majority vote. I personally do believe that Anupam's approach to discussion and consensus-gathering relating to Militant atheism and the RFCs in the dispute diaspora are starting to look a shade like gaming the system (and this may be entirely unintentional), and frequently involve a level of wikilawyering. I certainly do see WP:OWN-type behaviour from Anupam -- again, quite possibly undertaken with the best of intentions -- relating to his view on when editors have "consensus" to modify the article and under what circumstances, which does seem to be of a self-determined kind. I would politely suggest to Anupam that he might consider stepping away from the article for a period of time, and I believe that other users involved in this dispute could benefit from doing the same also. --Tristessa (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Tristessa. I do not believe that Anupam is going to curtail his style of editing unless he is warned that it crossed the WP:OWN line and the he needs to try to stop it. Many editors have commented on this already and he simply denies that he is doing it. I was not a regular contributor to this page or its talk page discussions, though I have it watchlisted because irreligion in general is an interest of mine, but what I saw from Anupam was just more of the same behavior - bullying editors with authority based one claim of "consensus" and the one administrator who declared it, stifling conversation with walls of text and wikilawyering, etc. I thought that maybe one persistant voice added to those who were being worn down by this behavior might help, but it hasn't. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt, WP:BOLLOCKS is about major problems with article notability. Perhaps you meant to say "bollocks", without the caps and the wikilink to an unrelated essay. At any rate, my reasoning for describing Anupam as having article ownership issues is carefully considered, point by point. Nothing I wrote is made up, or bollocks. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this rise to the level of canvassing?

Is this a problem, with respect to WP:CANVAS? [21]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, User:Griswaldo had placed similar messages at WikiProject:Atheism. As such, User:Lionelt appropriately placed a neutrally worded message of a relevant RfC at WikiProject Christianity and its sub-projects. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, Anupam, I wasn't asking you. I was asking administrators. The diff I provided was at the talk page of WikiProject Conservatism, not a project dealing with religion or irreligion-related matters, whereas the Atheism WikiProject is clearly related to a page on Militant atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on what Anupam said, I looked further, and found [22], [23], [24], and [25]. Given that there is already a link at the Religion WikiProject, [26], the choice of these projects and not others heightens my concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would just want to mention that when Lionelt posted these comments, WP:WikiProject Conservatism was still listed as a project interested in this article. (WP:WikiProject Christianity, WP:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, WP:WikiProject Catholicism are also listed there.) Cody7777777 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, and I didn't know that. However, looking at your diff, there is still a discrepancy between the projects in the banner, and the projects that were contacted. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The conservatism project was never appropriate. Anupam added it along with "Theology," "Christianity," and "Islam." Interstingly he did not add the Atheism project at the time, and apparently no one added the Religion project ever. The conservatism project was correctly removed without contest by someone recently. Anupam's WikiProject additions appear to have been made in some sort of watchdog capacity, and not in relation to applicability to the subject matter. I think that diff shows some very questionable activity on Anupam's part -- WP:BATTLEGROUND comes to mind. Also, none of this explains the LDS project being contacted by Lionel.Griswaldo (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I added the religious WikiProjects because they are directly relevant to the subjects mentioned in the article. WikiProject Conservatism was added to the article because the term militant atheist is often one levied by conservatives. This is also probably why User:Lionelt added the RfC notice to WikiProject Conservatism after you had canvassed WikiProject Atheism. I am not a part of WikiProject Atheism and did not know that it existed at the time when the article was a stub until I fully expanded it. For this reason, I did not add the template. Moreover, the only individual creating the battlefield mentality here is yourself, demonstrated by your recent threats (Exhibit One, Exhibit Two) to the reviewing administrator of the article, User:Master of Puppets. You are being warned right now to stop and participate constructively. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Anupam, about not knowing about the Atheism WikiProject, I'm all for AGF. But your first edit to the article in question here was in May [27], whereas you first edited Atheism in February [28], and Template:Atheism Sidebar in March [29]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish, yes, that is correct information but still is not relevant to the fact of my knowledge of a WikiProject Atheism. Moreover, I was never a part of WikiProject Atheism. I usually do not add templates on talk pages of projects that I am not a part of. Nonetheless, the template for that project was added to the article this past summer which is what matters. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you make an argument without referring to the "reviewing administrator of the article, Master of Puppets?" I did not canvas anything. Wikiproject:Atheism is clearly the primary Wikiproject for all atheism articles. The fact that American conservatives are often critical of atheism does not make what you did any more acceptable. Indeed it proves my insinuation about why you added it. Again, this topic has nothing to do with "conservatism." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think you know what WP:BATTLEGROUND is about. Read it over. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks, Griswaldo. Anupam is an experienced user. One can reasonably assume he knows about WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks Geremia (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Anupam says: "WikiProject Conservatism was added to the article because the term militant atheist is often one levied by conservatives." Seriously, this is disingenuous in the extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkhwiki (talk • contribs) 02:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. There have been concerns raised in the past about overenthusiastic project tagging of tangentially related articles by WP:Conservatism members, and this is another piece in an emerging pattern whose end goal seems to be circumventing WP:CANVASS, particularly given the politically skewed distribution of invitations to the project. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I do not really understand why we should assume that editors interested in discussing about this issue can be found only at WP:WikiProject Atheism or WP:WikiProject Religion. And since WP:WikiProject Atheism had already been informed about this, in my opinion these actions do not look like an issue of WP:CANVASSING. The comments posted by Lionelt look neutral to me (since he did not ask editors to either oppose or support there), and if there are no interested editors at these WikiProjects, they will probably just ignore the notification. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm asking the question. It's not so much about the fact that more projects were contacted, but about the appearance that there was a pattern as to which projects were contacted, and which were not (see WP:Votestacking). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that Lionelt has made multiple edits after the time I notified him on his user talk page of this thread, and presumably has had an opportunity to reply here. I would welcome hearing from administrators, since we've certainly heard already from other involved editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish - while I'm not sure why Conservatism was listed as a relevant Wikiproject for the page at hand, it looks like Lionelt just went to all parties he thought would be interested in the RFC. I don't see any malicious intent or an attempt to canvass supporting voices. m.o.p 19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean like Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, which he contacted here? You don't think he felt that other Christian denominations would be interested in this? People in the Wikiprojects of History or Politics perhaps? I don't buy the distinction you are making one bit. Of course he thought that members of these Wikiprojects would be interested in the topic, but he also knew they would be interested in it in a certain way. Preventing that is the whole point of the Canvasing rules.Griswaldo (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I'm inclined to believe that you are correct, but haranguing an administrator doesn't help. WP:There is no deadline, even for dispute resolution. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the kind of objective response I was looking for. I'm still uncomfortable with the appearance that those interested parties were selected as a conservative-leaning (ie: it's appropriate to call the New Atheists "militant") subset of all parties that would really be interested in the RfC. But I recognize that this is a tough call to make with certainty, which is why I posted it as a question. I have a feeling that time will tell whether this will eventually end up as a matter that the community will need arbitration to sort out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop User:Northamerica1000

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – No one has done anything to merit a block, as of right now. If this discussion keeps going, that may change. This discussion is generating far more heat than light, and doesn't seem to be likely to result in any sort of reasonable conclusion; this is simply a case of users that don't like each other, and admins can't make people like each other. Closing this down before it wastes anyone elses time reading it and coming to the conclusion that there's still nothing for admins to do here. --Jayron32 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with me liking or not liking anyone, where did you get that idea? I have no problem with this discussion being closed, eventually NorthAmerica understood the problem and changed his behaviour, so nothing more needs to be done here. At the time I posted this, there was no indication to how many pages Northamerica1000 was going to post this (he had already posted it to user talk pages and article talk pages as well), and neither a polite nor a more urgent request had any effect. Please tell me what action I should have taken instead of coming here, so that I know what I can do in the future if something similar happens. But please don't blame it on "users that don't like each other", which is a very patronizing and belittling comment to make, certainly when everyone who commented while the events unfolded apparently had a very different opinion and treated this as a genuine problem. Fram (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Despite repeated requests to stop, User:Northamerica1000 continues posting thesame discussion in different places, each time asking to continue the discussion in that specific page, instead of somewhere central. I have posted a correction the first five times, but he just continues doing this, even in the mainspace and userspace (15 different discussions started so far). He has finally replied [30], but clearly doesn't understand the problem. Can someone discuss this with him or issue a short block to make him stop? It is disruptive. Fram (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

the above is a violation of WP:POINT. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

more an issue of an etiquette but Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) continually ignores repeated requests to use actual edit summaries and not simply add in whole wiki text. I've given several warnings with limited effect. [31], [32], [33]. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps tell him at the same time that signing edit summaries is not only unwanted, but actually doesn't work... [34][35][36] Fram (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Providing full text in an edit summary is standard and accepted usage per WP:ESL. The edit summary field is limited to 200 characters, rather like Twitter, and so will truncate in cases where the text is long. The general idea is to enable other editors to get the gist of the edit and this usage seems a good way of doing this. Warden (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply

The users above are attempting to censor free speech and valid, relevant and useful discussions that I post on discussion pages. It is my and all users' right to post comments on discussion pages in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy stating otherwise, or that discussions about topics have to be limited to one page, per another user's choosing. Any allegations of "being disruptive", etc. appear to be based upon the desire to censor the following content, which is highly relevant to the discussions on each respective discussion page and the topic that each discussion page refers to. Why are people trying to censor this data? Additionally, it is against Wikipedia policy to censor or remove comments on discussion pages. Why do these people above feel that they have to message one-another about my good faith discussion page additions, form a quick union of two against one, and then immediately remove them right after they are posted? This is against Wikipedia policy entirely. Why is an administrator immediately needed to intervene? Discussion pages are just that, discussion pages. Rather than contributing to the discussion, the users above are injustly removing my additions to discussion pages, which again, is entirely against Wikipedia policy. Maybe they have biases about the message and are pro-deletion of articles, and want to minimize people reading these views. Here is the message:

Extended Content collapsed by Nil Einne (talk)

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

It is functional to discuss matters about Wikipedia on discussion pages. It is against Wikipedia policies to remove posts to discussion pages. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll let other people judge the value of this reply, but one factual correction: "Why do these people above feel that they have to message one-another about my good faith discussion page additions, form a quick union of two against one, and then immediately remove them right after they are posted?" I have not messaged Libstar, and he hasn't messaged me. No such messages have been "immediately remove them right after they are posted" either. I posted my concerns, and Libstar seems to agree with them. We have not interacted about this at all. Fram (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have collapsed your copy of the message here. It isn't really needed here since anyone can see it in the 15 or so other locations you've posted it but I've left it be since it sort of speaks for itself that you felt it necessary to post it yet again. Nil Einne (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

nor has Northamerica actually addressed the issue I raised about ignoring requests to provide actual edit summaries. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

While WP:CANVASS does not mention reverting of suchlike messages but rather suggests blocking the editor in question, it is current practice to revert talkpage-spam. WP:CANVASS also defines Excessive cross-posting as spamming. Agathoclea (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And in reality, of the 15 or so messages he posted, only one was reverted (once), and that was because he posted a Wikipedia discussion to an article talk page, which goes against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable (final bullet). While I believe that the number of posts was excessive as well, the main problem was that each posted specifically and explicitly asked to discuss it on that page, not in one place, thus creating 15 separate discussions on the exact same issue. Why Northamerica1000 can't see that this is counterproductive is beyond me. Fram (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia which I guess you're referring to was removed twice. Once by you then when they added it back I removed it again. As you say, it was clearly OT as it doesn't relate to improving the article. While sometimes such discussions are simply archived or a comment is left that they are OT, I felt removal was appropriate here given that the message had been posted to so many other places. In any case, I agree with you that while posting to 15 or so places is in itself problematic, asking for 15 seperate discussions is discussions is the deal breaker here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to administrator: The above user Nil Einne collapsed part of my rationale in my comments here above, which is unfair, like blocking part of someone's reply on this administrator's noticeboard. I feel that this is unfair. Additionally, notice the tone used to qualify doing so that the user stated above. It was necessary to provide the text to provide context to what these people are speaking about. Please be sure to read this section as well. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary because anyone looking in to it will see the message when looking in to the many diffs. In any case, I did not remove it, so anyone who really wants to read it yet again is free to do so by simply expanding the section. P.S. I had already noted above that I collapsed the section as you yourself noted as well but I have now made it clearer I was the one who collapsed that section Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

More replies from Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• My addition of the above stated (now collapsed) information to discussion pages about article deletion, essays about article deletion, the Articles for Deletion discussion page, etc. is in no manner intended to be canvassing or "spam". The message is highly congruent with the theme, intent and spirit of each discussion page. The rationales presented by the users opposing these additions to discussion pages may be biased per a pro-article deletion stance. To the admin, please consider checking out the user contribution pages for these users who immediately decided to gang up on me. It appears that there may be another agenda involved, to remove good faith information added to discussion pages about article deletion, and to prevent users, in this case myself, from introducing new ideas to improve the Articles for Deletion nomination process, for whatever subjective reasons. To reiterate, I don't perceive my messages on discussion pages to be "spam". I'm not trying to sell anything. It's functional to see points of view that may vary in different discussions.
• All of the sudden I received messages about the style of my comments in edit summaries, which I base upon common sense. Sometimes is it functional to add verbatim changes so other users can view them right on the history section of a page. For example, the "full text" type of edit summary, abbreviated as "ft", is used to show additions to text in articles, in which case users can view the contents of the changes without having to refer to the article, as stated in the Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. Providing the full text of changes enables viewers to immediately view the changes in the history section of the article, and is often more useful than using a bunch of abbreviations, which some newer users will view as jargon, and likely not understand. This seems to be over-reaching nit-picking on the part of the user making these statements, going through edit summaries in history sections of articles, rather than focusing on Wikipedia's purpose, to build a digital encyclopedia. I have viewed and am already quite familiar with the Help:Edit summary guidelines. The person making these statements is taking matters entirely out of context in this case. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The above diffs demonstrate that the comments on your use of edit summaries started before you started adding your message to multiple places. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages are to discuss the content of or changes to the the page in question. In nond of those instances have you suggested a change to the page in question. If you want to have a change in policy you will need to post on a policy page, where this then will be discussed. But I can tell you now that our policies on spam and copyright will not be changed very easily (There are no servers in Afganistan where we could move to to avoid the copyright question for example) as that was the reason for the articles deleted. Agathoclea (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Northamerica1000, why do you want to discuss the same thing on 15 different pages at the same time, instead of on one page, with links from those 15 pages? Fram (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to point Northamerica1000 to {{Pls}}. This could be used to direct potentially interested parties to the single point of discussion. (I found my way here because I'm watching WT:Deletion process#Merge discussion and noticed the new topic there.) --Trevj (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reply from Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's functional to receive points of view from several people. Most people don't view discussion pages. My discussion additions are functional and entirely relevant per each discussion page and topic. Most people don't view discussion pages in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia's focus is upon building a digital encyclopedia and improving the articles within it. It only makes sense to discuss matters about article deletion policies on discussion pages that focus on the topic of article deletion. In this manner, people can view and comment regarding ideas to improve the nomination for deletion policies, add to the discussion, and perhaps form a consensus. These are attempts to reach consensus. It seems a little absurd for people to try and reach a consensus about limiting discussion that in and of itself, is also intended to promote consensus. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you perhaps just reply to the question? The question is not why you want to have as much participation as possible, and therefor posted it on 15 or so pages. The question is why you also want to have the actual discussion fragmented over these 15 pages, instead of having one common discussion about it, linked to from those 15 pages. Fram (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet another reply from Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to administrator who views all of this: I think my referral here was done hastily, as no harm has been done and no disruption of any sort has occurred. I received messages to keep discussions to one page (on my user page from objecting users), but only very basic rationales were provided to justify and qualify the statements, such as "it is better to do so this way." (My quote). Please refer to my discussion page here for context. The problem with the arguments presented on my talk page is that they weren't really valid, because the text I added to the discussion pages is just about 100% correlated with the topic of the articles, which the discussion page is based upon. Very importantly, the information I placed on discussion pages also complemented topics on each respective discussion page that was already present and being discussed, which was overlooked or unnoticed by all of the objectors above. In this manner, the context of my discussions wasn't taken into consideration, per the other discussions on each respective discussion page. My discussion added was in many cases in response to topics already being discussed on the discussion pages I posted my message on. My comments on discussion pages are intended to be in context with the discussions occurring on those pages, and congruent with the accompanying article's topic, of course. Rather than address my concerns, instead objectors immediately decided to remove my comments on discussion pages, very zealously, and over-hastily for that matter. To reiterate, it is important for Wikipedia to understand that my intentions were (and are), in this particular and singular matter, to work to reach consensus regarding improving the nomination process in articles for deletion, and to prevent topics that are actually notable and worthy of inclusion from being hastily and unnecessarily removed from Wikipedia. This was the only intention in this matter. The manner in which I was "ordered" to to immediately stop stated positing of arguments is also concerning. It doesn't seem fair to have to "look over my shoulder" now when I post on discussion pages, in the event that someone might come along and decide to remove my comments under a blanket rationale of limiting discussion to one discussion page on Wikipedia. This sets a very poor precedent when viewed objectively, that if a topic is discussed on one discussion page then it cannot under any circumstances be discussed on another discussion page, which of course, is ridiculous. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone makes an objection to your edits on your user talk page, but you believe that the rational for it wa unclear or too basic, you could have replied with your reasons for continuing anyway, or (preferably) have asked for further explanation. Instead, you ignored the messages and continued as before. Then, you claim that "objectors immediately decided to remove my comments on discussion pages, very zealously, and over-hastily for that matter." Your comment was removed from one page, an article talk page. To claim that this was done on "pages" (never mind very zealously and over-hastily) is clearly incorrect. On all other pages, the only thing I did was add comments like this one. This is not censoring, this is working to make a discussion more effective. You still haven't replied why you want to have 15 parallel discussions instead of 1 central one. You claim that this means that we want to achieve that "if a topic is discussed on one discussion page then it cannot under any circumstances be discussed on another discussion page": obviously, this is taking the reaction to your extreme actions towards the opposite extreme. But even so, if someone notices that a discussion which is being held at place X is also being done at place Y, then the normal reaction is to consolidate both discussions into one, and to invite further participation at that location. What exactly is the problem with that? Fram (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

For further context, please refer to my remarks at this discussion page: Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with reporting you. You were spamming boilerplate rhetoric in over a dozen different discussions, including obscure things like essay talk pages. That's disruptive on the face of it. If you have some boilerplate response that you like to give to discussions (because God knows you're not the first inclusionist to have helpfully given us all the answers) then add it to an essay and link to that if you specifically need to make the point therein. If, instead, you wish to start a discussion on a given subject, then start it on one talk page and link to it from other discussions as you've already been advised. For the time being, it would be an act of good faith to revert all of the mess you've made. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Northamerica1000: You've made some long and detailed arguments above defending your decision to post the same material in multiple places. You cite policies and principles to support your right to do so. Unfortunately, your interpretation of these and that of others can always differ, and we come down to the caveats in WP:BURO. Any policy is only a post-hoc reflection of agreed practice, and the agreement developing above is that your practice of posting the same material in multiple places is not a good one. In due course this may get written into policy but for the time being it's clear that you are the one out of step. Please take on board the considered views of the different editors who have posted above, and also the (to me) key observation that nobody has yet chimed in to support your contentions. When voices are unanimously against you it really might be time to consider that you might be mistaken here about the best way forward. Why not post your argument in one central place, then add a link to it from everywhere you feel it is relevant? That way there's no restriction of freedom of speech, and discussions can be very helpfully centralised. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that there was a major discussion on the topic less than three months ago Black Kite (t) (c) 11:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reply from Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I now have a better understanding about the concepts being presented about limiting speech to particular areas of Wikipedia. It wasn't my intention to "canvass"; I wasn't even aware of the policy about "canvassing" until someone finally pointed it out, as could have been done initially. I was also unaware of the possibility to place a comment on one discussion page and the availability of an option to provide a link on other discussion pages to it. Now I'm aware of this possibility, thanks to the editors who actually cited policies. Thanks to the people who actually provided examples of policies to inform me regarding these matters. While I disagree with some of the subjective language presented above, such as my opinions and ideas being "spam", perhaps by the manner in which the data was presented on several discussion pages, the content of the actual statement (collapsed above) hasn't really been addressed. Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process, where an actual discussion has actually transpired, which was my only intent, to promote discussion about the topic of improving procedures and criterion for the nomination of articles for deletion. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You apparently aren't that aware, what with having posted this to at least two separate pages. And you really, really don't need to preface every one of your comments with an introduction line. You're already signing at the end. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, now that you are aware of the reasons for the objections, rethink your approach to this. Next time someone voices an objection and asks you politely to stop, consider doing this, even if you don't understand why someone asks you to do this. Stop, engage the other person, ask for clarification, explain yourself. Don't just continue. Due to the lack of response from you (not stopping, and not replying to messages), this thing rapidly and needlessly escalated. Your responses here seemed to be written not from an objective look at what people actually said, but from what you perceived to be their motives. Your first reply here (the one titled "reply" above) four times states that what was done was "against policy", yet now it is clear that you have no idea what the applicable policies were. It's not a problem that you don't know all our policies, but it would be better, more prudent and constructive, if you would ask "what policies am I breaking?" instead of stating with such certainty that others were acting against policy. Finally, again, please do something about your edit summaries. Edit summaries with partial words and sentences are useless, and signing your edit summaries (like [37]) doesn't work, and is useless since your name is already mentioned next to it anyway. (edit conflict: and what thumperward said as well!) Fram (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And what's up with the identical statements you post to the talk page of articles kept after AfD? They already have a link to the AfD result at the top of the talk page, they don't need a section declaring that "The article was deemed worthy for inclusion", "it's functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article" and "its inclusion is congruent with building Wikipedia".[38][39][40][41][42]... Fram (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate you were not aware because very early on before you came to this discussion I made this comment at your talk page [43] which linked to WP:FORUMSHOPPING which mentions:

You can obviously draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together, but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue. See also Wikipedia:Policy shopping.

The prohibition on canvassing is also mentioned in that page although perhaps not in a way that makes it clear it applied to you.

In any case, as others have said if you didn't understand any of what was being said to you, your best bet was to engage with other editors when then tell you there is something wrong with your current actions rather then repeatedly insisting there is nothing wrong with what you are doing and that was no policy allowing deletions (even though I mentioned that it was allowed in some cases in the same comment and pointed out to you not long later [44] the talk page guidelines which makes this clear).

BTW, it seems you are still not aware what Fram mentioned earlier i.e. that signing in the edit summary does not work. If you don't want to take my word for it, please take a look at your contribution history for confirmation.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

there is such a thing as excessive zeal to accomplish something that is intrinsically meritorious. To start with, repeating the same thing in multiple places bores people, and when they get bored they stop paying attention, regardless of the value of the contents. If it continues, they get annoyed enough to get antagonistic to the message--even if they would otherwise support it. And, finally, they become antagonistic to whatever else one might be saying. The history of the article rescue squadron as a whole is a good example, and so is the career of some of those associated with it at the first. There are equally good examples on the other side, such as some attempts to delete all articles of a given kind. And it's prevalent in attempts to change articles to read a given way, or to use a particular terminology, or enforce a given rule particularly strictly--or leniently. The structure of Wikipedia is not very susceptible to bulldozing on any issue to which people are paying attention (the tactic can unfortunately work well in areas where few are watching--one zealot can bias things in such cases and still escape notice). There are too many people, and most of them think for themselves./There is much less follow-the=-leader thoughtlessness here than in many other places. (That's why canvassing is usually ineffective--it gets noticed and brings out all the opponents as well as those who reject canvassing on principle). People here tend to behave like cats, and can't be herded--though sometimes it is possible to get them all screaming. They also , like cats, go their own way doing their own thing, and can not be easily or permanently distracted, though they do, again like cats, sometimes take the bait of a familiar phrase like "blp", or "not-censored."

The only way to be effective here is to be selective in where to use one's efforts. My algorithm for what to try to save has 6 factors: what is intrinsically worth saving, what is likely to be saved, what arguments are needed as an example, what is easy enough to do without losing sight of everything else, whether other people will cooperate, and what I in particular can do effectively. Sometimes I'll deliberately suggest something rather extreme, or that I know will not be successful, in order to get the argument familiar for the future, or to register a protest that a few people might understand, but I try not to make a nuisance of myself by doing it very often. And I listen for the reaction: it is the mark of zealotry to ignore the reception, to say what one wants to say regardless. And even when posting essentially the same thing to an absurdly large group of articles brought to AfD with the same repetitive rationale, I try to distinguish myself from the nominator by varying it a little, to show that I at least have actually looked at all of them individually.

Northamerica, I see you going down the wrong road here, and I'd hate to lose you. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• This mainly seems to be a clash of Wiki-ideologies - routine inclusionist/deletionist stuff. The complaints about discussions and edit summaries seem to be trumped-up charges contrary to WP:GAME. The plaintiffs should please explain their real beef as I, for one, am not sure what the root cause of this matter is. Is there some particular class of topics which Northamerica is trying to defend or what? Warden (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • User NA1000 is reposting the same lengthy comment on the problems with AFD across at least 18 different talk pages (including user pages), and does not seem to understand that people have directed them to keep discussion to one centralized location. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've added links to some discussion pages I posted upon which state: Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. In this manner, the discussion regarding my ideas about policies regarding article nomination for deletion are based in one, centralized location. I'm hesitant to now remove the data from the discussion pages in which I originally posted, because from what I've read, it's against Wikipedia policy to do so. I'd rather an administrator do so at this point, if necessary. If I go and remove my own comments, it's possible that someone will state that I'm violating user page policies in doing so. It wasn't and isn't ever my intention to disrupt Wikipedia whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is a wikipedia-space content dispute (and more broadly a policy dispute), no admin is going to block over it, and people should stop whining on both sides. If Northamerica adds his extensive post to userpages that user is of course allowed to remove it per WP:USER but other than that he's pretty much free to post his spiel wherever he wants. Perhaps if he sat back and thought for a second he'd realize that fragmenting the discussion in this manner is likely to make obtaining a consensus on the matter much harder to achieve. N419BH 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

RfC on adding future fights to fight record table

An RfC was started June 29, 2011. Since then, to my knowledge, the consensus was found, but was never finalized. The discussion was whether to keep announced MMA fights in tables of the fighters who are scheduled to fight. There were some editors against keeping the announced fights in the table. Those who were against are still doing dozens of daily reverts (e.g. [45], [46], [47]) on many MMA bio articles based on the often contested rule that was the subject of the June 29 RfC. The rule is found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts ("Never add future bouts" and "Upcoming bouts that have been officially announced can only be mentioned within the body text..."). Can someone help finalizing the June 29 RfC properly if that has not been done yet? Thanks! Fayerman (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani-American

The user Kurdo777 has once again placed two dispute tags [48] that were removed by different users before: [49] and [50]

Kurdo777 only left this comment to 'justify' their inclusion [51]. As it stands, the article Azerbaijani-Americans appears to be better written and better sourced than analogous articles such as Iranian-American (where Kurdo777 is very active), yet the disproportionate attention and persistence in placing these "dispute" tags by Kurdo777 are just astounding. Kurdo777 does not leave any real justification for these tags, he does not explain what merits for either of the tags to be there. He also threatens unspecific action in case tags are removed. --Saygi1 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From that discussion, it appears that he is not the only person who has a dispute with the article. Why is it so important that the tag be taken down, when multiple people have posted on the article's talk page citing problems with the article? There is clearly a dispute, with distinct sides and multiple people on the sides. I can't see where Kurdo777 is acting in bad faith, and there is clear evidence that multiple people in good faith object to the state of the article. That sounds like a dispute to me. --Jayron32 17:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In order for there to be a genuine dispute, one has to properly state what does he/she object to. One can't just declare he has a dispute and then call up a few buddies to offer some semblance of "dispute". As it stands, there is no dispute - user Kurdo777 and his collaborator Alborz Fallah, with whom they edit Iranian-related pages (e.g., Iranian-American, do not elaborate on their objections. These tags have been removed by different users (as shown above), and frankly, they make no sense at all: 1) in one case Kurdo777 tries to dispute "factual accuracy" (the tag calls for "reliable sources") - well, there is not a single (!) unreliable source in the article, indeed, there are more citations and references than in the Iranian-American article; and 2) in the second case, he tries to dispute "neutrality", whilst not specifying what does he mean: neutrality of which sources? What neutrality, over what, over whom? This is an article about an group of people in America, not about some bilateral or multilateral topic where one can argue about neutrality as there could be multiple perspectives. In an article about a conflict, there are two or more sides, but in an article about a group of people in a country, unless they are in the middle of some scandal of their doing, there can be only single/one mainstream view of them, and that's typically from the government of the country and from them themselves. If sources cited are verifiable (they all are) and reliable (all are from a good mix of sources: US government, US universities, officially registered and recognized US NGOs, and reputable US media outlets), then what problem can anyone have with them? By that measure, I should afix both of these same tags to the Iranian-American article (and many other similar articles about hyphenated Americans) as I've been editing it and don't like some of its content, and find actions of some editors there non-neutral (e.g., removing references to Jews, removing references of the U.S. Marines official manual on Iranian people, etc). --Saygi1 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Saygi1 starts his comment with a false statement, he says "Iranian-American page, where Kurdo777 is very active" when I have not edited that article for as long as I remember. Secondly, the main issue here is Saygi1, he is a problematic user with a battle-ground mentality, engaged in nationalistic disruption all over Wikipedia. He was just blocked twice last week on one related article, and I strongly suspect him of being a resurrection of an Arbcom-sanctioned/banned user given his expert-level familiarity with Wikipedia when he started editing with this new username a few months ago, and his patten of edit-warring and causing disruption in a topical area (Azerbaijan) that's subject to ArbCom sanctions, where socks are frequently used in ethnic-nationalistic disputes. (see more details about Saygi1's conduct here). Besides making false statements in order to fish here, he is also acting in bad-faith, unilaterally removing a dispute tag from a disputed article, and labeling opposing editors as this and that, when the article in question (Azerbaijani-American) suffers from multiple issues like fringe definitions, and usage of synthesized material from questionable non-academic sources in order to exaggerate the numbers for lobbying purposes. Also, during the month of September, the dispute tag has been applied and reapplied by at least 4 different unrelated editors of completely different background, before being removed over and over by Saygi1.[52][53][54][55] Given the evidence above, I think it's time for Saygi1 to either be banned or at least be put on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbcom sanctions which would limit his ability to wage edit-wars and disrupt Azerbaijan-related Wikipedia articles. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice, I didn't expect anything else from Kurdo777 but a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations and attacks that are all over the place - except the page Azerbaijani American where he once again fails to explain his persistent inserts of the two irrelevant tags (as well as the insertion of those tags by his friends from among those known to edit Iran-related pages. So Kurdo777, please use this opportunity to clearly state, case-by-case, source-by-source, what exactly are you objecting to and why are those two tags, or even one tag, merited in the article. Also, please assume good faith and don't make such attacks. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not dispute resolution, and any discussion concerning Kurdo777's -- or any editor's -- objections to the article should take place on the article talk page, not here. However, in terms of behavior, it is worth noting that Saygi1 appears to routinely charge that any editors who disagree with him are "friends" who are in cahoots with each other. This seems to be an attempt to downplay legitimate differences of opinion by negating his opponents as meatpuppets. Saygi1 should control this propensity, and deal with editors who disagree with his judgement as distinct and legitimate participants in the discussion.

On the other hand, the editing history of User:5aul, one of the people Saygi1 cites as removing the tags from the article, is interesting and worth looking at closely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, the reason I say "friends" is not because I use that word lightly, but because it reflects the record of the users, who've edited same articles over some time. Kurdo777 and Alborz Fallah are definitely friends, they edited multiple articles, always in sync, and that applies to other users as well, who even call each other "doost e man" (my friend) - here on Kurdo's talk page[56]. Meanwhile, I invite more checking into all users involved, from 5aul (whose edits I've previously removed or objected, by the way) to Kurdo777 who can't elaborate on his stance and is just debating for the sake of debating. --Saygi1 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, it was not Alborz but me who called Kurdo777 doost-e man. I am not a party o the Azerbaijan-American dispute anymore (just have made some talkpage comments before and my last one now), but not editing it. As per Kurdo777, I urge him to not waste time on the Azerbaijani rticle and Sayig1 not waste time on the Iranian-American article. It is best actually to let users not from the region edit such articles.. Just to note my involvement in iranian-American was clean up of the lead and making new sections for variety of opinions. I hope everyone can edit peacefully before new sanctions. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that uninvolved admins take note that contributions concerning Azerbaijan are still under Arbcom sanction, and that all editors in this area should be kept under close scrutiny, as the nationalistic disputes which provoked two Arbcom cases are still clearly current, and there appears to be a significant degreee of ownership behavior being exhibited. The Arbcom sanction says:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Looking at the Enforcement Log I see that admins have not been shy about enforcing this sanction in the past, and they should continue to actively do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Restoring Photo to Dale Folwell page

RE:Image is not copyright protected Dale Folwell

On July 20, 2011 ZooFari removed an image from Dale Folwell's page due to a question over its copyright protection. I probably didn't fill out the license forms correctly, as I am a new user.

The file is titled Dale_NCGA_2011.jpg. It is owned by the State of North Carolina and not copyright protected. You can refer to the state legislature's website disclaimer. Refer to the use of photographs and graphics section.

Furthermore, the office in charge of the photographs supplied the following clause from the state's contract with its photographer. "The photographs selected for the House and Senate Rules Directories and placed on the NCGA’s web page will become the property of the State and as such are public records. By acceptance of the award of this contract the undersigned agrees that the copyright to the selected pictures is transferred to and vests in the State of North Carolina."

What do I have to do to regain use of the photograph?

Folwellla (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The language of the website is self-contradictory; I've e-mailed them and asked for a clarification. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that they state they are a public record, but then they go on to state that the State of North Carolina retains copyright. It is possible for something to be both copyrighted and in the public record, but it is kind of unusual. Look forward to hearing a response. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

They then go on to say "Photos of House and Senate Members on the individual NCGA Web Site member webpages are not posted without copyright release so they are considered in the public domain." —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think they mean that some photographs, including the official pictures of the House and Senate members, are public domain, but that not every picture on every part of the website can necessarily be assumed to be public domain. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Photos...that are not posted without copyright release...are considered in the public domain" What kind of sense does that make? Buffs (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It don't make no sense, nohow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It actually makes perfect sense, if we don't insert the word "that". Photos of Members are not posted without copyright release. In other words, if Senator Smith didn't release copyright, they wouldn't have posted his photo. So all posted photos have been released, in other words in the public domain. --GRuban (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting the cart before the horse here. The conclusion is erroneous: you cannot conclude that the photos are in the public domain because they lack a copyright release. Buffs (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

One more time - the State of North Carolina writes that the photos would not have been posted if they lacked a copyright release. In other words, the photos have a copyright release. --GRuban (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin please have a look at Folwellla's user page? It seems on its face to be violating the rule against role accounts. It appears to be done in innocence and good faith, but still. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If taken literally, the declaration on the user page is a clear violation on our policy against role accounts. I'll ask for a clarification on the editor's talk page, but if I can't get a response from them I might just block the account. -- Atama頭 19:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please also discuss conflict of interest with them. And they certainly could release a picture for our use, as well. :) - Nunh-huh 19:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be sure to. I thanked them for declaring up-front who they are (and thus acknowledging the conflict of interest) and if they're communicative I might pass along some of our suggestions we make to COI editors. You make a good point about the photo, also. That's one reason why I try to be welcoming to good-faith COI editors, they can sometimes make helpful contributions that would be more difficult for other editors with less access to the article subject. -- Atama頭 19:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Their edit regarding Folwell's same-sex marriage amendment struck me as somewhat disingenuous, but the rest of the article isn't as egregiously slanted. - Nunh-huh 19:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Williamsville North High School‎

I protected this for a day, then semi-protected it for six hours, and finally unprotected it. I thought this needed to be protected because of international media attention to the recent suicides at the secondary school, and because the principal had edited the article in the past to boost it. I made the changes after concerns were raised about my actions. I will watch it for potential vandalism, and I ask my fellow sysops to do the same. I also added many citations to document the international attention, since the text makes extraordinary claims, and to allow for further explication of the incidents. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have watchlisted the article, and indef'd the account you thought was the principal. That's an impersonation vandal if ever I've seen one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I see, now. It didn't dawn on me until I saw her misspelling her own name. –MuZemike 00:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it be necessary to autoblock the school IP? It might be possible that their may be vandals attacking the article from the school.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, such autoblock would have expired by now. Otherwise, I would recommend that people watch this article for any vandalism/attacks or whatever and get an admin to protect if necessary. –MuZemike 07:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Added to the WP:WPSCH list of problem schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Title change needed

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

---

The article WikiHow needs its title changed to "wikiHow" since that is what the site is actually called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.81.228 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style says all articles start with a capital letter. The article itself can explain the details of the way that site styles itself. P.S. This is not an admin matter. It should be posted on the article's talk page. apparently Not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added {{Lowercase title}} to the article. Thank you for raising our attention to this. Goodvac (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. So why is Lego's article not spelled LEGO? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I made the above change because (1) most importantly, that's how the site spells its own name and (2) that's how reliable news publications spell the name (The New York Times, The Hindu, Information Today, Maclean's). I don't know about Lego—maybe it should be "LEGO". Goodvac (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If things are getting a bit dull in your world, try making that change. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

So is it "Facebook" or "facebook"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Facebook", because that's how it spells its own name and because that's how reliable publications refer to it. Goodvac (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Their logo says "facebook". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Logos and names aren't always the same thing, they often aren't the same thing really. Remember that a logo is still just a picture that represents a brand, and even when it includes text it doesn't necessarily mean that's the official name. Myspace does the same thing, they officially capitalize the first letter even though their logo doesn't. I think it's more useful to look at a company's press releases for guidance rather than their logos. -- Atama頭 00:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:MOSTM might have something to say about this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you, GTBacchus, I did not remember to check with the MoS. Wikipedia:MOSTM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter concerns how we should capitalize wikiHow. Goodvac (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, it says "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". "wikiHow" does not conform to standard English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
      • The full quote is 'When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner' (emphasis mine). All of the independent sources in the article use 'wikiHow', as do about 90% of sources on a few different types of Google search. Common sense would suggest that properly reflecting usage in sources is better than dictating a representation that is not in widespread use. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
        • rodger Dodger. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
          • You're dethpickable... Buffs (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Nipping one of several stalking problems in the bud

I don't know who Pajko123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is (or whether or not they're another account of a user who's expressed an intent to stalk my edits), but regardless, a user who has made only four edits—all four of which are unexplained reverts of my edits in four different topic areas, can only have been got from my edit history, and are plainly disruptive—should really be blocked. There is no question of newbie good-faith here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted the ANI notice to User talk:Conservative Philosopher as well, since you have suspicions about his/her involvement. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I honestly don't know. I didn't want to avoid mentioning it entirely because it seemed like the sort of thing it would be relevant to bring up (someone says they're going to stalk you and two days later a new account pops up and stalks you), but it could be coincidence - users other than CP have stalked me, and CP only followed me to one more page after stating his intent to continue his prior stalking behavior, so maybe he changed his mind. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for copying your username, not his. (thanks for the correction, Doc) If there's any chance that a user is involved, it's best to inform them. I'll let others delve into the content of your report, as it lies outside my experience. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Good call to inform Conservative Philoposher, Vanisaac. Pajko123's clearly a throwaway harassment-only account, but maybe a CU can check it against other recently active named accounts; with a SPI, probably. Doc talk 04:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a spate of this recently or something? Because I know "CU isn't for fishing," and there's no one I'm proposing to check it against. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No suspects... not good. If you've been getting stalked by sock accounts, keep track of them and see if you can make enough connections for a reasonable SPI report. Otherwise you'll have to grin and bear it! Doc talk 05:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The others aren't so recent and at least one of them has since been blocked (ZHurlihee). Pajko's sockitude or lack thereof doesn't concern me - I mean, it's obvious that a user with four edits that are all reverts of the same user is a sock, but that's enough for a "harassment-only account" block, which gets them out of my hair just as well as a sock block might. Pajko has now been blocked as well. Now that CP's been notified, I'll wait to see what he says, but if this is just coincidence (and if he does not continue to stalk me) then I've got what I wanted out of the thread. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection with Pajko123. The implied suggestion that Pajko123 is a sockpuppet of mine is false. If anything, I suspect that it was set up by someone to make it look as though I were using an alternate account to 'stalk' Roscelese. I won't speculate about who would do such a thing. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but none of the edits seem directly related to you (i.e. impersonating you). You haven't edited any of those articles. How is that account made to look like you specifically (and not someone else who could be stalking her)? Your last two sentences have me confused a little, I guess. Doc talk 07:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese has accused me of 'stalking' her. Pajko123 is an account that appears to have been 'stalking' Roscelese. So it could be impersonation of me because of the supposed similar motivation behind our edits, even though different articles were involved. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pajko123 didn't just "appear" to stalk. But since there's no relation anyway, that's a good thing! Doc talk 07:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Roscelese accused you of threatening to stalk here. Quite frankly, I think that's a fairly reasonable interpretation of your edit. It's only natural to at least be suspicious when a new account starts doing something that another editor just threatened to do, but like Doc said, you haven't edited any of those articles, so it is somewhat illogical of you to characterize it as impersonation. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It may actually be worth speculating on who would do such a thing. Impersonation does happen, but it's quite uncommon from what I've seen. Who would go through the trouble to so deviously frame another? Doc talk 09:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's probably someone with too much time on their hands, a poor sense of perspective, and tendency to bear grudges. Which narrows it down to... well, everyone on Wikipedia. :P MastCell ^Talk 11:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

HEY! I have VERY few grudges against bears. ;) VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• But wait! There's more! Pajko132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I hear quacking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Also User:Pajko1. Daffy is squawking. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point, should I file an SPI to request a checkuser for sleepers? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Edward.Didier

The subject of this complaint is User:Edward.Didier, a disruptive POV-warrior who apparently seems to have a history of making ethnic-centric and pro-MQM edits on Wikipedia, which is a Pakistani political party. This user is relatively inexperienced and has repeatedly been making undiscussed changes which go against WP:NPOV such as on Politics of Karachi (where he keeps replacing a well-structured sentence with a gramatically incorrect and unclear paragraph); on the same article, he has removed a large chunk of writing about the Pashtun community of Karachi and also "see also" links to the articles Operation Clean-up and 2007 Karachi riots. He has also frequently vandalised the Imran Farooq article, such as removing a whole paragraph, inappropriately tampering with references. Another article where he tried to push his pro-MQM POV is on the Major Kaleem Case article. On the Wali Khan Babar article, he keeps removing a sentence (that is again, clearly referenced) about some protestors accusing the MQM party of Babar's murder without providing any reason. He is also tampering with a sentence on the 2007 Karachi riots article which presumably mentions the MQM, as can be seen here. On the article Suspension of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, he removed a reference without giving any reason. The talk page of this user shows that they have in addition been warned before of vandalising the Nawaz Sharif article (a politician), suggesting that this user seems to have some sort of political agenda in nearly all the edits he makes. On the Najeeb Ahmed article, he removed a sentence (with a citation) alleging that Ahmed was gunned down by MQM workers (see here). In the Zeeshan Kazmi article, he removed the lead which mentions Kazmi as a police officer "who gained popularity during the Operation Clean Up in Karachi against the MQM" (see here). On Mafia Raj, this user removed the word "MQM" from a sentence (see here), which I had to revert. He has been messing around with the MQM article as well, including removal of references and an entire section (see this and replacing The Guardian, which is a reliable source, with YouTube which was reverted by another user (see this).

However, most importantly, this user has repeatedly been removing a large paragraph about Pashtuns on the demographics section of the Karachi article, without any valid rationale, as per here). I tried to request this user to stop persisting in these unconstructive edits by posting a message to his talk page [57]. A few hours later, Edward.Didier replied by copy-pasting exactly the same message I had posted to him back on my own talk page, only changing "pro-MQM" to "anti-MQM" [58]. I had reverted his edits on the Karachi article at least three times (see this and this), but to no avail, he came back and immediately reverted me here and more recently, again. He's also reverted me on the Wali Khan Babar article ([59]) and two times on the 2007 Karachi riots article (here and again here).

Since the attitude of this user suggests that he does not want to engage in dialogue, but rather wants to go down the path of edit-warring and persistently making unconstructive edits that are damaging the quality of articles, I think some concrete action needs to be taken. Mar4d (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of his blind passion for reverting all my edits, he has now also reverted another edit of mine at the Imran Farooq article which involved adding a citation he had previously deleted. Mar4d (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, on one bad note, the user clearly seems to have switched to editing while logged out (see these IP contributions), which are identical to the ones that Edward.Didier was pursing. That being said, it's not so clear to me that Edward.Didier is the one in the wrong here. For example, see this revert by the IP, whose edit summary reads "fake report reference not shown what he tries to show". As far as I can tell, that edit summary is completely accurate: Mar4d is attempting to keep/add (not sure which) information that is not found in the source, including a direct quotation which appears nowhere in the source. At this point, I see no reason to consider Edward.Didier's actions any worse than Mar4d's, and possible even better if Mar4d is including information not covered in the connected sources. So...any other admins think that they both need to be blocked for edit warring? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because someone has directly tampered with the ref (the name of the citation which supports the quote is "ET", not "PT"). I suspect its Edward Dider up to his old tricks again. I have fixed it now, so please go check again without making accusations on me. If anyone needs to be blocked, it has to be Edward.Dider for repeatedly messing arround with references (see the links I gave above), deliberately changing and modifying information and causing disruption to the project. I am merely trying to clean up the mess he's causing and preserving the articles in their original shape. It would be nice if you afforded some acknowledgement of that to me, keeping in mind how much time I have wasted already pursuing this user's vandalism. Mar4d (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving per Mar4d (talk · contribs)'s de-archiving of the section. Cunard (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to work through the long opening paragraphs in detail and get to the bottom of this complaint. It is complained that this edit for example is evidence of capricious removal of a reliable citation. On looking at the original source however it has nothing to support the statement in the WP article (which already has a cite to another source in any case). Therefore User:Edward.Didier could on that occasion be seen as acting quite correctly. I would agree with the comment above that both editors should be warned for edit-warring and lack of collboration through talk pages, and if necessary blocked if they persist. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see the source again; it clearly mentions that Farooq is a Bihari "Muhajir" (a descendant of immigrants from India) which the sentence was supposed to convey. I don't think there was any valid reason given as to why the source was removed. I have already presented enough evidence to suggest where else this user is making unconstructive edits. I am only preserving the articles back into their original form prior to vandalism, thus there's no grounds for a block on me. I've even tried collaboration (haven't you read what I wrote? I sent a message to the talk page of this user but they didn't give a suitable reply) and also notified them of this thread at ANI. He hasn't made any effort to engage in dialogue or collaboration. In fact, the user has started to edit while being logged out as Qwyrxian just mentioned. Mar4d (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Obvious Legal Threat is Obvious

Resolved

• Pri-ya chen (talk · contribs)

Please see this edit for the most obvious legal notice ever....and then please block accordingly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that this involves a cease and desist letter, i have passed it on to the WMF's legal team. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist has blocked Pri-ya chen. LadyofShalott 13:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Legal will, of course, deal with this, but for those interested, take a look at this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

BMK, do you have the cyberpower to slap a "copyedit" tag on that website? I can't even figure out the grammar. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no, it is what it is. I suspect, but don't know for certain, that the complaintant's "copyright infringement" case is pretty much non-existent, and that the WMF legal eagles will see the "cease and desist" order for what it is, one person's over-zealous attempt to claim more rights for their creation than are actually provided for by copyright law. But IANAL, so we'll see. In any event, the place for them to prove their case in is a court of law, and not in rogue "cease and desist" orders. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please speedy a page

User:Btphelps didn't know about db-userreq and has listed a page in his userspace at MfD here. Could some kind admin please speedy User:Btphelps/Sandbox/Dan_Tipton under CSD U1? Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably not the best idea - it looks like he drafted the article, then copy-pasted, leaving the history of the article behind (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I do that all the time (I just reuse my sandboxes over and over again). He is still the first user in the history, it doesn't really matter if it took him one or fout edits to create this article. It is even better this way, at least the page shows up in the New Pages queue like this. Fram (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Of course, if he had U1'd it, User:7SeriesBOT would have handled it :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bigg Boss (season 5)

I would like to request page protection for this article. It has been repeatedly vandalized by assorted IPs. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 18:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you want WP:RFP. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Chris.usnames

Resolved

User:Chris.usnames is an obvious reincarnation of blocked User:Spyro02/User:Gqhs. It's pretty obvious if you look closely (in many independent ways), but this guy is so careless with his personal information that I simply can't say more without outing him very seriously. Admin User:Agathoclea has seen the evidence and has confirmed the connection, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Spyro02/Archive.

Now can an admin please block this joker for violating WP:NLT, to end this travesty? [60] Hans Adler 00:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NLT, regardless of whether sockpuppet blocks are also appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum and 9/11

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has made a number of, shall we say, questionable edits on Talk:September 11 attacks, probably amounting to a number of WP:NPA violations. Examples include:

1. [61] (Marginal, it just says the edits are in violation of Wikipedia policies, without naming the editors)
2. [62] (Statement that only Americans are allowed to edit the article)
3. [63] (Accusing an editor or editors of insulting him, when it's really a request that he back up the preceding entry)
4. [64] (Accusing, clearly incorrectly, an editor of calling him a liar; also <possibly> accidentally reverting that same editor's comments.)
5. [65] (I can't think of anything this might be except a personal attack, of yet another editor.)
6. [66] (Seems to be threatening me, in response to my comment that he should be blocked. Note that anyone with a basic knowledge of English would note that I didn't say I was going to block him.)

Some of his other edits are merely attacking Wikipedia's policies, which may not be "personal attacks", but does show a lack of intent to abide by those policies. I'm requesting feedback on whether he should be blocked, under the circumstances. I'd rather not attempt to invoke the 9/11 Arbcom ruling, but that is, I suppose, another option. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

warned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, a "Malleus was a meanie" topic. Can we just take a shortcut to to the end and save us about 12 hours of steel cage grudge matches as all the usual suspects climb into the ring to get their shots in? We all know that the end result of this will just be some admin's witty "more heat than light"-esque closing statement. Tarc (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The simplest and most direct way of ending the the dramaz would be to simply block him, lock his User Talk page, and throw away the key. But my guess is that isn't what you're looking for, but can't be bothered to concoct new excuses for his behavior. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of any connection between the subject of this section and the last editor, is there any evidence that Malleus is attempting to do anything but disrupt discussion in this article? For all I know, he may be doing good work in other articles and/or subjects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You might want to strike your point #2; he's pretty clearly rejecting that idea in the cited edit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently this falls under some discretionary sanctions, although I would guess Malleus doesn't really care, so that's ok. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• Of those diffs, the only one that comes close to a persoanl attack is the second to last, and that doesn't rise to a level that would justify any action. The only thing we're going to get here is drama, which is all that ever results from a trip to ANI, especially one involving Malleus, so what are we hoping to achieve here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Should no-one dare to complain here if the complaint concerns Malleus?

• Which other editors should enjoy that protection? Shall we make a list? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote instead of jumping on any chance to slag Malleus off? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall running into Malleus before. If he's really that sort of an editor, perhaps Calton's suggestion is the most appropriate. Again, I may not block him in regard 9/11, at least under the 9/11 sanctions. Either WP:ANI or WP:AN is the appropriate forum to discuss someone who I think should be blocked, if I cannot or may not do it myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• ZOMG! Malleus is - gasp! - bluntly putting forward a view on the quality of an article. Time for a Latin lesson, not an AN/I report. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, no. To give him as much rope good faith as possible, he's putting forward a view that Wikipedia polices make it impossible to make the article what he thinks it should be. That's a bit different than "putting forward a view on the quality of an article". Or, at least, he should comment about the policies, rather than about the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've given plenty of Latin lessons. I didn't come here to try to teach Latin to a foul-mouthed know-it-all who thinks others should lick his shoes just because he thinks he knows Latin. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you not see any inconsistency in your "foul-mouthed know-it-all ..." comments when accusing others of using far less abrasive language? Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what Demiurge1000 means. Another User:Betacommand/User:Δ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's Mister turpis os teneo is totus to you, buddy! Tarc (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I'm all confused here. I thought we had the "OMG Malleus is being uncivil!!" threads starting on Tuesday. Who changed the schedule? Franamax (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what point either of them are making, but they're both making it badly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Since march 2010 Malleus seems to have only been blocked for about one hour and twenty mins, which is quite a decent record. I don't see much value in this report - there is a comment in the thread that is at least as attacking as anything in the diffs presented. The issue is resolved as in no action can be taken in regard to the discretionary sanctions as they appear to require notification. User:NW has given that notification on Malleus's talkpage while this thread has been open and so unless there are future violations that is it basically resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocking for disruption doesn't require a warning, but we'll see what Malleus does with the warning. It appears that no immediate admin action will be taken, no matter how justified, so we'll see if the editor(s) warned heed the warnings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You can stick your warning up your arse Arthur. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(translated) Vos can virga is sursum vestri arse Arthur.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I realize I'm late to the game, but isn't this a clear indication that he is both abusive to other editors, and has no intention of following wiki policy? Why is this being debated? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 06:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm probably adding heat, not light--but this, Arthur Rubin, is kind of a cop-out. If MF's words are such terrible violations you should simply block him, whether you're involved in some minor way or not--or even if you're involved in some major way. Involved in what, anyway? Edits to the talk page? Or to WP:NPA? Besides, no amount of involvement prevents you from starting an AN thread and calling for a ban. MF has a point in his response: you won't like how would end up, because such a call would go nowhere. Close, please. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Drmies, you are an admin? Wow. In no way should an Admin every block a user for an NPA/Civility issue when said admin is involved in the discussion. Such would be a blatant abuse of Admin Priviledges and regardless of how justified the admin felt they were, would be a bigger issue than Arthur's original complaint.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 08:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• Per HJ Mitchell and Drmies, these infractions are not so serious as to merit admin action. I've queried with Arthur what exactly he meant here, as it really doesn't make sense to me at the moment. There's been a furor at the 9/11 article because Malleus asked for a GAR and there's been a lot of spirited debate about whether the article meets NPOV and the Good Article criteria. This is now I think the third AN/I thread about it. There have been heated words from a lot of participants on all sides there. To focus this on some misrepresented and/or innocuous remarks (at least by Malleus's earthy standards) makes this seem like a frivolous complaint. Let it rest, for now, but the area certainly needs enforcement by somebody prepared to read the whole story. It's important that such enforcement be even-handed and not focus on one person. I think a lot of us on both sides have said things in the heat of the moment that we could have phrased better, but to focus on Malleus would be to focus on one side of this and not see the whole story. --John (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and here is the diff where MONGO says "Perhaps people outside the U.S. have been influenced by too many biased anti-American treatises on the subject matter. Repeatedly, the vast majority of those that keep saying the article is POV are not Americans." which is likely to be what Malleus is referring to in the cited diff. Arthur Rubin's misrepresentation of this diff may be mistaken, in which case I would expect him to show good faith, apologize to Malleus, and censure MONGO. Over to you, Arthur. --John (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I am truly disappointed in you... the level of civility that I've seen in the past few ANI complaints brought against you is nothing compared to that which made you notorious a few years back... these posts are, well, down right tame compared to the Malleus of the 2008/2009 era. But let's go through the cited issues:

1. How can this edit be deemed uncivil? If it was made by anybody other than Malleus, it would not have been cited.
2. Complaint states that Malleus is making a statement that is the exact opposite of what Malleus actually said! He does not say that only American's can edit the article, but that the notion that only Americans should be allowed to edit this article just beggars belief.
3. Enough with insults. If I find the diff what will you give me? Even more abuse, or a big kiss?--- a little sarcastic at the end and perhaps a little thin skinned for Malleus.
4. So let me get this straight. Malleus made a comment. The veracity of the comment is called into question basically saying that the statement is not true or a lie. Malleus takes that challenge as a personal affront of somebody questioning his integrity and calling him a liar. Did the person use the word "liar"? No. But that may be how Malleus took the challenge. Does that mean he clearly incorrectly accused somebody of calling him a liar? No.
5. Yup, there's the Malleus of old... I knew you were in there somewhere. Ok, this one I'll give you. It is a personal attack. Malleus, please review the policy wp:civil and provide a 500 word essay on what you think about NPA.
6. You indicate that if you weren't involved in the article that you would block him and seek a ban. He responds with, Just try it, and see where you end up. I doubt you'll enjoy it. I don't see it as a threat, I see it as a warning/statement of fact. Malleus in an ANI Magnet. He gets more complaints than most people, but by and large most of the complaints I've seen against him have been frivolous or overblown. Most people who have either blocked Malleus or threatened to block him have come to regret the decision because A) the individual complaint is weak (as is this one) and B) it is extremely difficult to get things to stick against Malleus. He knows this, so his statement is somewhat a warning, not a threat. I mean, what is he threatening you with? Is he going to block you? Is he going to say something that would hurt your feelings? No, he knows that after a myriad of bogus ANI complaints he is somewhat bulletproof and that you need something stronger than what you've shown here to get consensus to impose sanctions against him. Sorry, not a threat, but a statement of reality.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 08:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)