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

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 - [1], [2], [3]. 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 [4]. 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 - [5], [6], [7].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? [8]. --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 [9], [10], [11], and [12]. Given that there is already a link at the Religion WikiProject, [13], 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 [14], whereas you first edited Atheism in February [15], and Template:Atheism Sidebar in March [16]. --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)

I find this conversation quite suspicious in terms of canvassing as well. An RfC clearly doesn't qualify for deletion sorting, yet Anupam decides to ask an editor who he knows shares his POV on this whether or not this RfC could be listed in the Christianity deletion sort. How many other ways to do you have to spread the good word Anupam?Griswaldo (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Anupam claims to contact StAnselm in that conversation because he is supposedly active at Deletion sorting/Christianity, but that isn't even true. StAnselm has very low levels of activity there compared to other editors, and none since August 30th. Might there have been another reason to post such a strange conversation, like say, drawing this editor's attention to the RfC?Griswaldo (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, if you were paying attention, you would have realized that I openly informed the RfC that I placed a request on User:StAnselm's talk page, asking him if he could include the discussion in the AfD list of WP:Christianity, WP:Islam, and WP:Islam. Unlike you, who was the first user to canvass the entire WikiProject Atheism, conveniently not leaving a message at WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Islam, or WikiProject Theology, which were listed as relevant projects there, I made my request for all of the relevant projects. Moreover, you never even informed the discussion you did so. In addition, I wanted to correct you for inaccurately stating that User:StAnslem is not involved at the WikiProject Christianity list for AfD. If you know how to use the "find" and "replace" function on your keyboard, you can see that his involvement three times in different AfD's there with another editor citing one of his comments. Also, the user in question does not share my religious views as he is a Calvinist. In fact, if you'd like to know the relationship between Catholicism and Calvinism, I urge you to read this article. I am warning you to stop creating a battlegound mentality here. Further attempts to do so will result in a block. Thanks for your cooperation, Anupam^Talk 02:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, User:StAnslem just admitted on his talk page that he is very active at AfD], voting in "three of the eight deletion debates currently on the page." Your fallacious argument, like most of the baseless accusations you make here, has once again been debunked. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 03:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. I linked to the history of the page you claim he is "active" on and it shows the minimal levels of activity rather clearly. What denominations you two belong to is immaterial, since it is your POVs vis-a-vis Militant atheism that are most likely the same. Also, I'm a bit confused about the fact that you seem to be claiming to be Catholic. Your user page says you are a "United Methodist" with interest in Catholicism. As I pointed out elsewhere the Protestant Reformation did in fact occur, and Methodists are Protestant (like Calvinists), and not Catholic.Griswaldo (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Anupam, please don't threaten other users with blocks. You have no grounds for issuing a block on anyone. I agree that picking the Christianity deletion sorting project, and one minimally involved user specifically, seems a little odd. Could I ask what made you choose to do that? Why not ask the (now fairly active) article talk page if placing it in the AfD list would be appropriate? Or, perhaps, one of the variety of administrators who have already commented? Or, here?   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Both of you are framing this discussion as a battleground between believers and atheists, for which I am warning you. I mentioned earlier that I publicly notified the RfC of my comment on User:StAnslem's userpage. Finally, unlike User:Griswaldo, who canvassed only WikiProject Atheism (and not the other relevant WikiProjects), I clearly indicated in my comment that the discussion should be included in the WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Islam, and WikiProject Atheism deletion list. Finally, I wish that you cease presenting false data; User:StAnslem openly admits that he is very active at AfD, which was the reason I placed a comment on his page. I must mention that today a new visitor to the talk page commented on your abrasive behaviour with me. I have been nothing but polite to you in our discussions and you continue to hound me. This is completely unacceptable. --Anupam^Talk 04:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the 4th time now that I've asked you to stop a certain behavior, and a couple days later you've begun accusing me of that behavior. I'm not sure what part of my question above indicates I'm fostering a battleground mentality. I simply want to know why you went to the Christianity deletion sorting list regarding an article on Atheism, and then picked out a minimally active editor to ask if it could be included. Why not ask the article talk page, or one of the administrators who have already commented, or here? I'm sure you understand that there are canvassing concerns in the minds of a number of editors (even if you do not share those concerns), and so picking out this one uninvolved editor (or project) to inquire about the RfC seems odd to me. I just want to know why you did that, as opposed to taking one of the many other options you had available.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring over WikiProjects

And in today's latest news, editors on the talk page have been edit warring over removing and re-adding the WikiProjects that either were or were not canvassed. At the moment, it seems to have quieted down, but I think it would be helpful to have multiple pairs of administrator eyes on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on it. So far, things seem to have died down - if edit warring resumes, it'll be dealt with on a user-by-user basis. m.o.p 04:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Master of Puppets, thanks for being willing to watch the talk page. We really appreciate your efforts and patience in dealing with a tough issue here. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, we're in this 'til the end. I'm sure we'll find some way to make everybody happy. m.o.p 06:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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. [17], [18], [19]) 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)

I was about to have a crack at this, but noticed this other recently closed straw poll. Perhaps someone from the project can explain what is going on here. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijani-American

The user Kurdo777 has once again placed two dispute tags [20] that were removed by different users before: [21] and [22]

Kurdo777 only left this comment to 'justify' their inclusion [23]. 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.[24][25][26][27] 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[28]. 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)

First of all, calling someone "doost man" (my friend, dear friend etc) is a common sign of respect in Middle Eastern cultures, and it doesn't mean the person addressing you is literally your friend. Secondly, that was not even Alborz who made that comment on my talk page. But this is a common trait in User:Saygi1's comments, he throws false statements all over the place, hoping something would stick, like earlier when he claimed that I am "very active on Iranian-Americans" page when I haven't touched that page in ages. In short, he is trying to deflect attention from himself for obvious reasons. Finally, speaking of being "in sync", as User:Beyond My Ken has pointed out, someone should just check the the editing history of User:5aul, a "new user" who just appeared out of the blue to remove tags, make blind reverts, and basically assist User:Saygi1, and User:Atabəy. (an editor who is under sever ArbCom sanctions in this topical area) Kurdo777 (talk) 10:19, 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)

Nipping one of several stalking problems in the bud

Resolved

 – CU performed, does not appear to be any more current SOCKS. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 23:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Oh, I already did that; that's how I found this last one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Soooo... seeing as you're an active CU and all, any chance on looking into closing that case? I've got enough pages on my watchlist already ;> Doc talk 14:30, 24 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)

He's reiterated his legal notice and added his phone number. Perhaps this should be checked? Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page revoked. –MuZemike 00:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Chris.usnames

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? [29] 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)

I'm removing the resolved. Hans has escalated this situation needlessly on the user's talkpage. I became involved via an unblock request and saw significant badgering of Chris.usnames by Hans. Chris asked a question, Hans was advised that he could answer that question, but beyond that Chris has request Hans stay off his talkpage. Unfortunately, this became worse as Hans chose to make additional comments there that should have been reserved for right here on ANI ... and of course, Hans is failing to provide proof/diffs.

Chris.usnames still has an open unblock request. Hans has been warned that any further poking of the bear will be met with a rest of his own. However, the sock allegations need to be looked at. Hans actions in this definitely need to be looked at further (whether he's right or not, he knows better), and Chris.usnames needs some action of his own (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum and 9/11

No admin action warranted at the moment. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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: [30] (Marginal, it just says the edits are in violation of Wikipedia policies, without naming the editors) [31] (Statement that only Americans are allowed to edit the article) [32] (Accusing an editor or editors of insulting him, when it's really a request that he back up the preceding entry) [33] (Accusing, clearly incorrectly, an editor of calling him a liar; also <possibly> accidentally reverting that same editor's comments.) [34] (I can't think of anything this might be except a personal attack, of yet another editor.) [35] (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) Thats notified not warned. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 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? VanIsaacWScontribs 06:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC) @Arthur - its not a warning its a notification - Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 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 (his number 2) 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: How can this edit be deemed uncivil? If it was made by anybody other than Malleus, it would not have been cited. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) This seems to be a content dispute and not a suitable topic for this board. I'm not normally a fan of Malleus, but if editors there are so defensive that they'll respond to his saying "The suggestion I've seen made that only Americans should be allowed to edit this article just beggars belief" by reporting that here as a "(Statement that only Americans are allowed to edit the article)", then perhaps this is an occasion where Malleus's special talents could be put to good use. Needless to say it is utterly unacceptable to limit any article on Wikipedia to only be edited by the citizens of one particular country. However I have confidence that Malleus Fatuorum can resolve the situation himself without the need for reinforcements from here. ϢereSpielChequers 09:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC) One thing is slightly different about this particular Malleus AN/I report. That difference is that it's still going on for some reason, when clearly it should be over with. Someone should do what is normally done (outside of reminding the reporter of their "overreacting", which has been done already) and put this poor thread out of its misery. You know: resolved tag with clever/humorous summation, archive, collapse. The usual routine. Doc talk 10:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Lena Mitnik

At List of wars 2003-2010, a person named Lena Mitnik keeps vandalizing the article. A few editors including myself have reverted the person vandalism, but the person doesn't get the message. Could someone help me out here? B-Machine (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you call those edits vandalism? From a cursory look, they do not appear to be bad-faith edits, but I could be missing something. That said, I've issued a warning because she appears to be edit warring; by the way, you should notify her she's being discussed on ANI. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mont Blanc

User:93.45.60.12 continues to revert my changes to the Mont Blanc page. See the history page. He 1. insists that the Italian flag should precede the French flag in the infobox (despite the usual method being AZ ordering, where France would precede Italy); 2. he inserts material about the Mont Blanc massif to the page, despite being told that such material doesn't just refer to Mont Blanc and belongs on the Mont Blanc massif page; and 3. he refuses to discuss any of this on the article talk page, despite there being a new section created for the creation of consensus. Ericoides (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You were both edit warring, since you too were reverting the ip's edits. Therefore, I've fully protected the article for three days. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Bruno's back

User:Brunodam, community-banned for sockpuppeteering and openly promoting Italian ultra-nationalist views ("irredentism"), has briefly returned to enWiki in the form of User:NewPangea4 and has composed what is essentially a political pamphlet (mirroring the extreme right-wing of the Italian political spectrum) dubbed "1918–1920 incidents at Spalato", which he "dedicated" to Vituzzu beddu on the talkpage. The pamphlet basically attacks various (non-Italian) ethnic groups in the most appalling and thinly-disguised manner, listing various Italian right-leaning, non-reliable, non-professional authors as "sources" as is the fellow's wont (the user has also been caught purposely misquoting Italian-language sources several times) - the composition even uses Italian-language toponyms for settlements Brunodam considers part of (quote) "historical Italy", e.g. "Spalato" in the title: Bruno's Italian name for the city of Split.

This isn't the proper venue (since I'm still on vacation and only have a few mins :)), but I would like to request that the political sock-essay please be speedily deleted "by the quick procedure" as it were :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:NewPangea4 was blocked back in April. 1918–1920 incidents at Spalato has been cleaned up mostly since then with the removal of his racist POV garbage and poor sourcing removed or corrected. Er...I think it's sorted? Add - tagged the page for issues that are clearly present, started talk page discussion & done a little cleaning myself with my little fairy-wings and magic duster wand. Enjoy your vacation! --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?

The user: Are You The Cow Of Pain? was banned indefinitely but is still editing under the IP 70.226.162.41 and has used multiple other IP's.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us a list of the IPs? Rangeblock might be necessary OpenInfoForAll (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

70.226.162.41, 76.201.151.182 and there may be others but I am not sure.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A rangeblock might not be enough; Otto4711 (talk · contribs) is an extremely prolific sockpuppeteer, and a siteban hasn't dissuaded him from editing around his blocks. Horologium (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Prolific, indeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

New user, needs some help

Resolved

 – Kim Dent-Brown has made contact with User:Helpthesouls via email. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 23:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please give a hand to User:Helpthesouls? This isn't a case of needing any kind of sanction, but they just seem to need some help that probably requires an administrator, and I cannot figure out what to do with them. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Helpthesouls (talk · contribs) has tried twice to prod Suicide of Tyler Clementi, saying that "Any admins leave a message on my talk page about this article please. As its violating me I was told by bing to contact the creator of this and I ask wiki they say its bings fault some one take responsibility.". A week earlier the user requested account rename from Tyler408 because Helpthesouls did not want his first name in his username. I suspect Helpthesouls somehow perceives the article as a disgrace to him because they share the same first name. Helpthesouls has also prodded Mongelli case because apparently Mongelli is Helpthesouls' last name. Goodvac (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note offering help at their user talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

His reply is close, at least, to a legal threat. 46.208.239.94 (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Good move, Kim Dent-Brown. He smelled like a troll from the beginning. Goodvac (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed as Helpthesouls:

• Tyler2991 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tylerm29 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tylerm2991 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikisdirty (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 00:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

RevDel request

The IP 115.184.49.207 has begun to contribute at Paravar in the last few hours. Comparison of User:ThenPandyan with User_talk:115.184.49.207 strongly suggests that the editor is the IP who then registered (which is generally A Good Thing, IMO). There may be cause for moving the IP's talk page over to the registered user & revdel'ing on the grounds of geolocation etc. Can anyone deal with this in a more authoritative manner than myself? (I am not an admin, and so could only do a copy of the TP in any event). Or am I being too sensitive? In the scale of current India-related caste issues it may be thought to be minor but I would appreciate some uninvolved consideration because these things certainly at present tend to blow up. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The geolocation isn't terribly specific, as I assume multiple castes live in pretty much every area of India. I'd suggest simply continuing the conversation at the user's new talk page and not worrying about it. If the user himself wants it RevDel'd, I'd be happy to, but otherwise I doubt it'll matter. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive IP 77.103.8.192

Reporting this sequence of edits for appropriate action...

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia&diff=452262296&oldid=452242444
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia&diff=452262376&oldid=452262296
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia&diff=452262439&oldid=452262376
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia&diff=452262814&oldid=452262439

which resulted in:

• "he wasn't a fool but was doing everything right. it's just too difficult to fight against people who are paid to fight in wikipedia. but don't give up guys i'm going to rejoin you soon. you were a fool in fact, nanobear, not him, instead of helping us you just stood aside and looked at what was happening, and then wrote this stupid comment. fuck you DD"

I won't speculate on who "DD" is, I do hope it's not really a past editor. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

He's got three days to think about it now. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got a pretty good idea of who the IP is and was headed to block for block evasion. Anyway, I've removed the comments, since grave dancing isn't exactly what I would call awesome. I'll look to make sure more of the same doesn't happen. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, edit conflict I guess :P feel free to run over my block if he is evading, I'd rather both of them be the reason, than just NPA (aka you could go for a longer block, not that they won't jump to the next IP) -- DQ (t) (e) 05:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad good dragosh98

Over the past month, I kept an eye on Bad good dragosh98. He was a disruptive editor who vandalized the articles involving FC Vaslui. However, I managed to contact him and tried to explain him what he did wrong, and that he should ask me for help anytime he wants. It seemed that he understood. Over the last month, I checked his edits and corrected his many mistakes, and noticed him about. But it was all in vain, because he doesn't seem to understand anything. He still edits false information, and in some cases he even vandalize.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liga_I&oldid=452190785 The champion team is Otelul Galati, and not Vaslui
   
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&oldid=452189410 Tiberiu Balan only trains with Steaua, he hasn't signed anything. Besides, his name is Tiberiu Balan, not Tibi Balan, and he is a midfielder, not a striker.
   
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oz%C3%A9ia_de_Paula_Maciel&oldid=452172919 The player is still not registered, and he has no number selected, yet. The same situation for Stanciu and Zappino
   
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolae_Stanciu&oldid=452055078
   
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massimo_Zappino&oldid=452054958
   
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florin_Badit&oldid=451568693 He created this page for a junior, who only trains with the first team. He doesn't have a contract, doesn't do anything besides training. I think his page is useless.
   

There are many many other articles like that. I don't deny that probably he has done some good edits, but the mostly are bad. When I asked him why he edited false info, he said "`cause I wanted so" or "just for fun". And by the way, I think his English, on a scale from 1 to 10, is situated somewhere around 0.001. For instance, he renamed "Out on loan", because he believed that it meant "Sold and loaned". Alexynho (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive copy and paste Advocacy editor across multiply pages

User:Tamsier has been warned so many times by so many different editors i am exhausted of dealing with them. See there contributions as evidence. [Tamsier]. They are at war with everyone, and finally they brought the war to me with their incivility. Anyway, what is of concern is a particular tone is being copy and pasted across various wiki articles into Senegambia related themes. Not to mention the NPOV violation and terrible unreliable sources used to push a ethnic point which advocates nobility of their ethnicity. Finally they have (on their own) redirected numerous Arab slave related articles to Islamic ones. They saw it fit to do this on their own based on their opinion of anything Islamic and Arabic. The contributions to wikipedia I feel are disruptive and other admins have warned them and it is not working. It is a problem as time spent here should be spent improving articles. Not vindictive editing.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This editor Halaqah among with Kwamikagmi have used their position and connections and have been in constant edit wars agains me for days now. I have reported them both here [36] and here [37] as well as here [38] yet nothing has been done even when vulgar language is used by the two reported. And as for Halaqah as you can see in the report, their language against me has been so insulting yet not single editor or administrator injected and told this passing off eventhough that statement has been visible for 24 hours and seen by the editors. Instead, everytime I reported these people they found in their favour. I do not have a gang of Wiki editors/ administrators to come to my aid in complaints or discussions. I do it by my own merit. Halaqah has been continually disrupting edits since they decided to wage edit wars against me. Most of this is to do with Islam V Serer religion. Any edit about the Serer people's experience with islam in their history this person views as anti islamic even if they are sourced with notable sources and they are direct quotes from the author [39].

This person also accused me of not providing a reliable source in their attempt to discredit the author as in here: [40] but not only have I have provided the source and quotation of the author, they say that the author does not exist or is fashion designer or editor who knows nothing about the history of Africa. The author in question is of course Elisa Daggs, which this person is so obsessed with eventhough Elisa Daggs in merely quoted once and certainly not more than twice in each respective article that is Serer related and where the content or context is appropriate to quote her. This person Halaqah deleted the source and quote I have cited as in here [41] The quoted Elisa Daggs is totally different from the fashion editor/designer this Halaqah googled and then expressed their opinion that the person is not notable / reliable. Here is Elisa' book [42] and here [43] and here it is reviewed as one of the best books to read among with other authors on African history as well as African politics[44].

This Halaqah even went on to say that, just because Elisa Daggs does not have a page on Wiki, she is not notable. See Senegal talk page (above). I don't know if there is any truth in this but if this is true then most articles on Wiki are wrongly sourced. Also in the Serer religion talk page, this Halaqah expressed their own opinion rather than providing sources by saying the Almoravid (Arabized Berbers) didn't bring Islam to Senegal [45] and in their opinion, deleted my sources. This has gone on for long enough. After several reports and complains nothing has been done instead they find in their favour. Judgement should never be about how many friends you have here. It should be judicially applied regardless of who you are and how many friends you have here. I stand on my own two feet and do not depend on any body to come to my aid in discussion or conflicts. I expect others to do the same. Tamsier (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)