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

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to archive?

Is the discussion (for now) at WP:V over with? It's hard to parse it at the moment. Alexandria (chew out) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncooperative editor has serious problems with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS

Resolved

 – Banned causa sui (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wheres Dan (talk · contribs) is always using sources (most WP:FRINGE) from the 1800s which contain information that modern sources don't bother to reprint. Dougweller, Heironymous Rowe, and I have repeatedly asked him to find the information in modern sources to verify that the information is still accepted by modern scholarship. To date, he hasn't (or hasn't found anything), and I know I failed to find anything as well (even though it's his job to find that stuff, not mine).

• He has previously been blocked for various personal attacks, including refering to good faith edits as vandalism (in that case, while reversing WP:BRD after I explained it to him elsewhere) and calling Dougweller an antisemite.
• Here he suggests that a 1938 occultist source is an appropriate source for to suggest that historians think that the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio is connected to the unrelated deities Kneph (more on that later) and Ahura Mazda, and unspecified "Japanese and Indian traditions."
• Even after his previous block, he shows contempt for anyone not supporting his edits, and makes up imaginary editors to support him.

The few good edits he's made (like this), do not begin to outway the amount of following after he is going to require, as he does not understand cooperative discussion in the slightest, and twists guidelines to his own ends (such as reversing WP:BRD to insist that other people discuss his edits without reversion, reinterpreting WP:RS so that outdated, unscholarly, or fringe sources have to be countered).

This is a highly uncooperative fringe-pushing editor, who one admin has considered blocking indefinately. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Were you going to let us know who it is, or just keep us in suspense? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Meant to put that in the beginning. Editted in. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE has steps for liberal blocking of longstanding pushing of fringe sources. Trying to link a mound in Ohio with Ahura Mazda is definitely way fringe. If the editor has been sufficiently warned and can be shown to have continued afterwards (diffs, please, if you have them) then escalating blocks are definitely called for, in my opinion. Just need an uninvolved admin to do it. (And what was the more on Kneph?) DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion we have too much patience for this type of editor. There are obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues, and that should be enough for a block. Hans Adler 16:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ack, forgot that (should really finish my morning Mt Dew before I do anything). At Kneph, Wheres Dan continued to push fringe and outdated material, taking a 19th century source (which should have been removed) that conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna and turning it into the primary source for the article, and citing a metaphysical text by René Guénon for historical information.

The histories for the articles Tribe of Dan, Kneph, and Serpent Mound show nothing but continued reversions after being asked to not use fringe and outdated sources.

Wheres Dan has just cited several outdated and fringe sources that were previously removed, claiming that Dougweller approved of all of them because Wheres Dan included two sources Doug suggested along with the fringe material.

He is also being a hypocritical when it comes to sourcing. This demonstrates that he understands that 19th century romantic, reductionist, and religious material are not reliable sources for historical claims, but when ignores this when it supports his point of view.

Even if it weren't for the fringe issues, that his concept of cooperation is a bit one-sided seems reason enough to not want him on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And now he's reported me for edit warring (even though I have yet to violate 3rr and have reverted no more than he has), where he accuses me of acting out of a religious bias by taking a comment out of context (at first, he tried to accuse me of an anti-Biblical bias, which prompted me to point out that I'm a Baptist). As I've stated over at WP:3RRNB, I will no longer be nice about this, he is useless to this site and should be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement that editors of this persuasion are given way too much leniency here. The user has shown, per this conversation at Talk:Serpent Mound#Tribe of Dan Egyptian gods nonsense, that they either have WP:COMPETENCE issues or are on an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles. The user couldn't seem to understand the difference or wouldn't admit the difference between the armchair philosophizing of a historian (if you want to call an author publishing in "Rosicrucian Digest" in 1938 an actual "historian") in the early 1900s and the 100 years of peer reviewed academic archaeology that has taken place since that armchair historian wrote his book. They have also yet seemed to understand our policies on WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, and WP:RELIABLE. It's not our job to tell a person what to believe, but surely, we can stop them from serially inserting this] sort of nonsense into history and archaeology articles? Heiro 18:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since they've been blocked before, I've just blocked for a week for edit-warring at Tribe of Dan during which they overstepped 3RR as well as WP:COMPETENCE. I've pointed out both in the block notice, and also noted how they can contribute to this discussion. But frankly, if anyone wants to up it to indef, be my guest. Black Kite (t) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna" — where have I seen that before — Caesarion and WillBildUnion (talk · contribs). Maybe.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Wheres Dan is citing a lot of 19th century sources, and a lot of people (whatever their beliefs) who wrote about religion in the 19th century were kinda stupid (IMO more so than in eras before or after). He doesn't quite smell the same to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there are generally very serious, questions about the current reliability of sources from the era of the source in question. Having said that, I think that there probably is, to some degree, information of this type which is relevant to at least some article, maybe a spinoff, in wikipedia. We do rather often have child articles which might address or summarize previous opinions regarding a subject, and it rather often is the case that such older premises, for good or ill, are in some way foundational to current theories, of varying reliability. I think maybe confining the editor to relevant talk pages, until and unless there is obvious and poorly-defensible editing abuse there as well, might be the best alternative. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

*Ahem* I'm thinking it's time for an indef. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clearer about my previous remark, a sockpuppet of Wheres Dan has been found and indefed. The block on Wheres Dan is still for a week. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

More socks have been found. This guy knows what he's doing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wheres Dan after looking at the various contribs of the socks at the SPI, which go back for weeks and months even, I think my above mentioned suspicion that WP:COMPETENCE may not be the issue but that an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles may be. One of the accounts (User:Sourced much) seemed to be overly drawn to articles on Nazis, specifically attempts to white wash their reputations(see here). I would like to ask for an indefinite block or possibly a community ban for this editor. Would there be any support for this? Heiro 03:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find evidence of him using the socks to votestack, vandalise or commit other offenses, then the block can be extended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal

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

---

• I support a community ban on Wheres Dan and associated accounts due to the systematic and planned disruption of the encyclopaedic process by pushing FRINGE. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban as per my statement above. Heiro 03:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, as Where's Dan is too academically and/or ethically incompetent to be of help here. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, with regrets, based on editors apparent inability or unwillingness to abide by basic standards of good conduct. While it is possible that some of the material he seeks to include might be appropriate, his actions to support that material very clearly are not. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Serious competence issues, refusal to act collaboratively, and a preference for wholly unreliable, extreme fringe sources, and the use of sockpuppet accounts - we need to protect the encyclopedia. --NellieBly (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Many issue of this user. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per all the reasons given above. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse The weeklong block may have been appropriate at first, but if he's creating socks to push fringe theories it's obvious we don't need him. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Should this now be closed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Wheres Dan hasn't even been notified, as far as I'm aware (at least I don't see a notice on his talk page). No, don't close this yet; even if WD ends up being banned, he should at least have a chance to defend himself. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 03:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I've notified him. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 03:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      • This was opened at least six days ago. What took so long? causa sui (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

He was notified of the discussion that started this one at User_talk:Wheres_Dan#ANI_notification. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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

• This is a bit of a hash, not that it matters too much in this case (per WP:SNOW). The block log says banned, the message on his talk pages says indef. blocked. A general discussion on user behaviour is not the same as a ban proposal, separate notifications should have been given, and due time allowed. It's good for the community to follow its own customs and rules where they may procedurally benefit the potential blockee, even in these cases. Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
  

User:Davshul, disruptive editing

Davshul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly, massively vandalised 2011 in the United States and other 2011 in "other country" articles.

I have pointed out on several occassions, to no useful end, that all these articles are part of the parent 2011 (a well-policed article), and that the change he keeps making needs to be cleared there first in the talk section, Talk:2011. Instead he has gone to the talk section for the actual article, Talk:2011 in the United States with useless discussion that he knows in bad faith that no one but me will ever read since the discussion there is poorly read, and most likely, completely never read.

As per Wikipedia:Recent years#Article body - individual dates are linked.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that it is also bad faith editing to claim someone else is editing in bad faith? Leaving headings like "notification of bad faith edits discussion" on the user's talk page doesn't help either. No comment on the actual dispute, just an FYI.--v/r - TP 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

what are you talking about?, the posting mechanism here said i was supposed to notify him--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and generally that is done with a heading that says "AN/I Discussion". That isn't a free license to accuse someone of bad faith.--v/r - TP 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

i have changed it--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@70.162.171.210: I see nothing in the history of this dispute except your repeated characterization of Davshul's work as "vandalism" or "bad faith" or "disruptive". I don't see where any of his work is any of that. What you should do, rather than calling his editing what it is not, is to instead seek discussion on the article talk pages. If you believe that the discussion does not have enough participation from neutral parties, then see WP:DR and choose a mechanism there (such as WP:3O or WP:DRN) to get extra attention. Using perjorative terms to describe someone's editing doesn't help you "win", it merely makes you look like a bully and is unlikely to result in a positive outcome for you. Instead, speak to and about others in non-confrontational terms, use existing mechanisms for dispute resolution, and have the patience to understand that disputes may not be resolved instantly; it may take some days for enough people to comment to allow for a reasonable consensus to arise. --Jayron32 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Davshul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has finally in good faith attempted to justify his vandalism of year in country articles in an appropriate location (not just some talk page that no one ever reads), why he did not see fit to write anything here is beyond me to explain towards "his good faith", his comments are on this talk page Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Date linkage in subpages.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, let me make this clearer. Don't call his edits vandalism. Continuing to do so is unlikely to go well for you. Which is not to say that his edits are necessarily going to be best for Wikipedia. But if you keep calling his edits vandalism, it just makes you look bad, and thus you'll end up making your position in this dispute look bad. If you genuininly believe you are correct, stop using the word vandalism, because it is clear that you don't know what it means. I am quite interested in seeing the right thing get done here, and if your position in this dispute is "the right thing", I will be quite upset if you screw that up by calling his edits vandalism if they are not. I have not idea which side of the dispute is "right", but as so often happens, the "right" position gets clouded by "wrong" behavior. Calling vandalism things which are not vandalism is a bad idea. Instead, convince people you are correct. --Jayron32 04:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Supporting what Jayron32 is saying here. Vandalism is when a user makes a change with the sole intention of messing up the project, usually for their own entertainment. This is vandalism. If there is a chance that the user is trying to improve the project, you should assume good faith and discuss your disagreement with them, like this: "I noticed you were making edits to 2011 in the United States and other articles. I disagree with these edits. Could you explain their purpose?" Dcoetzee 05:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

i have been informed that the word "vandal" is too harsh --- i will withdraw it but not anything else said.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

70.162, I invite you to read our article on vandalism, WP:VANDAL, so you know what we at Wikipedia mean by the word "vandalism". It's not that the word is "harsh" (which quite frankly smacks of you saying we're too delicate for The Truth), it's that it's the wrong word. It's inaccurate. There is no requirement for an editor to discuss his edits to an article at some special centralized talk page, and expecting an editor to do so in advance - and calling his edits "vandalism" when he doesn't defer to your wishes - is unproductive and disruptive. (Note: as the editor is an Israeli-based Jew and the Sabbath has just begun, it might be best to timestamp this (I don't know how) to give him time to respond after the Sabbath ends.) --NellieBly (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving blocked for 5 days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the anon is correct as to the guidelines. Although there are errors in WP:LINKING, the RfC authorizing the change in the guidelines specifically exempted timeline articles. It's not vandalism, but it is unhelpful and distruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly true: However, the way to be right is not to accuse people of things: It is to engage them in conversation, convince them you are correct, and if you cannot do that, then bring in neutral parties to evaluate the dispute. Accusing people of things that they did not do makes you lose. If you lose, and your position was the correct one, then Wikipedia loses. That's why you should not behave that way, ever. --Jayron32 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

my method may have been wrong but i have been trying to finger in the dike against the flood i knew would come --- if only i had been listened to at the begining the massive list below would now not exist ---

User:Davshul has made changes to all these articles:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1969_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=461606429
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=461609054
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_the_European_Union&diff=prev&oldid=461611386
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461639619
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=461643558
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=461646189
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=461930100
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Northern_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=461930248
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=461554952
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Romania&diff=prev&oldid=461604489
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=461605345
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461504010
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461504240
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461506025
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=461554109
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=461554262

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the following comments.

• First, may I commend and thank NellieBly for her/his observation and suggestion (and thank The Bushranger for the his/her response) postponing the archiving of this topic to enable me to see the latest comments and respond.
• I had not participated initially to this discussion, since following the comment of Jayron on November 22 (in which he/she pointed out, in no uncertain terms, that my edits were neither "vandalism", "bad faith" nor "disruptive", and that anonymous user (Anon) who initiated this discussion was giving every appearance as a bully and that, if he felt that my edits were incorrect, there were various mechanism open to him, but this was not one of them), I had nothing further to add and believed the matter to be at an end.
• The edits made by me on were supported by three other users on 2011 in the United States and two other users on 2011 in Canada, who each undid the reversions made by Anon. It should be noted that Anon's revertion on 2011 in the United States were totally in contravention of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#The three-revert rule, four of such reversions taking place within a single hour on November 20. Furthermore, none of the edit summaries gave any indication to discuss the matter, and appeared to be based upon Anon's believe that only a regular editor of the page was entitled to edit it (such as "cool that you suddendly (sic) show up here having never contributed to this article and make wholesale changes to it -REVERTED"- "let the war begin - thou i think that any admin you get to look at it will see you as a vandal", etc.). The fact that Anon was even allegedly relying on any guidelines was only mentioned for the first time as an edit summary to his reversion of November 21, over 16 hours after he had commenced his reversions.
• I still believe that the guidelines quoted by Anon do not extend to the Year in Country series. However, although the various edits made by me were still in place, and there appeared to be no outstanding challenges, I opened up a second discussion on the issue, on Wikipedia talk:Recent years, (as the initial discussion, also initiated by me, on Talk:2011 in the United States, was alleged by Amnon, as stated above, to be "useless discussion that [I] knows in bad faith that no one but [him] will ever read..". Amnon responded to the new discussion with another wave of accusation of vandalism.
• The discussion, both here and on the various Discussion pages, has now been joined by Arthur Rubin, who states that although "there are errors in WP:LINKING, the RfC authorizing the change in the guidelines specifically exempted timeline". I do not consider that this is the place to discuss whether or not the dates in question should be links. However, I find it hard to believe that had the guidelines intended to initiate a change in the format of hundreds, or more probably thousands, of articles (there are alone currently 236 in the Year in the United States series and 313 in the Year in Canada series), would require users to rely on an extended interpretation of the guidelines or upon some historic RfC (which I have not been able to locate). The first line of the guidelines specifically states that it applies to "year articles (e.g. 2009, 2010)", there is no mention of it applying to sub-articles and indeed much of the guidelines has no application to such sub-article.
• I have now been editing on Wikipedia for some years, having created many articles (including a number in the Year in Country series) and have at all times endeavored to comply with Wiki guidelines. I would add that I have also put in a great deal of effort in order the ensue that articles are presented in an organized and consistent format and, in this respect cannot see why, say, the 237th article in a series should be presented in a different format to the 236 earlier articles, without, at least, some comment on the Discussion page or even in an edit summary. However, I was and am, as clearly demonstrated by me, willing to discuss this matter in an organized manner.
• One point that I find somewhat alarming and surprising is that Arthur Rubin, who appears to be an experienced editor, should have chosen yesterday unilaterally to revert my edits in 2011 in the United States whilst the whole issue is under discussion in several forums.

There are a number of further points that I had intended to make, but unfortunately this response is already longer that I had anticipated it would be and, unfortunately, I have a number of commitments, apart from Wikipedia, that take up my time, including th eneed to earn a living. Davshul (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You apparently weren't involved in the massive rewrite of WP:LINKING#Chronological items; if you were, you would probably have noticed that the the guideline exempted "intrinsically chronological articles", and there is no discussion as to whether "year in country" articles are "intrinsically chronological". I cannot see any rational interpretation in which they are not. If the guideline doesn't apply, then you're left with consensus on the article, which, at least in 2011 in the United States, is clearly in favor of linking. I cannot agree with the anon that you are a vandal; but I can agree that you are disruptive; I suggest you revert all the unlinking edits you've made against custom in "year in country" articles; or, at least, do that before doing any other unlinking. I find it difficult for any any of the bots and macros that I have access to relink only the appropriate links, so it may be necessary to revert to before your edit, thereby losing potentially valuable information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

since you already did some of the revert work Arthur then now you can see why i was aggressive from the begining

1-the guy who made all the those massive changes - will he revert the work - of course he wont - so it is left to others to do the mind numbing effort of syntax changes
2-does the guy care that others will have to now hunt down all those same massive syntax changes - it appears not --70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I note that Arthur Rubin has brought attention to the guidelines WP:LINKING#Chronological items, which exempted "intrinsically chronological articles" from the general guidelines against linking. These guidelines, on at least two occasions, give clear examples of what is meant by this expression, stating "Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items." Note: no reference to subpages and what all these intrinsically chronological articles have in common is that they are all part of a series in which all other pages in the series contain such linkage. This is not so in the case of the Year in Country series, which do not full within the definition of intrinsically chronological articles and where earlier years are not linked. I note that, as a second line attack, Arthur Rubin now brings up the issue of consensus. I must admit that I had not considered the question of a small group of users reaching a consensus not to apply guidelines. However, as the general guidelines are not to link, there should therefore have been a discussion and consensus before the linkage look place in the first place, which there was not, and any such discussion should take into account that all earlier articles in the series were unlinked. If there is no consensus, then the default is not to link. The mere fact that my edits on 2011 in the United States were immediately supported by at least three other users must indicate that there is no consensus to link. Although I may have been hasty in not giving some notice on the Discussion page of my intention to make these changes, I believed, and still believe, that I was applying Wiki guideline. I would add that of the 36 pages currently listed in 2011 in Year in Country series, 25 appear never to have had linked dates, and which certainly does not show any consensus to linkage. Furthermore, as regards the edits made by me, in several instances, the pages included both linked and unlinked dates, and my edits brought consistency to the pages in question. Davshul (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Contrary to the anon's assertion, "subpage" is not the relevant criterion. It's "intrinsically chronological articles". Are you willing to argue that 2011 in the United States is not "intrinsically chronological"? Furthermore, the examples given of "intrinsically chronological articles" is obviously not intended to be exclusive, as it doesn't even have examples of a number of classes; November 27; November 1998 (generally deprecated, but new articles are still being created); 20th century; and 3rd millennium. I don't see why 2011 in the United States would not also fall in the category. As I pointed out in one of the other threads, years before 1990 or so have been unlinked, contrary to the guidelines, by an ambitious bot or bot operator. That doesn't mean that the dates shouldn't be restored. I haven't checked the history of all of the yyyy in the United States articles, but if mostly unlinked after 2009, consensus, rather than the frequently misinterpreted guideline, should be the primary factor in whether the links should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am very much mistaken this topic is currently subject of discussion at WP:MOSNUM, so really it should not be used as an argument here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

I would congratulate User:Davshul on bringing nothing but improvement to those articles by removing swathes of links that are detrimental. Essentially, the date links distract readers from the important topics; I would probably have gone further in unlinking some of the more common terms while I had the edit window open. Contrary to what may be asserted her by some, there is a pretty wide consensus that only a very minority of dates should be linked, and these only in a class called "chronological articles", which I understand is limited only to centuries (21st century), years (2011), and dates (November 30). To imply that article such as 2011 in the United States should be included in that grouping strikes me as 'scope creep' or 'land grab'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism campaign involving fake references

Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk · contribs) is an agenda editor and edit-warrior who has been part of a small but pertinacious group pushing ideological positions of certain fringe groups regarding French royalism. He was edit-warring in support of Emerson 07 (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked for revert-warring and also had several apparent sockpuppets blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emerson 07). Most recently, Mophon joined Emerson in edit-warring with this and this edit. In these edits, he inserted an alleged reference to support a contentious BLP claim: "Prutkov, Kozma (2010). Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne des Maisons Principales de l'Europe. Montréal. ISBN 1925-5594. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)". This is apparently a fake, made-up reference.

"Kozma Prutkov" is a fictional writer made up by some satirists in the 19th century. There exist neither a book under the given ISBN, nor a book with this alleged title. There is a website calling itself "Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne" (noblessemoderne.com), but its content pages are deadlinks. References to this alleged publication appear to exist only on several Wikipedia editions in several languages, where they all seem to have been inserted during the last few months by suspicious royalist agenda accounts, especially Rapportroyal (talk · contribs) (sp-wiki: [1], fr-wiki: [2], en-wiki: [3]

Making up fake sources to bolster a POV agenda is one of the most serious forms of vandalism. I suggest an immediate indef-block of both Rapportroyal and Mr. D. E. Mophon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OT: Thanks for introducing me to the word "pertinacious" - it's a great word -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Vandalism+lying+general dickery= indef? You get my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. Making up references, esp. book references, is a stab to the heart of RS and AGF. Mophon will be blocked; Rapportroyal inserted the same reference again after being urged by the boss not to do so: also indef. Fut. Perf., as thanks for your tenacity you get to take Kozma Prutkov (talk · contribs) as a sock. Congratulations. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good idea to indef anyone connected to this behavior. This is not to be tolerated. --Jayron32 18:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• indef away - this sort of behaviour is a complete no and we should waste time with people who think it is acceptable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good blocks and I'd suggest WP:BAN immediately as well - this sort of thing is something that should be 100% zero tolerance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC) After reading the details I'm willing to accept this was a - very bizzare - error, and unblock on the understanding that no similar events should ever occur in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good blocks indeed and I'd support a ban for this guy. Inventing references is, in my opinion, the most grievous vandalism possible. There is not an iota of good faith to be assumed. WilliamH (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Retracted per the developments; however, editorial standards must apply - don't cite something you haven't read/verified. WilliamH (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• support and is anyone tipping off the other projects?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Reduce to time served given explanations that have emerged.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Heiro 23:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

*support Neither excusable nor forgivable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• support I hold with those that favor fire (but have they been notified of this discussion)? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Continued icey support: I know enough of bad sourcing practices to say that gross incompetence when translating wikipedia pages and a failure to read the source you're inserting in an article would suffice for disruption. It is exactly the same conduct as deliberately inserting bad sources in the first place. If you haven't read it, don't cite it. ISSN 1925-5594 returns nothing in Ulrich's by the way. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Given the subject, would the guillotine be too strong a solution? Einar aka 01:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock – With regard to Mr. D. E. Mophon I have the articles where these disputes have taken place on my watchlist so have seen the dispute but have not involved myself in it. I think with respect to Future Perfect at Sunrise they have grossly exaggerated the case here, Mr. D. E. Mophon made just a single edit on two different articles and as such they have been branded an 'edit warrior', ridiculous. And with that single reference, the Kozma book, it appears they made an honest mistake, the other references being very real and legitimate. I can’t see how an indefinite block for an honest mistake is sustainable and just. I would encourage people to read Mr. D. E. Mophon's explanations and unblock request and think again. It's sad the user has been condemned to an indefinite block on the basis of an exaggerated case and before they had a chance to respond here at ANI. - dwc lr (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock per dwc lr above. While I have disagreed with D.E.Mophon, including on the articles in question, I also think that this is a case of jumping the gun. The worst offense of which s/he is accused is having fabricated a source when, as near as I can tell, s/he simply copied the (admittedly fake) source from another article where it had been used to substantiate a similar point. But there is no evidence I've seen which suggests that D. E. Mophon actually created that source or knew it was fake. Although his accuser rejects all of D.E. Mophon's cites in support of the contention that Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou is Head of the House of Bourbon for one reason or another, in fact several of them are sources I would have thought acceptable, and cumulatively they make a case in support of the point the accused believes is defensible. My own search for reliable sources on this point does not substantiate that the man is indisputedly referred to as Head of the House of Bourbon, but I was frankly surprised to discover that fact (the real dispute is over the claim that Louis Alphonse is "rightful" claimant to the throne of France which is, indeed, highly contested and generally rejected even in monarchist circles, except by the small but staunch Legitimists). His claim to be Head of the House of Bourbon (or of the entire Capetian dynasty for that matter) is admittedly self-proclaimed, but since it carries no legal implications it is not generally disputed (being a matter of pure genealogy) although, I've now learned, not generally acknowledged either. In any case, this block for this infraction is overkill, and I think that the accuser, understandably frustrated by the edit-war, has mistaken sloppiness driven by over-zealousness for deliberate falsification of sources. FactStraight (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, if you used a source that you haven't actually seen, that is kinda shady in my book. If you put it in here, you should have seen it. When we insert an offline source, other editors are relying on us to have been ethical. Using an offline source you haven't seen is not too smart. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose block – have come across Mophon before, and he's open to discussion, without being overly a POV-pusher. Also, a quick Google of the supposed "fake title" shows it to be in use on 5 or 6 different articles, each a different language Wiki. Are you going to find each editor on each wiki who cited them, or use Mophon as a witch hunt example? Also, why is this here, instead of WP:RS/N? Suspicious sources should be properly investigated before laying into the editor with accusations, and blocks. Only one editors word has been taken for granted here, and Mophon has not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself here, due to a hasty indef block. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Editor has placed an unblock request and a lengthy explanation on their talk page. An uninvolved admin is invited to have a look. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Mophon's explanation has merit. Block was too quick and too harsh. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block/Support immediate unconditional unblock As per the above comments, the block was done way too quickly, and without waiting for any type of proper response from the editor. Their comments have merit, and they should be unblocked immediately, with an apology. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block/ban, largely because we don't have the technology to nuke this sort of vandal from orbit over the internet yet. There is no way to AGF about falsified references, particularly falsified BOOK references. rdfox 76 (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Misinformation, accidental this type of edit does not constitute "vandalism". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct Marcus. If there was an established history of such things, then one could make a case that they are a vandal, but a single act of a good faith error not does a vandal make. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 06:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock. I have noticed this user during clean-up of various BLP-related royalty cruft, which he generally opposed, but never in a disruptive way as far as I can remember. I am convinced that he merely added an existing though unreliable source under the impression that it is a reliable source. If we assume the worst, it would have been the conscious pushing of an unreliable source for a not particularly problematic BLP claim. Add to that the manner in which he asked for an unblock (polite and constructive; one really must read between the lines to see how angry he must be), and I think an unblock is absolutely justified. Hans Adler 08:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As Future Perfect has pointed out below, in the French Wikipedia article this was a general reference rather than a footnote reference, so Mophon must have known that using it in a footnote as supporting a specific claim could not possibly be OK without first reading it. (Which apparently he has not done, since the website related to the source seems to claim the opposite.) Under these circumstances, I think the present outcome (user shocked with an indef, then unblocked, no apology from blocking admin) is an excellent one. Hans Adler 09:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment How do you accidentaly use a source you have not checked?Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The funny thing is that the fr-wiki page fr:Louis de Bourbon (1974-), from which he said he got those references, wasn't even using the "Prutkov" reference to support anything related to the claim in question, but was listing it merely as an unspecific "further reading" entry [4]. So, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to not being aware of the fraudulent nature of that reference as such – and I'd be inclined to grant him that –, his claim that it supported the specific proposition in question is still something he must have simply made up on the spot, and knowingly so. (In fact, I now find that on the rudimentary website that is this alleged book's only reflection out there [5], on the few content pages it actually offers, it seems to be supporting the very opposite of the contested proposition, as it lists that other guy as the "chef" of th "Maison Souveraine" of Bourbon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• To whoever is interested: please see my comment on editor's talk page. With thanks to the editors here; Hans, your comment was helpful and constructive and I agree certainly with the tenor of your message. Whatever happens, I hope the editor will take some of the commentary here to heart, esp. Fut.Perf.'s last note. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note: 1925-5594 is in fact an ISSN, not an ISBN. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
  
• I have unblocked. It seems that this is a perfectly understandable error on the user's part, although it might not have appeared that way. Many words of sage advice have been given to him, and an appropriate number of mea culpas said. No point dragging it out any further. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
  

MarcusBritish

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours by Fram, increased to 48 hours by Boing! said Zebedee. 28bytes (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Has made a number of PA’s against WebHamster This has resulted in a wikiquete discussion [[6]] in which MarcusBritish has made a number of highly confrontational comments, and sees this as some kind of a battle in which you are either an enemy or a ally [[7]]. He has accused me of saying things I have not said [[8]]. I don’t think the user is generally a problem, but in the subject of WebHamster he has a highly aggressive battlefield mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So in short, what you're saying is – "if you want a blocked user banned outright, you should be blocked". And you question my mentality? You do realise that I'm more than willing to push this type of reaction through ArbCom and throw your attempt to question my integrity into the firing line, I hope. Wasting you time, trying to make a name for yourself Ste. You stand in middle-ground, making false indications that you support one opinion, then another, but in reality you're luring people. There is nothing here worthy of ANI interest. It took EIGHT years to get Webhamster blocked, and he still has people toadying to his every desire. Where do you thing that puts you, apart from clear as mud sycophancy to ANI, Hell bent of pushing your own POV? Laughable liberal wish-wash. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am here because more then one user has said your commeents about webby oversteped the mark, and you response is this attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't take "the mark" of a BNP supporter as a reliable. You're as petty as it gets. Your motives are not above suspicion. In fact I suspect you're looking for retaliative action because you "can't win" with your unassisting remarks at WQA. Don't know why you bothered in the first place, your entire history there did not have anything to do with the aims of WQA. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's being accused of being a BNP supporter? Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Political affiliations (which have not been demonstrated in any case) seem tangential to this conversation. I'm concerned such comments fall foul of the no personal attacks policy, in which "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is given as an example. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, what views? He's not said anything of value that can be discredited – he's simply a general, all-round WP:IJDLI kinda guy who doesn't know how to make a stand, and makes petty arguments and vague rebuttals, all in the form of a storm in a teacup. To be even more to the point, this isn't even his argument, so why he attempted to make it about him is beyond me. Perhaps he was bored. He certainly bores me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Slatersteven supports the BNP is irrelevant to this discussion, so why you brought it up in the first place is unclear unless you wished to discredit him. And the assertion is unsubstantiated, considering the strong views the party provokes it is unwise to level such accusations. Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I just say; over the last couple of days you two have done basically sod all except argue about this topic... There is a level of maturity in simply walking away from a confrontation and finding something productive to do. No one has to have the last word here. But what we could do is divert this attention into writing some article content. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As both times [9] it was in direct reply to a post by me the target is logicaly me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yo, Brains. This.is.not.about.you. You.are.not.the.subject. Stop.trying.to.become.the.center.of.attention. I.do.not.find.you.interesting. Your.desire.for.revenge.is.transparently.obvious. Drop.the.stick. — And use a spell-checker for Pete's sake, they are free, and come in-built in browsers like Firefox. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The issue is not whether the user should be banned, but that it is inappropriate to use terminology such as "prime nut," and "the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour." to advance such a case, and to accuse anyone taking exception to those personal attacks as being in some sort of collusion. Gerardw (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is supporting Webhamster in overturning a block, which had a ~65% pro-block consensus, the question of your motives, COI, or bias leaves me to conclude that you will say anything to contradict me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been on the receiving end of some of Marcus's vitriol, sure. But I don't see the need for administrative action here.

  Now, the above accusation (in response to Gerardw) is really in bad faith, and I'm sure Marcus would say something similar about me: "you don't support a block so you're partial"--which of course works both ways: Marcus supported a block so he's not partial? Come on now. "Liberal wish-wash" is nonsense; Marcus, you'll have to live with the fact that people disagree, and that it's not always for political reasons, and that your argument is self-defeating.

  There's a bit more--besides accusations of partiality, there was some nonsense of 'all of us' Hamster defenders being a club of regulars at Hamster's pub in Manchester or something like that, which isn't just in violation of AGF but also extremely silly. I mean, really--geolocate me, or, if you really don't want to put your money where your mouth is, give me your address and I'll send you a postcard from Alabama.

  Anyway, I don't want to compile a laundry list. I think that Marcus's behavior left a lot to be desired, but I don't want another editor blocked as a result of this mess. I hope Marcus sees that not everyone in the community feels as he does, and that ruffling feathers is not always a good thing. No action please, if Marcus keeps his cool. Or finds it. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A touching example of floccinaucinihilipilification, from Drmies, there. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call you unimportant. I'm sure someone loves you. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I'd double-check your definition of flocci— there. I didn't mean me. Rather, the situation itself. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry: I bow to your vision--"Wiki is currently the "land of the blind" in which I have one eye." Drmies (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you actually know what that means, and can apply context, then do so. Otherwise it's just a meaningless quote without any form of interpretation. Nor is it any of your business for the time being. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps MarcusBritish needs a block for his general behaviour (uncivil, NPAs) over the last days. But more urgently, I don't think he is the right person to be adressing WQA discussions, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Editor is following my edits and canvassing. WQA responders should be patient, helpful, not disrespectful. In his second post to that discussion, he states "To me it sounds like paranoia,[...]", which is not the kind of response anyone should give at a WQA discussion without some very good evidence to back such an opinion. The rest of the discussion isn't much better, berating the initiator for using old posts and diffs ("holding grudges is counter-productive.") then when he presents recent diffs replying "Stalking lasts for months, is a malicious act and usually subtle." Well, perhaps that's why he posted these old diffs you didn't like in the first place... Perhaps the complaint by the initiator is utterly baseless, I don't know, but the manner in which MarcusBritish is addressing it is extremely negative and not really what one would expect when one comes to get some "wikiquette assistance". Fram (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time for WQA but his posts there are clearly unsuitable given the rationale behind it's existence - likely to inflame rather than solve any problems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above two points; whether or not MarcusBritish is to be blocked (probably not) is of secondary concern to his involvement at WP:WQA. Reviewing this situation, and his performance over there, WQA requires a bit more diplomacy and tact than MarcusBritish seems to wish to use. It would be best if he found other places at Wikipedia to use his skills, because that arena is clearly not well suited to his style of interacting with others. --Jayron32 00:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The instigator wasn't interested in diplomacy, nor was it a matter of etiquette in reality. It was over-spill from an SPI and the editor was seeking to advocate support with regards that his accusations of being "stalked" were feasible. Another editor supported my findings and requested closure of the WQA. I suspect the two editors will be here, on AN/I before long anyway.. neither wants to drop the stick, with one accusing the other of being a sock, the other accusing of stalking; behaviour which he has carried to no less than 5 editors talk pages and rattled a few cages in the 26 days since he registered. I, modestly, think I handled the situation well considering that the editor was never going to be interested unless someone who believed every word he said and was willing to block the edited he was accusing, showed up. It was a matter of expressing concern for his behaviour. Another editor expressed the same concern. I did my "voluntary" job, whilst none of you now complaining about how I handled my first WQA lifted a finger to offer any assistance. To be frank, the previous WQA aimed at me was far less productive, and editor Slatersteven who argued with me there did not attempt to resolve anything, he just argued. Whereas I achieved a result to the satisfaction of several people. Before you employ double-standards, I suggest you take that fact into account.

WQA reads "The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution." Another fact, is that the opening editor did not even inform his opponent of the discussion, so there was no aim for a mutual resolution on his part, his comments were aimed at reporting his opponent and discrediting him with SPIs dating back nearly 3-years, which I rejected as being somewhat uncivil, and the discussion whilst it started amicably, broke down upon his realisation that myself and another editor did not agree with his conclusions, or accusations against anyone. The editor he accused was invited, by myself, to present his story, and I gave a neutral conclusion after looking at the diffs and comments offered. WQA isn't a Samaritan Hotline, nor is it AN/I, and the two editors were advised to keep their distance or use AN if they had a solid reason to. There was, in my judgement, no other outcome or better way of handling the matter, except with a firm hand. It was a fast moving WQA, as the opening editor was unwilling to take time to present information to give us a clearer perspective of the harassment he claimed to receive – I hunted for a while and found nothing to support his claims. So based on what was presented – old news – the matter was closed, by a third editor, following agreement between myself, and the two involved editors that there was no further course of action at WQA – they didn't want to make up, they didn't want to back down from their opposing claims.

Like I've said, if any of you feel that could have done any better, you could have chimed in - the first two of you commented 7 hours before the case was even closed, so there is no excuse for only spectating if, as responsible/"skilled" admins, you feel that I was mishandling the matter – a personal opinion that is a load of nonsense with no merit whatsoever. In short, these illogical comments leave little to be appreciated. An admin who calls for a block, when they didn't lift a finger to partake in a WQA which lasted from 06:06, 28 November 2011 until 17:30, 28 November 2011 – 11.5 hours – should be blocking themselves, for being unable to justify their own lack of action, whilst attacking someone else for bothering. There is no block rationale can be brought to bear here, because there isn't even a case – my first WQA (as an outsider) was handled without any disruption, as "patiently, helpfully, and not disrespectfully" as possible – contrary to the supposition and near-miss attack implied above – and a trivial uncivil reaction from the WQA opener, which is no skin off my nose, and case closed.

Before some of you start waving your mops about indiscriminately again, you might consider putting "Wet Floor" signs down – you're liable to cause an accident using them without training. Some of the WQA people seem better behaved than many of the competitive, disdainful and patronising admins on AN/I, as evidenced here where admins attack another editors honest selfless actions, but refuse to put themselves in the firing line, despite ample opportunity. Given that people are normally banned from areas of wiki reactively not proactively, and given that I have volunteered a total of ONE single WQA response, you have no basis on which to even discuss this with certainty, except in bad faith (esp. considering the edit summaries aimed at me). The suggestion, which actually bears no relevance to this AN/I topic as the WQA came 3 days after it was opened, but whatever I'll humour this questionable side-track, whatever the motive, is that of a form of interaction/WQA topic ban. And per WP:BANPOL, there has been no disruptive behaviour there from me as an outside responder to the case dated 28 November 2011, and no warnings have been issued to me relating to that one WQA. Whilst I don't consider this a personal attack as such... rather, a condescending lack of AGF, and prudish admin behaviour. To be honest, I expect my decorum is better than most. So, that's that!

Now — Go 'ave a cuppa! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in a WQA case and at the same time claim that another participant in the case should stop participating there. If I had done that, people would claim I was involved and not neutral in my statement here. Damned if you don, damned if you don't. If you believe that e.g. "To me it sounds like paranoia" is a "patient, helpful and respectful" comment, it only strengthens my believe that you are (at the moment) not an editor who should be involved in handling WQA cases. As for this coming without prior warnings and so on: you have been warned repeatedly for your incivility and personal attacks, so getting involved in the one area where those are least wanted is a logical continuation of this, and doesn't need a new set of warnings and numerous cases. Fram (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There was still nothing to stop you adding to the WQA and discussing your "concerns" on my talkpage. Which, FYI, is what I am referring to when I say I have had no {{uw-warning}} type notifications. I'm sure you know what I mean though, and I should not have to clarify myself after writing "Gone with the Wind..." up there. "To me it sounds like paranoia" is frank.. just because you don't consider the word "paranoid" as a productive word, doesn't mean everyone doesn't. In fact, your interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. Let us bear in mind I speak native English, and you may not be as familiar in terms of what is "mild" and what is "strong" wording. Now, if I had called him "delusional", which means much the same thing, that would be stronger and more aggressive. Paranoia relates more to social judgements, delusion more to mental instability. I hope that is clear, and you do not think I am patronising you. As for "warned repeatedly", again I beg to differ. Some people have raised concerns, mostly that I appear uncivil at times. As for "personal attacks", there have been no confirmations of such behaviour. As for accusing me of "continuation", that would seem, again, to represent your lack of good faith, and looking down your nose at me. Something I don't take from anyone in this day and age. You either recognise yourself as an equal when you address me, or you don't address me at all. Wiki isn't a place of "class distinction", not do I care who you are, or what your edit history says about you. As far as 1:1 respect between people goes, it should be earned, nor given away or inherited. So once again, I repeat that your critique of my ability to handle WQA is flawed. For your humble information, I have exactly 4 years and 4 months experience working in live customer service for one of the UK's biggest companies. Direct real life communication with people, customers, both resolving complaints and handling difficult and regular people. I think I am probably more aware of my ability than you are, from your limited understanding of the circumstances behind this topic, rather than the unrelated matter of my answering a solitary WQA, which hardly constitutes a career move/ I suggest you adopt a less pessimistic manner regarding my ability, I consider it a personal attack on my integrity rather than my character. You concerns are not justified, because your opinions are merely unsupported guess work, no one can predict the future. Even SPIs need more than that to qualify an IP block. So you certainly do, to qualify your insinuations regarding my work at WQA. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Further comments in that vein will result in a block.""but WP:NPA applies even when talking about blocked users, and if you do not follow it you will find yourself blocked." User Slatersteven started this section (correctly) with "Has made a number of PA’s against WebHamster". Nev1 in this discussion stated "I'm concerned such comments fall foul of the no personal attacks policy,", Gerardw in this discussion stated "anyone taking exception to those personal attacks". Errant in the WQA discussion stated "Long, immature and wearisome rants are only going to encourage admins to block you." I don't think stating that "As for "warned repeatedly", again I beg to differ. Some people have raised concerns, mostly that I appear uncivil at times." correctly describes the situation. You have been, at different venues and by different people, warned about your comments, the PA nature of some of them, and the block that may be the result of it. "As for "personal attacks", there have been no confirmations of such behaviour.": well then, let this be the confirmation: you have made a number of personal attacks, for which you have been repeatedly warned by different editors, and should do well to stop making them (and other highly uncivil remarks) if you don't want to get blocked. Fram (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Took your time digging for dirty socks in my drawers, didn't you? At least I know what level of mentality you operate at now. You either don't want to listen or don't want to understand, so let me make this as clear as 1+1=2 for you, because you're only going to look foolish if you keep using an imperative tone against someone who is not easy to belittle:

You and you alone raised the matter of my WQA involvement. It is a fork, because it does not relate to the matter, no matter how hard you try, you have a square peg, this topic is a round hole. You have applied a line of reasoning that "if MarcusBritish has been uncivil to persons A and B then he will also be uncivil to persons C, D, and E." That, for your information, is synthesis. I suggest you go read about it, and as an editor with 100,000+ contribs, do not do it again! That is a warning from me, regarding you making false accusations, incriminations, bad faith judgements, and personal attacks of your own! If you think your opinion, which has more bull than a Spanish arena, stands for anything, you better take your "WQA ban" proposal through ArbCom.

Your attitude leaves a lot to be desired – in fact, you are ruder on AN/I than I was on WQA. Shirking WQA whilst branding someone else for at least making an effort and getting a result whilst you took a back seat. Inflated egos don't impress me. You may think you're invulnerable and above suspicion, but basing your proposals on synthesis alone proves you're as fallible as any regular editor, perhaps moreso – with 100k+ edits in 6 years, you should know better!

And FYI, I didn't plan to make a regular habit of answering WQA cases. You drew that conclusion based on your own false sense of self-importance too. So that puts a big halt to your logic, period. Logic is based on patterns. One WQA response is not a pattern or trend, and bears no correlation to behaviour on any other area of Wiki. Again, you should know better after 6 years. You introduced a false line of reasoning to this topic. Any ulterior motive? As for your use of the term "highly uncivil", you are the first to use it. Hyperbole. Bringing a WQA response to the forefront of this topic was bold, but lacks credence, except that I suspect your only hope is that Fram-loyal admins will support you unwaveringly, without even considering that you made a mountain of a mole hill. You see, the thing about digging for dirty socks is the more you handle them the quicker you get used to the smell on your hands – a.k.a. power corrupts.

Per WP:CIVIL I'm going to suggest you intentionally presented a fork to support your own argument, using synthesised logic all based on a false premis, that is in fact:

2. Other uncivil behaviors

• "(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves"

Go figure! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked MarcusBritish for 24 hours for repeated and continuing uncivil behaviour and personal attacks. I don't believe that getting verbal abuse and walls of text from someone after you warn them about their personal attacks against others makes one involved (or it would become very easy to make many admins "involved" and remain unblocked by virtue of that), but if people see this differently, feel free to change the block of course. I have had no prior involvement with MarcusBritish that I am aware of, and have not been a WebHamster defender (having blocked Pink Oboe and his talk page), so I don't think there is any chance that this can realistically be seen as retaliation for his attacks on Webhamster. Fram (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For appearances sake it probably wasn't a good idea to do this yourself, given the above. But I doubt anyone else will come to a different conclusion. causa sui (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but I have seen too many cases of an admin warning someone for something, getting abuse from the warned editor, and then clailms that that abuse makes the admin involved. I don't think that encouraging this line of thought is productive. Taking any form of admin action against a person (warning, blocking, speedy deleting their articles, ...) doesn't make an admin involved. Anyway, he got reblocked (for longer) by another admin, so it is rather moot now. Fram (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat drama-reducing for another admin to do it, but it's certainly not involved under policy or precedent here. I see no problem with the block here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

(Moved here from WP:AN, since the complaint is about a specific incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

This article is impossible to work on. Any attempts to fix the obvious POV-pushing of having endless quotes taken from propoganda sources, contrasted with no attempt to explain the arguments for the mainstream view, or against the fringe claims (except for a couple trivial attempts in image captions), are met with rudeness, obstruction, and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT to ridiculous levels.

In particular, William M. Connelley's behavious seems to be straight out trolling, including having launched (so far unsuccessful, at least) attempts to try to find out my real name in revenge for me disagreeing with him.

This page is pretty much pure propaganda, it being on Wikipedia at all is a sign of Wikipedia's failure - we really need a page consisting of quotes from fringe propaganda?! The editing environment is intentionally made as awful as possible, in order to drive any mainstream editors off. It basically survives by having global warming deniers camp on the page, and shoot down any mainstream editors who come by before they can get organised. 86.* IP (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why I don't follow those pages anymore. They're trash.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm.. William M. Connelley is anything but a "global warming denier". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to the contentious nature of the content, what did you honestly expect? It is an article about fringe theories, after all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed the bit where (allegedly) problematic behaviour is considered OK in articles on controversial topics. It's not. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

He has not proved that there has been problematic behavior and he has posted something that is the opposite of what is known to be true (William M. Connelley is a climatologist and is being accused of being a global warming denier). 86.** appears to be in the minority of the consensus on the talk page and appears to be coming to WP:AN to try to sway a growing consensus against him, and there are misconceptions by 86.** throughout this page and this one.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, WMC is trying to violate my privacy, and, in this issue, is pure troll. I'll provide links in private if you need proof. Forgive me if I don't want to link half-arsed speculation about my identity, lest it gives someone a boost towards violating it for real. I'll also point out that I may be a minority on the talk page - because the rudeness and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT makes it very hard for anyone to stay there that doesn't agree with everything - but that a majority of people in the last AfD voted for it to be deleted, so it would appear a majority of Wikipedians as a whole think it has severe problems. See poisoning the well for what Ryulong is doing. 86.** IP (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well this seems to be a merely baseless attack against someone who is part of a separate majority opinion from you. If you expect us to believe that these issues exist, you should at least post direct links to examples of it happening, barring the WP:OUTING issues.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You'll forgive us if, in the absence of evidence, we reserve judgement—particularly given that this isn't the first time in recent weeks that you've made spurious complaints about this article and this editor.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive725#William M. Connolley and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

At this point, it may be appropriate to consider restrictions on 86.**'s conduct under the discretionary sanctions provisions applying to climate change topics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How on earth am I supposed to link to the outing issues while avoiding linking to them? That's all WMC does as direct attacks on me. There's some examples of him seemingly intentionally missing the point or being very rude, e.g.

Are the only secondary sources available "journalists"? If so, I expect the quality of them varies a great deal. If people have been categorised by well-known science journalists writing in good mainstream publications, that would seem to fit our criteria for good secondary sources. Any academic sources on philosophy of science, sociology of science, etc. would trump those, but I doubt if many are available, will have a look. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but: you've been commenting here for quite a while. Isn't it about time you actually found out about the sources? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you did an academic literature search before starting editing? I find 91 results in WoS for "climate change" AND (sceptic OR skeptic OR denier). Some look to be refereed journal papers. Starting to go through now, will take a long time. Would you like to try alternative search terms? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(from the talk page)

But I'd need to quote hundreds of these to show a pattern, which is impractical.

86.** IP (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to suggest that you email the Arbitration Committee with the supporting evidence showing WMC's attempted outing. That would both preserve your privacy and allow for them to investigate. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that William M. Connolley was ever notified about this discussion, so I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate. I don't know how much more clear the notice could be. I will AGF and assume it was an honest mistake that he was never notified. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't posted here originally, it was moved here, and was intended to be general. I can't help it if people make this about a particular person, when I wanted to discuss a general problem. 86.** IP (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You say you wanted to discuss a "general problem", but your comments put forth a claim of being "outed" by William M. Connolley, which you make in the second paragraph of your original post. Whether that claim is made on WP:AN or WP:AN/I is irrelevant, once you advance a specific charge against a specific editor, you should notify them of the thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough, Ken. Don't muddy the waters by turning this around onto 86.**. Try to assume some good faith, alright? 76.16.72.26 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's hard to know what 86.** IP is complaining about. Because he seems not to be a new editor, he has been repeatedly asked to clarify whether he has had former named accounts (e.g. by DGG, Itsmejudith, WMC, Colonel Warden). He started editing from a range of IPs geolocating to Edinburgh in September, with edits to Ayurveda. A long discussion took place on User talk:Itsmejudith. [10] His repeated postings about this and related articles here and elsewhere are unhelpful and are now becoming disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Side note: Many BT IPs appear as geolocating to Edinburgh/Scotland including IPs from Northern Ireland so I wouldn't use geolocating to say much. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he simply requests more eyes on the article, that's all. His outing issues should be between him and ArbCom via private email. Let's archive this thread and move on, ok? 76.16.72.26 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You've only got like 5 edits here. Why is this important to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, there do not appear to be any outing issues on-wiki. If, as he says, 86.** IP happens to have had a previous account, trying to identify that account does not constitute WP:OUTING. (Colonel Warden I think suggested at one stage this could be an alternative account of User:Shoemaker's Holiday.) The frequency with which he posts on exactly the same topic here, on WP:AN and on WP:FTN is excessive. Many aspects of his posts are not quite right, including his use of the word "trolling". WP:AE under WP:ARBCC might be what comes next, or at least a warning. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I got the idea that it might be Shoemaker's Holiday from a suggestion of WMC. It seemed fairly clear that this was a tendentious editor returning under a new account. My first guess was that it was ScienceApologist or perhaps one of the editors banned from this topic area by arbcom but WMC's guess seems quite plausible, given that that editor has a history of editing the article in question. Anyway, given the arbcom sanctions on this topic area and the alacrity with which Scibaby socks are driven off, I am surprised that 86 has been allowed such a free rein. Warden (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Diffs like these [11] [12] on the article talk page from 2009 are quite similar to some of the postings of 86.** IP. Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not my guess; someone posted it to my talk page. But those diffs are quite suggestive. But does anyone care, greatly? SH isn't banned or anything, AFAIK William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have noted here earlier that I warned 86.** IP (talk · contribs) for edit warring in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article in response to this report. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, in response to your question of me having "5 edits" and "why this is important to me", please read WP:HUMAN. Thank you. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to BMK for notifying me of this discussion. It is hard for me to know what to say: as has been pointed out, 86 has totally misunderstood my position. For whatever strange reason, 86 has taken up a campaign against that page, to the point of being disruptive. Perhaps he should be encouraged to find other interests. Someone suggested to be the 86 might be User:Shoemaker's Holiday (aka AC) and who knows, this may or may not be correct. 86 is evasive when asked, as already noted William M. Connolley (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

86 has been edit warring at the page and is touchy about that, too [13]. The page falls underARBCC; can some admin not give 86 a warning under that? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This topic (= conflict of opinions) is a tough one for Wikipedia because the "question" itself is not one question, it is a POV-selection-of-the moment variable question. (E.G. is man having some effect?, is man having a significant effect? are variations we see mostly from man, mostly from nature, or a good mix of both?, which effects count as effects?. Also, even for the questions where the minority view is the smallest, it's a minority view, not a fringe view. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See, again this is why I don't don't even bother with these articles any more. It's just a bunch of POV pushers trying to win the hearts and minds of the mass population. Geesh, get a grip, all of you. In reality, nobody gives rats ass what any of you think about global warming. Its just a bunch of hoo haw, wrapped in tin foil, and sold to the sheeple as gold plated ear rings. People are smarter than you all think, so whatever voodoo science goes in or out of these articles is just a waste of space in my opinion.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shall we close this thread and be done with this? What is the admin intervention that is being requested here? 67.175.159.127 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Admin intervention? The user account 86.** IP might be blocked or topic banned for canvassing, incivility, disruption, sock-puppetry, edit-warring, tendentious editing and violation of Arbcom sanctions. Admins might also take a look at the user account User:Jabbsworth which openly admits to being another sockpuppet and which has now started editing this article. They seem to be the banned sockmaster Ratel. Warden (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jabbsworth, I was cleared to edit by Arbcom. Thanks. I have no sanctions on this article, and did not have in my other accounts. I have not edited article space here either.  Jabbsworth  01:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

According to J's talk page, he is User:TickleMeister, who is indef'd for socking William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See section below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The original poster should be allowed the chance to comment. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously.I complain about attempts to violate my privacy, so unfounded, evidence-free speculation gets repeated to a wider audience? And apparently, I'm the one at fault? What the hell? 86.** IP (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your "complaints" were without merit, since linking you to other wikipedia accounts is not outing. No information that is not publicly available on wikipedia has been mentioned. In those circumstances it is unclear what you mean when you write "violate my privacy". Perhaps, since you have already mentioned that they exist, you could disclose which named accounts you have previously used. That might help clear up matters. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In the space of two months, 86.* has raised this article at its fifth AfD (Result: Keep), AfD Review (Result: overturn to No Consensus), at the Fringe noticeboard several times, on Jimbo's page(!) [14], and now here. I've asked him/her several times to contribute to the discussion, which he/she's done to a limited extent. 86.* has made a couple of relatively constructive edits to the article in the last month. Most recently 86 was warned for reverting article tags three times in quick succession. In the circumstances I find the reference in the original post to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is rather rich. I would have thought a reminder of the general sanctions, and that Wikipedia is based on discussion and consensus building, not appeals to authority, would certainly be appropriate. --Merlinme (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that IP***86 isn't a sock but is probably a previous user returning. I encouraged him to set up an account, which he did, and his contributions to Ayurveda-related articles have been useful. In regard to this article we all need to work harder to get consensus. IP***86 needs to spell out the points he objects to and to realise that it isn't really a climate-change-denial position being promoted here (ironically it might at first sight appear to be, but on further inspection it's not). I need to look up the sources I said I would. And some of the page regulars who know who they are need to drop the WP:OWN and be more welcoming to policy-minded, science-friendly editors coming new to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you are a policy-minded, science friendly editor coming new to the article who's willing to making constructive edits to the article and contribute constructively on the Talk page; I've seen precious little evidence 86.* is. Catching up after the weekend, I noticed 86.* had reverted three times on the page, which is the first time a single user's done that in a long time. I left him a polite notice on his Talk page. Since leaving that note, I've discovered that he's raised his concerns again at an inappropriate venue for content disputes, having made essentially zero further attempts to engage in the article page discussion. I then discover that he had previously received the 3RR warning from an admin... which he removed from his Talk page. On top of the groundless accusation against WMC included in the original complaint, without even informing WMC, I'm afraid I've rather lost patience; "launched (so far unsuccessful, at least) attempts to try to find out my real name in revenge for me disagreeing with him" is a ludicrous distortion of the truth. It's clear from 86.*'s user page that he's not a newbie; someone suggested to WMC that he might be User:Shoemaker's Holiday, to which WMC's response was mainly mystification. WMC then asked 86.* if he would clarify any previous accounts used, to which 86.*'s response was to delete the request from his user page. --Merlinme (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not, as 86** states, that this article is "impossible to work on." It is more like 86** finds it impossible to get what he monmaniacally wants. His appearance here is just another instance of his forum shopping, which is just one facet of his general tendentiousness. His overblown hyperbole ("This page is pretty much pure propaganda") and total misattribution of his difficulites to "global warming deniers" illustrates the difficulty of trying to reach him. His presence has not been conducive to improving this article; he should be invited to leave. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Side issue?

76.16.72.26 (talk · contribs)
67.175.159.127 (talk · contribs)
Oddly aggressive editing by the above Illinois-based IP series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like closing the discussion with "Needless drama" and not signing the close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

TickleMeister (talk · contribs)
Jabbsworth (talk · contribs)
The one is a self-admitted sock of the other, as noted by WMC farther up the page. I've asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to come here and explain what's going on with that user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I know is he admitted the socking but was given a second chance by Arbcom's ban appeals committee, after promising to stick to a single account [15]. I now topic-banned him from the Aspartame topic (under "Pseudoscience" discretionary sanctions) because he was relapsing into the same sort of disruptive behaviour he had shown as TickleMeister a year ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Should he not be obliged to provide a link back to the old account? It seems wrong to have to reply on admin-memory. For example, you've just topic-banned him, but you couldn't have done that without a prior warning, which was given to an old account. Similarly, the arbcomm block memory (and unban discussion) is lost without a link back William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

One would think. And if he's not interested in creating that link, maybe someone should create one for him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a link. If other editors had known that he was TickleMeister - and known that Arbcom had allowed a multioffending sockmaster to continue to edit - we'd all have been better prepared to deal with him.

If people like him are allowed to keep editing, then there should be a general amnesty announced on the front page of the New York Times for all banned sockmasters to return, get a new account, hide the connection to their former disruptive accounts, and we can start all over again wasting time dealing with these creeps.

It's this kind of time sink, injustice and drama that discourages so many good editors from using more time at Wikipedia. These types of partisan editors who can't control themselves that make good articles into battlefields. Articles have no stability, even when they get to be good articles. That's too bad. The better an article becomes, the more protections it should enjoy so as to allow editors to concentrate on making progress in other areas. I'm not saying that articles should be locked, but it should be harder to vandalize and edit war at such articles. Only significant and important additions, changes and revisions should be allowed.....but I digress....it's a slightly different topic.

Anyway, a link should be provided and it be required that he never remove it. It would be cool if a standard template was made for such purposes. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

J has now removed what link there was [16] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I see I'm being discussed here. (1) Thanks for telling me (2) Are my edits to the Talk page in question "oddly aggressive" as are those of the IP named above (clearly not)? Do I have a history, under any other account name, with this page (I believe not)? If not, is there any cogent reason to be discussing me here?  Jabbsworth  23:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't appear to have any history with either TM or Ratel on that article. However I believe you do have a history in the climate change arena under Ratel so it's probably not unresonable your edits to another CC article are going to come under greater scrutiny. In addition that article obviously lends to BLP concerns, I believe under one or both older accounts people have had concerns over your editing when it comes to BLP before (whether or not you agree those concerns are legitimate) so it's sort of a double whammy. However I don't see anything needing administrative action related to this. There is the open question of which I have no opinion on of whether arbcom should have allowed you to come back and whether we should re-block you but that isn't related to the CC arena. The seperate issue of whether you should provide a link to the other accounts seems a valid question, just not one for ANI. As for 'telling you' I presume that is sarcasm. As per ANI requirements, you should have been notified. You were notified of being mentioned by Warden. As this is a subthread of the same discussion and arose only a few hours later I presume out of Warden's comments and was later specifically noted under Warden's comments above, I don't think it's that clear cut further notification was needed even if perhaps it would have been ideal. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jabbsworth has been blocked for sockpuppetry, yet again.[17] This should resolve this portion of the side issue.Novangelis (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice, please?

Valoem (talk · contribs) and Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) notified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that several months ago, a user brought back a deleted version of the Dieselpunk article. (It was deleted after a discussion last year, and shortly thereafter the page history was undeleted to assist in the creation of a viable article.) I wish I'd discovered this sooner. In the ensuing months, the article has been modified, but remains essentially the same as the deleted version. I redirected the article to correspond with the outcome of the discussions, but was reverted twice and accused of vandalism. Any thoughts on next steps? - Eureka Lott 04:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Start a new Afd; follow the consensus at the outcome of that Afd.AerobicFox (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

edit:on a side note I find it interesting that the previous deletion discussion had 9 users in favors of keeping the article and only 1 in favor of deleting, yet the article was closed as delete. I have never seen this happen, and believe that the role of an admin is to determine consensus and act according to that, and not to enforce their own interpretations against consensus, although I cannot affirm or condemn the actions here as of now because I haven't fully looked into it yet.AerobicFox (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't determined by WP:VOTE. If it's 9 to 1 but the 1 points out that there are no reliable sources then not much else really matters. It's a core policy. N^oformation ^Talk 09:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. A remarkably strong close in the face of the usual terrible arguments for keeping fictional cruft. The current "article" is the usual parody of encyclopedic content which results when you ask WP's fictioneers to find reliable sources: a hodge-podge of self-published sources, trivial mentions and OR / SYN which looks superficially well-referenced but is as a whole no more than a user essay in the wrong namespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the "resurrector's" contributions, this seems to be a recurring theme (for instance, asking for The Devil's Tree to be moved to his userspace following an AfD and then restoring it, with no alterations, to mainspace while nobody was looking). This is a fairly blatant end-run around deletion by a user who doesn't hold the same notability standards as the rest of the community. There are likely more out there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned by the suggestion of a pattern of behaviour of bad restorations of poorly sourced contents over the results of AfDs. I would appreciate other users investigating this and reporting on this pattern of behaviour while proposing a community sanction. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I recommend immediate removal of reviewer to start ... I was about to do it myself, but figured some additional consensus might be a good idea (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You can remove it, but its not doing any harm considering that the pending changes "trial" is long over (are you perhaps confusing WP:REVIEWER with WP:AUTOPATROLLED?). Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because if I remember, REVIEWER granted the person AUTOPATROLLED, and thus removing the reviewer access would in fact remove autopatrolled as well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, reviewer never granted autopatrolled (they are completely separate userrights). Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I have a faulty memory. Nevermind then :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at my edit history I had been on wikipedia for over 5 years. The Devil's Tree article is in fact notable and I unfortunely did not have time to fully edit the article. I had several more citations ready. I generally favor inclusionism as Wikipedia is not paper. However, you can see that I always have made strong edits and have no history of vandalism. A single edit regarding The Devil's Tree which there is disagreement is hardly the call for removal of reviewer. I do what is best for wikipedia and my edit history shows it. If you take a look at Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) article I did a full DR review when deletion was clearly not the correct answer. To remove reviewer would not only be a personal attack but clearly unfounded. Valoem ^talk 17:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with AerobicFox An appropriate action would be to hold a new AfD, because whatever happened in the intervening time, an 18 month old AfD is too stale to act on. I might not like the outcome of such an AfD (I advocated keeping the article in the first place), but I would respect it as an action according to consensus and policy. Deleting 30k articles though is vandalism, and repeating that deletion immediately it's reverted is both edit warring and vandalism.

Nor do I appreciate being threatened with immediate blocking by admin Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), who is happy to accuse others of "fairly blatant end-runs around" policy when they disagree with him, but casts a blind eye (maybe it's that pirate eyepatch) to Eureka Lott's actions. This isn't about an article (I agree, it's fancrufty, maybe it just isn't good enough to keep), it's about one editor using redirs as a shorthand for POV-deletion. That should never become how things are done, especially not when it's backed up by their friendly admins threatening to make other editors walk the plank if they disagree. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of material previously deleted at an AfD in much the same state as it was is CSD G4, and is specifically designed to avoid red tape. An 18-month-old AfD is only "stale" if there's been significant change to the content of the article, which there have most assuredly not been (the changes consist of the addition of two one-word citations and some trivial / bot cleanup). The "threat" issue is orthogonal to this: you (twice) misused Twinkle to make anti-vandalism rollback of an edit which wasn't vandalism, and a user talk warning is a standard response to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why didn't Eureka Lott use CSD G4, rather than a summary deletion? CSD is rapid, but it isn't instant - it still allows for challenge and review, because we're supposed to work here by a collegiate process, not individual fiat.

Your claim that vandalism stops being vandalism provided that the deleter puts an "I've deleted this" message on the talk page afterwards is ludicrous. The purpose is not to make an audit trail, we have page histories for that, the purpose is to support action as a cohesive group. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because redirecting =/= deletion. With a redirect, the article history remains. With deletion, it does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside to those claiming that Dieselpunk is a non-notable WP:MADEUP, the page view stats are a pretty healthy 10k/month. Not bad going for a non-subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an Alexa 10 site. Any large piece of content on it will bubble up through Google like lava. That's why page hit count is a bogus indicator of notability (which != popularity), something which you already know through your extensive history of these debates at AfD, and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (a user unilaterally undoing the result of at least two AfDs, and an editor misusing Twinkle to support that action). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Just as a comment...since Dieselpunk is a valid term, if perhaps not a valid article yet, maybe instead of outright deletion a bold redirect to Cyberpunk derivatives#Dieselpunk (where it is reasonably discussed) might be in order? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That's precisely what I tried to do. Prior to its recreation, the page redirected to that section for more than a year. - Eureka Lott 16:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Then it should be reverted to that and protected, perhaps? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
          • That would be fine with me. It can be unprotected if somebody creates a draft that meets WP:V. - Eureka Lott 20:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
            • This is an article with 61 cites on it already. Now even if 90% of those weren't up to the standards of WP:RS, that would still be enough to support an article. Please don't discuss this as if it's our usual othercrap and is "obviously" non-notable, as if it warrants deletion and protection without further chance of debate. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
              • It's exactly "our usual othercrap". The 61 cites are either one-word references (as likely to be influence by WP validating the term "dieselpunk" as anything else; no different from any xckd neologism) or OR / SYN which doesn't mention the subject at all. But regardless, this is not a do-over. The right result here is a redirect; should that be undone again without significant reason to believe things have changes, said redirect should be protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• "page hit count is a bogus indicator of notability" No, as of the latest pronouncement from WMF (ask Malleus, he will explain it so much more forcefully than I can), page hit count is now to be the primary driver of WP editing effort. Those who work on minor topics are mere "dabblers" or even worse "star collectors". 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am renewing my bid for a new AfD after looking up this topic more. I want a chance at discussion which was previously denied due to the unexpected deletion closure of a snow keep AfD. I won't mind a similar thing occurring again if it must, but I want a chance to weigh in and for others to as well as I believe there are legitimate reasons for keeping this article.AerobicFox (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  Then make a userspace copy of the article and improve it so that the deletion rationale no longer holds. "Another chance" is a totally wrong approach here, given that this was an almost uniquely strong AfD closure in light of "snow" keeps of absolutely no weight; most admins would have given in to the weight of numbers no matter how useless the arguments to keep were (hint: they all were). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  The deletion rationale has not been proven to hold because it has not been discussed because the last one was closed prematurely without a discussion of many points.

1. One editor described this as getting the appearance of "something made up in school".
   • That is indeed what the WP:GNG are supposed to prevent, but that is not the case here. A web magazine(formerly a print magazine) dedicated to it exists. There exist many dedicated dieselpunk groups around the world including Russia, Germany, Spain, Canada, Australia, etc. The presence of it in many reliable sources on Google scholar is evidence of its accepted use, although I cannot read the many different language ones so I don't know if they go into depth or not.
2. For instance, I don't believe any of the games in "Dieselpunk and the gaming industry" have in fact been classified as dieselpunk by their creators or by reviewers writing in reliable sources.
   • "“Bioshock 2” (PC, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360) • The diesel-punk-inspired sequel to 2007’s best first-person shooter", Salt Lake Tribune, the largest circulating newspaper in Salt Lake city
   • Sine Mora has been widely called a dieselpunk game, from Grasshopper Unveils Diesel-Punk Shooter, the Escapist, and A Diesel-Punk Shoot’em Up? Sure, Why Not., Kotaku. The direct himself has stated so "Theodore (Reiker), the director, has a very solid idea about the animations ... he wants to create the game with a Diesel Punk style."
   • Bright Hub is also a reliable source, and it has described many of these games as dieselpunk as well as discussed the differences between steampunk and dieselpunk.

There are two points that can be easily addressed, the bottom one though couldn't even be responded to since it was the admins closing statement. I suppose it would be less disruptive though to just wait until there is more coverage and its notability more clear, so I will wait until then.AerobicFox (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're making the depressingly common mistake of assuming that because a green bus appears in 4576356 different Saturday morning kids' TV shows, green buses are notable even if there is literally no direct analysis of the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Douglas Adams, and the philosopher who proved black was white, only to be killed on the next zebra crossing. Yes, you have conclusively disproved the existence of green buses. It's still not a good idea to go for a sleep in the road outside the bus stop.

Dieselpunk exists. People write about it, 10k readers a month come here looking for it. Whilst high quality standards are a great thing, and it's possible that Wikipedia needs to hang up that sign saying, "Sorry, Wikipedia has so far failed to produce an article on dieselpunk that we can be proud of", sitting here pontificating in a pirate hat about how "Dieselpunk doesn't exist" is that same ridiculous old fallacy that WP defines existence, rather than the other way round. The more vehemently you claim this, the more ridiculous WP looks, and the more detached from reality. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're at the same time missing and proving the point I'm making. Of course green buses exist. People see them all the time! But if nobody says anything about them other than "they are buses, and they are green", then we can't write an encyclopedia article on them. Nobody has been able to come up with anything in the way of direct references to dieselpunk which say anything other than "it's steampunk shifted forward a hundred years", and "X film resembles dieselpunk". Is it a distinct subject, separate from steampunk (which does have plenty of direct analysis) to the extent that we can write an article on it? Not that anyone has proven. And hence, a footnote in steampunk is a perfectly adequate treatment of the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I seems absurd to argue the merits of an article here: these discussions should be offloaded as soon as possible to AfD. It is much more productive to argue there on the merits than to argue here on whether or not int was close enough to the previous version to merit a speedy. Perhaps we need to revise G4, to say within the last year. Consensus can change. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The AfD has already run its course. The DRV did not overturn it. Nobody could honestly argue that this represents a significant enough change to the article that G4 doesn't apply. As suggested above, editors who believe this content can be salvaged are encouraged to request it be userfied and work on it outside of articlespace. Leaving it where it is sends a clear message to editors that they can simply ignore AfDs they don't like and then edit war with those attempting to undo that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Those arguing most vehemently to delete the article are also those most opposed to an AfD. Their line is to delete it, to salt it, and to block anyone who disagrees. Just what are they scared of? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Re-running the AfD simply encourages editors to repeat this chain of activities (to wit: ignore the AfD and DRV, recreated the deleted article exactly as it was, edit war over its removal, and demand a re-run) every time an AfD doesn't go their way. We don't want to encourage that. There's a path out of this (userfication, improvement, nomination for a move of the new version back to articlespace) which bypasses this drama and does not explicitly support disruptive activity. One might, to invert your rhetorical trick, wonder what "scares" anyone about that suggestion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• There's no way a new AFD is warranted, the only thing needed is for the redirect to be enforced by page protection. Look at the history involved here:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk in 2005 resulted in delete
  • A speedy deletion in 2008 was overturned at DRV to relist at AFD
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk (2nd nomination) was the AFD in question, and resulted in delete
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk (3rd nomination) in 2010 resulted in delete
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 14 endorsed that result
• Nothing has really changed in the article since the end of the last AFD. Every time this article, or prior versions of it, has gone to community discussion the result has been the same - delete. So why do we need to waste more time with this? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • I had restore the article on the basis that there were no reliable sources when in actuality I discovered 5 sources which were academic in nature. There are many more sources on the internet and this article is in no way cruft. I posted those sources on the talk page as reasoning for my bold restore. Valoem ^talk 17:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Considering that one of these "academic sources" was this page, which is neither available at the Internet Archive nor anything resembling a non-trivial reliable secondary source from your description of it on the talk page, I'm not sure who you think you're convincing here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note I have declined the speedy G4, since the DRV result was, while listed as "support" actually a redirect result. For that reason either the page should become a redirect again, or, if the criteria for an article to exist there are met, an article. Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
  
  • Andy Dingley's "changed in volume alone by over 10%" comment on the talk page is a rather deceitful way of saying it's shrunk by 10% due to the removal of some of the more egrecious original research. Content-wise there is no substantive new material which would throw the AfD result into doubt. Redirected again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Chris, you have threatened me already with summary blocking for describing another editor's repeated deletion as vandalism. What would yoou suggest for describing other editors as "deceitful"? I really do not appreciate this sort of comment. Has it not changed in volume? Does this not indicate that another editor has been reviewing and working over the content? I don't care whether they added or subtracted, the point is that they've been working on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Why has this been redirected without consensus should this be taken to DRV? There has been considerable editing on that page with multiple reliable sources. It shows based on this discussion page that a consensus has not been met. Based on arguments alone this seem to suggest a keep. How did you conclude this as a redirect? Valoem ^talk 14:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Valoem: try reading the thread. Your decision to simply ignore the multiple AfDs, and the subsequent DRV, which resulted in the redirect does not entitle you to a do-over of a discussion that you didn't like the result of, much as when you did exactly the same thing with The Devil's Tree. Andy Dingley: the "threat" of a block for using Twinkle's anti-vandalism feature to rollback non-vandalism edits is spelled out quite specifically on the Twinkle page. If you feel that my labelling of your half-truth (for it indisputably was) as "deceitful" is blockable then by all means request that, but the situations are quite dissimilar. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

HiLo and Pregnancy Ban Proposal

In nearly five years of editing here on Wikipedia, I don't think I've every actually brought somebody to ANI. But I feel compelled to do so now. There has been a long and contentious discussion going on over at Talk:Pregnancy relative to the lead image. In September, an RfC ended with no-consensus. ("If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion.")

Everybody, including HiLo felt the original RfC was poorly executed/run. The last RfC was a disaster, totally confused and confusing, guaranteed to deliver a conclusion that could be misinterpreted. [...] I will not repeat my comments. I don't have the time. HiLo48 24 October 2011 Yet, even acknowledging that the first RfC was a disaster, he chooses to use it as the primary reason not to discuss the subject further. According to him, further discussion is not allowed and any arguments presented should be "deleted" because the "umpire" declared that no-consensus existed.

Well after the first RfC ended, another RfC was opened. I initially didn't like the new RfC so close on the heels of the original, but during over a months worth of discussion, have changed my mind. Numerous new arguments/positions have been added. But HiLo refuses to acknowledge them because according to him we had a "perfectly good" decision already---no-consensus. Since I've chosen to take an active role in this RfC, he now accuses me (and anybody else who posts) of bad faith. He's been insulting and refuses to discuss the issue. I think his own words summarize why he should be topic banned:

• Since the new RfC began I have actually not debated the merits of any of the images. (Surely you've noticed that!) So I haven't said anything about liking any picture. I have certainly discussed censorship. Too many people here seem keen on that.[18]

HiLo has declared that his role is to "persist in highlighting" the bad faith editing by poor losers. He has also declared, "Some people may be prepared to compromise Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I am not. [...]The argument must not be won by those who don't." In other words, compromise is not an option and that he will hold dogmatically to his stance regardless of the process. HiLo refuses to acknowledge any argument that does not conform to his own position. When presented with an argument, he accuses the editor of bad faith and being motivated by conservatism or "anti-breast" campaign. He holds firmly to the mistaken notion since the closing admin of the first RfC found no consensus, that the first RfC "which DID NOT convince the closing admin that the image should change, all countered by me and a small number of others pointing out the bad faith behaviour of those who wouldn't accept the umpire's decision." This week he declared, "I have not initiated ANY discussions. I reserve my right to treat garbage posts with contempt, as should you." Garbage posts, based on his comments are any that come from the "anti-breast" "conservative" camp---which is how he views anybody who wants to move the image.

Beyond that I want to give you a taste of his contributions to the discussion. He "strongly believe[s] everything [he] have posted on that page"[19]

Rather than discussing the issues, he assaults the character of the people who post contrary positions. He regularly called people "prudes", "stupid", "irrational conservatism", "bad faith editing", "unethical", "poor ethics" etc.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find it sadly astonishing that there are so many prudes in the world. It's not the case where I live. Where do you all come from? Middle America 19:54, 17 November 2011 so why post such rubbish? Your post is pointless 07:48, 10 November 2011 I find debates with people who say stupid things very frustrating 19:51, 17 November 2011 Logic has failed. Irrational conservatism MUST pushing this. H 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC) (emphasis his) But, if no good reason for a new RfC is presented, it will just be bad faith editing by poor losers and I will persist in highlighting that (not time stamped but between Nov 16 and 17) (emphasis added) You clearly don't, and won't, get it. It's not worth explaining such matters to people so obsessed. I will not waste my time. 02:40, 13 November 2011 Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:45, 13 November 2011 I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? 19:58, 17 November 2011 (Note: He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt.) No, the reason for the current RfC is that a number of unethical editors on the conservative/censorship side could not accept the umpire's decision ... Having supporters with such poor ethics does not say much for the merits of the case. 07:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC) My views haven't changed, and they don't disappear just because some people here don't have a life. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

HiLo regularly makes assumptions of bad faith, according to him anybody who participated in the RfC acted in bad faith. Here are 9 examples of him calling the edits of others bad faith because they disagreed with him
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And that is a bad faith post. 18:36, 10 November 2011 (In response to a post explaining an !vote) There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision 02:45, 13 November 2011 {Notice, the "umpire's decision" is a common theme in his post. According to him, the first RfC which resulted in "no consensus" is binding.} I'm just glad I at least occasionally had the time to come here and point out the bad faith behaviour of those failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:50, 13 November 2011 People ONLY interested in the good of this article and Wikipedia would not behave in such bad faith. But people pushing a POV through unethical means would. 06:45, 14 November 2011 all countered by me and a small number of others pointing out the bad faith behaviour of those who wouldn't accept the umpire's decision. 06:23, 14 November 2011 I actually love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play within the rules. 04:18, 17 November 2011 (Note---According to him, anybody who is debating the issue now is not playing within the rules.) And any editor who has used this second RfC to argue against the image in the lead has acted in bad faith. 20:03, 14 November 2011 (This includes any editor who joins the discussion now.) I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I usually like to think that people will behave more ethically, but this page has proven me wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He falsely believes that the only reason why people might want to change the image is because they find it morally offensive, are conservative prudes, and want to censor the lead image. The reality is that many of the arguments are based around other issues, but he has declared that he will not be swayed. That moving the image is censorship and he won't even consider it. Here are several examples of his proudly declaring that he will not budge, compromise, or listen to what others have to say:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Let's not mince words. Moving the current picture anywhere would be censorship. 29 October 2011 Some people may be prepared to compromise Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I am not. [...]The argument must not be won by those who don't. 23:55, 29 October 2011 Any deadlock here has been created by the pro-censorship crew seeking action that breaches Wikipedia guidelines 23:24, 29 October 2011 What some here are calling compromise is actually a lowering of standards. HiLo48 19:57, 30 October 2011 If you cannot tell us what your real problem is with nudity in this context, you're not being honest. 23:25, 21 November 2011

Rather than discussing the subject, over 20 of his posts are centered around why any current discussion should be summarily discarded out of hand as we already had a "perfectly good decision" (which was "no consensus").
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants18:36, 10 November 2011 Pointless RfC, [...] It will be a failure of process. And bad behaviour by that admin. I do not intend to comment again 22 October 2011 That reinforces my point that this would then be an RfC decided on the basis of who shouts the loudest and most often 23 October 2011 everything posted since that earlier RfC up until now should now be struck out, 10 November 2011 Please just note that the minds here that won't be changing include those who refused to accept the result of the RfC a month ago 30 October 2011 And we already have an RfC result confirming that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2011 We already have an RfC result confirming that there is nothing wrong with the current picture. HiLo48 07:51, 10 November 2011 (Note* the first RfC did not make that conclusion, only that there was no consensus to move.) No acceptable reason has ever been presented for commencing a new RfC so soon after the first. HiLo48 18:42, 10 November 2011 There are no more reasons to change things now than there were two months ago. Wait, didn't I say that just above? HiLo48 04:25, 17 November 2011 There was an RfC decision a month ago. To re-open discussions so soon shows very poor faith. 07:44, 8 November 2011 There was a valid decision. It should stand. HiLo48 08:13, 8 November 2011 Absolute rubbish. It gives legitimacy to nothing. It demonstrates that some editors will do anything, with no regard to rules and principles, to get what they want. And please subtract from your total of 200K any posts like mine and Desources' saying this should not be occurring. HiLo48 20:02, 8 November 2011 We don't need a new decision. We had a perfectly good one a month ago. Some people didn't like it. HiLo48 23:42, 6 November 2011 We have a decision. No justification has been presented for requiring another one so soon, apart from not liking the one we have. 02:59, 8 November 2011 No justification has been presented for requiring another decision so soon. 03:13, 8 November 2011 That may or may not be true, but to totally ignore the impartial decision of an independent arbiter, just because it didn't go your way, shows incredibly bad faith. It means that Wikipedia judgements are likely to lean in the direction preferred by those without a life who are able to spend virtually unlimited time here pushing POV here without fair and due process. 19:02, 9 November 2011 Nothing posted since that most recent, completed RfC should count for anything. It should all probably be deleted. 22:09, 13 November 2011 [A long tirade on the RfC] 00:40, 14 November 2011 No amount of time is appropriate. This RfC is an abuse of process. The fact that it was started immediately after the closure of the last one showed an incredible absence of good faith 06:58, 25 November 2011

If he did more than impugn the motives of others, he tried to mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument. Since somebody might be offended by any picture, then the logical course is to leave the one that we know has offend some.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some people are offended by bare skin. What you really should have said is "To satisfy MY cultural biases, we should use Image 1." 02:05, 8 November 2011 And there's the bit I cannot comprehend. If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling? Makes no sense 18 November 2011 ( There are some conservative groups that will object to almost any bare flesh. Every proposal here is still going to offend somebody. 1 November 2011 This is pro-censorship, conservative rubbish. Without that argument this debate would either not exist or would have been a lot shorter 20:13, 25 November 2011

This is not the first time this issue has been raise. At least 10 other editors have called him out on his behavior and failure to adhere to the basics of civil discourse here at WP. I personally think civility blocks are ridiculous, but when a person brags that their purpose is not to let others win, to stand up to them, and regularly impugns others rather than discussing the issue. And when 10+ people on at least 14 different occassions tell him that he is out of line, then it is getting a little ridiculous.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(his talkpage) I look forward to seeing this case go to arbcom so that I can see you and others taken to task for disregarding consensus, encouraging a battleground atmosphere and engaging in edit warring, and for failing to compromise or promote alternatives to your disputed, obsessive demand that we insert a single disputed image into an article against the complaints of multiple parties. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2011 (his talkpage) It may be time for you to step back from the Pregnancy discussion. This is grossly inappropriate behaviour. Why not fold your arms for a few days and see what the hundreds (?) of other volunteers, many even more experienced and some possibly even as sensible as you, come up with, without your constant badgering Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2011 Are you going to badger everyone that doesn't agree with you? Where have I said that the nude image was unacceptable? I was agreeing with WAID's excellent reasoning. You need to take a step back, you are taking this far too personally. AIRcorn (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) The discussion is already tedious enough. Please don't start trolling it.[7] Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2011 Come off it HiLo, your badgering and cheap shots are starting to border on disruptive.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) There is no good reason for you, or for that matter, anyone else to impugn the motivations of others and at the same time introduce unverifiable personal accusations against others. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (his talkpage) It seems that you must be urged once again to desist in your refusal to deal with any matters of substance and your repeated stating of unsupported personal assumptions regarding the opinions and motivations of others. In doing so, you are violating the standards of acceptable behavior. I very, very seriously urge you to review and abide by talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) Anyway, please knock it off with the "ethics" and "conservative" baiting. If you're truly unhappy with the RfC results, you should start a new RfC, not attack the people who participated in good faith. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2011 HiLo48, would you leave off the "conservative" and "pro-censorship" schtick already? Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2011 . But you have stepped far past the line. And you still have to answer my question about RfC's above.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC HiLo/Powers, your language is all about us and them and how they must not be allowed to win. It has no place in a reasonable discussion where folk respect other people's opinions when they differ from your own. You've lost the bigger picture Colin°Talk 11:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC) your only objection to this image is that it lets them win and that that their behaviour is thus not only unpunished but appears to have been successfully rewarded, then please please let it go. Colin°Talk 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC) I assume you're frustrated but I don't think we can make blanket statements about the editors here. Olive 20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)) Yeah, can you stop with the personal attacks against Balloonman, and others?--v/r - TP 21:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I once again urge the above editor to act according to WP:AGF and not make unsubstantiated allegations regarding the motivations of others, or make remarks which may well seem more incendiary than productive. John Carter 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is not your battleground against the forces of conservatism. You have swamped this page and, from what my watch list tells me, at least one policy page in your crusade. Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2011

In closing I want to quote the post I made at 17:47, 19 November 2011:

Perhaps that is why I have found you to be particularly unhelpful in this thread... all you seem to do A) Whine about how this issue was decided (via a no-consensus) !vote in the previous discussion B) attack others for bad faith and other reasons, and C) whine about censorship without actually addressing the issues presented. You've added the most to this discussion without adding anything of benefit.

If he actively engaged in constructive dialog regarding the image, I would not be here... but he has drawn a line in the sand and has declared that anybody who posts on the subject is doing so in bad faith and should be ignored. He has not added a constructive comment relative to the discussion, he merely criticizes the current discussion and anybody who partakes in it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC) NOTE: It should be noted, that I waited until the RfC was closed before filing this ANI report, lest he accuse me of arguing in bad faith.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing much I can add here. It's not as if you were the only one who noticed the problem.

Your post was full of asterisks where one would have expected colons. I fixed that to make it easier to read. Hans Adler 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had written it with colons to start every quote, but realized that was hard to read when I posted it here... so I did a find/replace in NotePad to make them asterisks... guess, that didn't work ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad there was such a negative reaction to the nude photo, which was beautiful and harmless. And it's hard to figure why Wales got involved with this brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear your opinion on the images but that's not what the AN/I is about. It is also not about the totally uncontroversial close of an RfC by an admin (who happens to be Jimbo Wales). Let's not make additional drama here please.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. What an ungracious win on a Sole Flounder decided RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Griswaldo, this isn't about the way the RfC was closed or about the image itself, but rather about HiLo's behavior during the discussion. If he contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way, other than to impugn the motives of people who commented, then I would not have opened this.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the RFC, it's about your fee-fees being hurt - we get it. Show a little compassion for someone that put a lot of heart and soul into a project that he believed was an egalitarian, free, uncensored attempt to broaden the world's knowledge who, found that when the curtain was peeled back, it wasn't quite as egalitarian, wasn't quite as free and wasn't quite as uncensored as he thought it was. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the evidence I do want to say that I find responses like this entirely unhelpful. People need to realize that it is behavior that is or is not problematic not intentions. Surely good intentions can mitigate the response the community has to problematic behavior, but first we need to determine if the behavior was problematic or not. So Hipocrite, while I appreciate your reading of the intentions and emotions involved here it simply doesn't convince me to dismiss the complaint, which appears to be your aim. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The "complaint" is more like a novella. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Side comment. On pregnancy there were two alternatives: either keep the image in the lede; or move it further down in the article to a more appropriate place swapping it for the other image of the lady in blue. The image has been deleted and not moved; presumably someone can fix that. As for topic bans, I think that is a more general issue with several users, providing too much unconstructive and disruptive input on images (mostly on pregnancy and Muhammad). I am not sure that can necessarily be decided here, although it's worth a try.

While not disputing Balloonman's evidence, could he please find a more condensed way to present it? At the moment it is tl;dr. Perhaps a summary with details collapsed for readability? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SF certainly reviewed the RFC when closing it as replace one image with another, remove replaced image entirely, right? Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's supposedly at 26 weeks, so I placed it in the second-trimester section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call. It should not be removed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, I went back and hatted all of the quotes/supporting evidence. The key points are now highlighted.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it by a minute or two. I was just going to collapse all the evidence in one collapse box, but your way works just as well. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The evidence would be a lot more condensed if OP didn't split/duplicate single posts and place them into different categories. For example:

1. And that is a bad faith post. 18:36, 10 November 2011 (In response to a post explaining an !vote)
2. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants18:36, 10 November 2011

• These are part of a response to Balloon: "And that is a bad faith post. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants, for several reason, least of which is that there was no reason for it to even start... "-10 November 2011

1. Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:45, 13 November 2011
2. There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision 02:45, 13 November 2011 {Notice, the "umpire's decision" is a common theme in his post. According to him, the first RfC which resulted in "no consensus" is binding.}

• These two lines are also both from a single response to Balloon: "Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are no more reasons to change things now than there were two months ago. There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision." HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? 19:58, 17 November 2011 (Note: He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt.)
2. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
3. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• All from one 3-line post "OK. I'll rephrase. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument?" HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are more. If we just deleted the duplicated lines and merged the different lines back into their original post then all of this evidence could be shrunken down and be more manageable. Balloon, considering you have spent weeks arguing over the finer points of syntax and the importance of the context wherein you place things I find it more than dubious that you would split a single post into multiple lines, taking them out of their original, intended context, and place them into separate, unrelated categories, and I feel it's hypocritical that you condemn his distrust of your motives for only caring about the subtext/placement of the image while you distrust his motives for editing on the talkpage. Also, if you are going to omit a line from the middle of a quote then you should place an ellipsis(...) in between the two lines your using to indicate that there is omitted content in between them.AerobicFox (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• My only comment here is that my behavior at Talk:Pregnancy was not above reproach and my comments to HiLo should be taken with plenty of bad faith because that was how they were intentioned and made. I made several comments to be WP:POINTY and to cause some editors, including HiLo, to retaliate. Not my finest moments, but I want to clarify so HiLo isn't judged on issues he may have been provoked by me.--v/r - TP 15:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban - To put it bluntly, I'm astonished that this user has a clean block log after all this time. The examples presented above are unacceptable and should not be tolerated from any editor. And, sorry, but there's no way that sheer mass of examples is all a result of baiting by TParis. But most importantly, this is not just an issue on that talk page, where people are provoking each other and things are getting heated, it's part of an overall pattern of incivility, bad faith accusations and otherwise inappropriate comments (which can be easily seen just by scanning their talk/user talk contribs). I've also witnessed disruption on the part of this user at ITN/C, which led to a topic ban proposal against them in August. The proposal received unanimous support, but was never formally closed or put into effect. Anyway, it's absolutely time we do something about this editor, and if kicking them off the Pregnancy talk page is the first (and hopefully last) step, I'm firmly in support of that. Swarm ^X 18:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. My turn. I won't say much. Despite insulting predictions to the contrary, I do accept the clear and simple umpire's decision we now have, even though I am disappointed by it, largely because it is clear and simple. Obviously Balloonman doesn't like my style, and I don't much like his, but I actually regard many of the things for which he has criticised me as positives. Unlike others, I have been completely consistent and honest in my position on both the process and the choice of image here. I do suspect the real motives of most of those wanting the nude image removed or moved. I doubt if some realise what is really driving their position. But I will no longer fight that fight. I am not from the same culture as most of those arguing for hiding the nude image. I know that means that my style doesn't always fit the "don't upset anyone" approach that they believe we must ALL follow. I am happy to accept different styles of behaviour, and admit that I do enjoy vigorous debate. I hope that is never stifled here at Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked in to the evidence but personally I would be be mildly opposed to a ban at this time. The RFC just closed, let's see how everyone including HiLo48 moves on from there after a week or two. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The topic is already heated enough from both sides, and since I have issues with this ANI being used as a coatrack of incivilty by HiLo I will bring forth similar behavior by Balloon:

".... Speaking as a sample of one, the thought of natural childbirth never, really never, even crossed my mind till you raised it. I hav to agree with LO. Sorry 'bout that, mate! JonRichfield (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)"

"Wow, can you be any less eloquent in your rationale."---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "it expresses one more thing; that pregnancy is also a state of mind"? WTF? Pregnancy is a state of mind? Please show that to me in a medical journal?
• "Now that is pure rubbish... your argument is strictly WP:ILIKEIT."
• "HiLo has essentially admitted that he is not contributing to the discussion on the merits of the image. His contributions are nothing more than 1) this is censorship 2) this was already decided ergo everybody who contributes to the discussion now is doing so in bad faith, and 3) making snide comments about users and their motives. He has added the most to this debate while adding the least amount of merit."

The whole debate on that page just circles around, escalating in tension with each loop. The appropriate response to such circumstances is not to ban/block the first editor to cross the line, that will only escalate tension, generate distrust, and promote back-handed "civil" attacks on other editors while avoiding outright incivility. The correct response should be to try to cool down tensions on both sides, and not just comments on Hilo's talkpage such as "Please don't start trolling". Imagine the circumstances of an editor who is being singled out for incivility that they feel is justified, while others are being similarly uncivil but not receiving such criticism; when this type of one-sided criticism occurs there is a very reasonable and foreseeable possibility of your criticisms being viewed as a dishonest way to attack those who disagree with them, and not a genuine attempt to cool down tensions. Instead a promise to cool down yourself as well, an assumption of good faith, an apology for any misunderstandings, and a sincere request to remove hostility between you two would have been a much preferable path.

Balloonman, there is much you can do to be aware of your own actions and responses to editors, and how that affects the discussion as a whole. You frequently dismiss all the arguments made by the other side as WP:ILIKEIT and having nothing more than WP:NOTCENSOR as an argument, this will no doubt increase the likeliness of receiving uncivil comments. Your rhetoric at times makes it seem as though you are attempting to establish yourself as some sort of quasi-impartial outsider figure; this can make you difficult to work with as you portray accusations of you having a POV as baseless and uncivil, yet you feel fully justified to frequently accuse all those in favor of the image as solely promoting their own POV. The natural outcome of repeated confrontations with people will be misunderstandings, incivility, etc, these are not licenses to dismiss, ostracize or alienate editors, but are something you must accept and work against by demonstrating good faith, because that is the only way that a discussion will move forward. Turning the other cheek and assuming good faith is a requirement for having any chance of making an ongoing dispute productive, there is no threshold of civility that you must maintain up to, but not beyond, civility is something that must be exercised whenever the need arises even if you feel it is more then you should be required to maintain. An ANI discussion won't result in an editor you're having trouble with just being whisked away, it will likely make both parties look bad, bring upon lengthy/nonconstructive arguments about avoidable things, and result in more difficulties with future dealings with said editor who will likely not go anywhere from an ANI. As it stands this ANI is inappropriate at this time.AerobicFox (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AF you are missing a couple of key points:

First, if a person posed an argument, I either addressed the argument or ignored it. HiLo takes pride in the fact that he didn't address the merits of the images. HiLo boasted that his role was simply to prevent compromise and to prevent the otherside from winning. This is not an attitude conducive to wikipedia.

Second, yes, I attacked ideas and posts. If you are going to argue that the image is the best because it shows that pregnancy is a state of mind, then you need to be prepared to support that notion (last I checked it isn't so having an image that shows it is, is not a valid argument.) If you are going to argue that the image is the best because it is the "best illustration... conveys so much emotional and human impact... sterile image... beautiful... meaningful...transcends the actual photo." Then I'm going to call it rubbish and decry it as ILIKEIT. Attacking ideas and positions is one thing. Accusing everybody who posted of acting in bad faith and having low morals/ethics... which HiLo did on a repeated basis... is a different story. He didn't attack ideas/posts, he attacked people. I could live with his attacking ideas/positions, but he didn't attack people for what they said, but rather because they said anything.

Like I said, if he were actually to have discussed the issue, I would not have come here. Hell if he hadn't boasted that he hadn't contributed to the actual discussion I might not have come here. Instead he chose to make his argument based upon making ad hominem attacks against anybody who posed an argument in favor of moving/removing the image. A handful of comments going back several archives, does not equate to the scores of quotes.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• "No justification has been presented for requiring another decision so soon."
• "There was a valid decision. It should stand. HiLo48 08:13, 8 November 2011"

I don't why you think HiLo was unjustified in making comments like these against starting another RfC a month after another one when no significant change has occurred. Many of these comments aren't even impolite, "Let's not mince words. Moving the current picture anywhere would be censorship," "What some here are calling compromise is actually a lowering of standards."; I have never seen such harmless quotes brought to an ANI before.

• "And there's the bit I cannot comprehend. If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling? Makes no sense 18 November 2011 ("

Why have you characterized this as "he tried to mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument.", this is a perfectly valid argument.

• "I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument?"

Your description of this "He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt), is extremely odd, he is not stating he is only there to disrupt. In fact, you have characterized him as stating he is only there to disrupt several times, but I have yet to see any evidence of him stating as much. Reading through many of these quotes I am feeling that you are taking way too much in bad faith on his part. While a handful of these quotes are concerning with their accusations of bad faith and dishonesty the majority of these are completely harmless, and indeed all of this could be handled much better.AerobicFox (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AF, out of over 50+ edits, you pick a few... but let's see... the quote on the 18 was in reference to an issue that had been explicitly explained to him on numerous occassions PRIOR to his making this statement (look up the section where I talked about constructing a film/book/article with a controversial opening and explained how shocking events/scenes can be built up to and thus become acceptable---which he was involved in and is only one occassion of explaining this principle.) Rather than address the new argument/point, he routinely said, "No new evidence/arguments." As for disruption... when you brag that you haven't discussed the merits of any of the images and that you have drawn a line in the sand. That is disruption. When you routinely accuse others of bad faith for presenting an argument, then start saying that anybody who is participating in the RfC has low morals and ethics. That is trolling/disruptive.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban. I don't like his style in any of that discussion and he's pretty annoying in it at times, but I do not think it's at all within policy to topic ban him for the tone in which he asserted his point. The most bothersome aspect of HiLo's behavior is the badgering. HiLo is perfectly free to declare that he will not budge in his position or to muse about motives. The only grounds here I would see for a ban is if the continued reassertion of his position crosses over to disruptive (not just annoying), meaning that it keeps others from having the discussion. Some may say that line's been crossed. That's fine; that's a reasonable disagreement and grounds for a ban. But I do not think it's reasonable to ban based on "civility" or bad faith. It would be ironic if WP:AGF became a ban bludgeon. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  Civility is perfectly suitable grounds for which to ban someone. We have a policy against it for a reason. We can't have people acting like that in a collaberative community.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  It's more nuanced than that. Our policy says "Civility is a goal rather than an objective standard. Wikipedia editors from around the world may have different cultural standards of civility, so a certain amount of tolerance is required. We do block for major incivility. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." We block for the disruption or the attack, not for the incivility. In the same way we strive to have proper spelling and grammar in articles we strive to have civility in discussion. We don't block for misspellings (I'd be gone a long time ago if we did that). We do block if I go through and purposefully mispell.
  It's perfectly fine to say he's been disruptive, therefore needs to be banned/blocked. But taking administrative action due to his tone is unacceptable.
  I also am unconvinced that bans/blocks like this do anything to increase the level of civility. That's an issue of culture on Wikipedia; an issue not helped by extending battles onto ANI or bringing out the threat of ban. That's why I think it's critical that the touchstone of all administrative action needs to be around disruption, and I think longstanding policy backs me up on this point. It's my informal impression but I notice more calls for action based in incivility now than before. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• support some action I took part in the discussion briefly and immediately encountered Hilo and find the characterization above to be quite accurate. It was quite obvious from the start that Hilo was not there to constructively discuss anything. They often ran around in circles, ducked direct repeated questions, and claimed evidence they never provided, all while hurling insults, misdirecting and making false characterizations. Having not encountered Hilo previously, that I can recall, it becomes a question of whether or not this behaviour was limited to Pregnancy or if this is a general editing style on the part of Hilo. The fact that Hilo sees this as positive behaviour in a community is fairly troubling, and gives me no hope that the behaviour won't continue. At the least I'd support a block until the community can be assured that the disruptive behaviour won't be repeated, and clarification can be given as to whether this is a localized issue or indicative of a greater problem with their editing.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• I had actually intended to bring a proposal to block or ban of HiLo48 on the grounds of his abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground. My apologies if any of the following is redundant.:

HiLo48 has been abusing Wikipedia as a battleground, waging ideological warfare and attempting to "win" and "beat" the other side. The strident rhetoric is part and parcel of the partisan battle. Some examples from Talk:Pregnancy include

• • Yes, I find it sadly astonishing that there are so many prudes in the world. It's not the case where I live. Where do you all come from? Middle America? HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is it so important to hide nipples? Is it an instruction from God? HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And there is a point where your argument goes right off the rails. If the picture is offensive, how can it possibly be OK for people to encounter it as they scroll through the article? Logic has failed. Irrational conservatism MUST pushing this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • John Carter - you have failed to state the fundamental argument against the existing image. It is "I CAN SEE HER BREASTS!!!!!" This is often acompanied by comments to the effect that "It doesn't bother me but there are some people I believe it will bother." This is pro-censorship, conservative rubbish. Without that argument this debate would either not exist or would have been a lot shorter. It is NOT an argument that says there is anything wrong with the image. Breasts have never hurt anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not here to cooperate with those who want to move Wikipedia towards Conservapedia. So shoot me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK. I'll rephrase. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No That's NOT an acceptable step. It's a win to the conservatives and censors. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Sets the wrong tone" Eh? That'a almost laughable. What discussion are you looking at?It's such a culturally loaded, "I don't like it", pro-censorship statement. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is not sexual. It hurts nobody. This MUST be an issue concerning your conservative values. It can be nothing else. And that means you want censorship, which I will continue to aggressively oppose when it is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And this gem From a related dispute on WT:What Wikipedia is Not: Some very popular reliable sources, particularly from the Murdoch stable, feature Page Three girls. A link from that article takes me to The Sexiest 100 Page 3 girls. Breasts and nipples everywhere! I suspect these would be unacceptable in conservative parts of the USA, but are obviously OK in the UK and other countries where they exist. It's impossible to declare a clear, single community standard on this stuff. Do the conservatives really want to ban from Wikipedia material that is commonly published in the daily press? HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are also numerous and wild accusations of bad faith that I have not bothered to catalog here.

While not nearly the sole culprit, HiLo48 has been ratcheting up the rhetoric throughout this entire (and rather foolish in my opinion) dispute. The pervasive disrespect he's shown others has poisoned the editing environment and corroded the quality of the discussion and the Pregnancy article as a result.

It is my opinion that this behavior is grounds for an indefinite block for disruptive editing in his abuse of [WP:BATTLE|Wikpedia as a battleground]]. If I was not involved myself, I would do that now that now. In the alternative, I suggest something lengthy, around 2 weeks, or a six month topic ban from Talk:Pregnancy and "censorship" related policy discussions. --Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I make no comment as to the appropriateness of sanctioning any other user on any side of the discussion. It was widely ugly with a lot of bad behavior. HiLo48 in my opinion, stands out, but I am open to further action, including against myself if needed.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I looked briefly at Talk:Pregnancy a long time ago when the fuss started, but have not followed it, and have only quickly skimmed the long discussion above. However, this comment by HiLo48, which includes "I do accept the clear and simple umpire's decision we now have", may be a statement of intention to back away. Perhaps if HiLo48 were to clarify that, this discussion could be closed? Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm unusual here, but I when I post something I try to choose my words carefully so that what I say is EXACTLY what I mean. I am not backing away. I am accepting the umpire's decision. This is entirely consistent with a point I have repeatedly made throughout this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you routinely assumed bad faith on those with whom you disagreed. You routinely said that people who commented had low morals/ethics/and operated out of bad faith. Rather than discuss the issues, you chose to make it a battlefield and make blanket statements about everybody who had commented----if that isn't the epitome of trolling then I don't know what is? There was no way to discuss issues with you because you assumed bad faith and refused to recognize any position based upon a previous RfC which was closed as "No Consensus"---and if somebody pointed out that the previous RfC was "No Consensus" you accused them of not representing the truth and distorting the closing admins statement (which clearly said no consensus.) Like I said, in 5 years on WP, I have never opened an ANI case against anybody, but your behavior and desparaging remarks against everybody who posted does not epitomize somebody who was on the page to discuss the subject---but rather to disrupt.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a failure to communicate happening here. You are seemingly not understanding what I am saying. (And much of what I said on the page we're discussing.) You're certainly not responding to the actual words I say. (At least as I intend them to be read.) Maybe I don't understand all of your points either. As I said earlier, it's obvious that we come from different cultures. If you cannot for some reason respond to what I actually say here, there is not point in me continuing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Whatever acrimony was on the original talk page, it's clearly spilled over here. This is not constructive, I don't think there's any consensus for any bans right now, and nobody is looking any better from this. This feels like a continuation of the arguing on Talk:Pregnancy under a different premise. It would be best for everyone if those at odds would disengage. Seems to me it's much better to treat this as water under the bridge than a chance to argue again. Shadowjams (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

^^Agree, there is absolutely no chance of something constructive coming out of any of this. This dispute wasn't productive to begin with and should have dissipated with the failed RfC and not escalated into AnI. Drop the conflict, it isn't worth fighting over, there's nothing actionable and continuing will just make everyone involved come out worse. AerobicFox (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love going out for a bit only to come back and find the discussion closed. These things are supposed to archive after 24 hours for a reason. The "multiple" requests to close were a grand total of 2 made by two people who've already stated their positions as opposing any sanction against the user, no wonder they'd request a close. There did see to be at least 4 users who disagreed with Hilos behaviour and supported sanctions, and others who disagreed, but didn't explicitly state they supported sanctions, and yet there is no chance to go from there to an actionable result?--Crossmr (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What Crossmr said. Two in favor of close, 4 in favor of action...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The personal attacks where not nice and did not address the matter at hand, hopefully all will WP:AGF in the future. It is unfortunate that the matter came to this. Believing that images of the breast changes in pregnancy are important I went out of my way to acquire this image which actually shows the changes [20]. Hopefully we can now finally get back to improving the content of this top quality article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only sit back and sadly laugh. Do you guys understand irony? I was reported because of my alleged over-reaction to what I described as some editors failure to accept the umpire's decision. Now we have this topic reopened because some editors failed to accept the umpire's decision to close it, and went off to hassle and annoy the closing admin about it until he did what they wanted. I say no more. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

They're called administrators, not umpires. I have no idea where this umpire obsession of yours has come from. You were reported for the whole of your conduct for the duration of that discussion. Not just the reaction to the closing. Your repeatedly hurled insults at other users, assumed bad faith, made claims you refused to back up despite being repeatedly and directly asked to. All this added up equals a whole big pile of disruptive conduct, which is why it was brought here.--Crossmr (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

...twice. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling out a bad close is not bringing it here twice, nor does it change the way you conducted yourself over a long period of time, nor your apparent inability to see what was wrong with the way you acted. As I asked above, if this is indicative of your interaction with other editors on all subjects, you should probably be blocked. If it's limited to a hot button subject, then a topic ban is sufficient.--Crossmr (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are showing no sign that you really understand the point I am making. I don't know how to achieve that. I spoke earlier of cultural and communication issues. We sure do have them here. I should probably give up. HiLo48 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false impression that "umpires" are infallable and can't be overturned/reversed. You put too much weight into "no-consensus" closes... but that isn't why you are here... it is your continual assumptions of bad faith on the part of others. Drawing a line in the sand and refusing to discuss issues and to attack the anybody who posted a contrary opinion as somebody with low morals/ethics is classic trolling.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that "umpires" aren't infallible, but they must exist to maintain some order in structures such as this, and their rulings must generally be followed, or we will have chaos. You're part of a group that seems to challenge or ignore decisions you don't like much more than I would. Repeated challenging and/or ignoring administrative rulings, as was done most recently here in this very thread, can obviously be defined as disruptive behaviour. Can you see that perspective? HiLo48 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a matter of how it's done. People are free to challenge and debate all kinds of things. They aren't free to continually and repeatedly insult and assume bad faith of a varied group of editors.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You see insults. I see guesses at true motivations where those publicly stated were pretty weak, because it's important to understand the real goals of those one is discussing a matter with. I'm still not convinced that I guessed wrongly. Oh, and I still believe that starting a new RfC so soon after the closure of the earlier one was bad faith behaviour. We obviously see that matter differently, but hey, vive la difference. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• So this got reopened? Really, what do you expect to happen here? Your "scores" of quotes are a handful of quotes spliced into multiple parts, the parts then spread or duplicated in multiple categories, with many harmless(some not even remotely rude) beefing them up. Advertising emphatically that this is your first time ever starting an ANI isn't going to make your post seem more credible as ANI is littered with first time complaints that go nowhere and never should have been started because they will go nowhere. Civility blocks are hugely controversial, and testing the waters with an example so mild is not going to work out, it's going to drag on, make those involved look worse, waste time and lead nowhere. If to you the opinions of myself and another uninvolved editor just don't stack up to 4 editors with personal histories asking for actions from temp topic bans to indef civility blocks then feel free to continue, but if you want to take my advice then I would recommend moving on and not stewing on the past.AerobicFox (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dj nix and image uploads

Dj nix (talk · contribs) 's Talk page contains warning after warning about copyrighted images, dating back to 2008', and yet they continue to upload images with no copyright information. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They don't appear to ever edit Talk pages. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And now they appear to have moved their Talk page to User talk:Dj nix 001 after my having notified them of this discussion. It looks like an attempt at trying to hide their problematic history. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• support a block. Clearly disruptive, active refusal to communicate.--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does their wikipedia e-mail work? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's irrelevant. We don't have to continually bend over backwards for disruptive users. He's clearly aware of his talk page and the content on it since he made an attempt to hide it. He's being actively and intentionally disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

By trying to upload lots of images? <scratches head>. Has anyone tried to explain how this CC thing works to them? Just askin' ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Also, user appears to be active on multiple languages. Not 100% cut-and-dried imo.

So what could he possibly think all of those messages for almost four years were all about, and what happened to the images he uploaded which have been deleted? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Repeating bad behaviour is disruptive if you've been warned about it. Especially if the warnings go on for 3 years. In addition, he's being intentionally disruptive by trying to hide his talk as he's done above. It's clear that he's aware of his talk, the content on it, and he went out of his way to try and hide it from view after this discussion was started. There is no point in e-mailing this user, it's far beyond what we as a community need to, or should, be doing to deal with problem users.--Crossmr (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Since they won't communicate, won't stop the behavior after literally years of notices and warnings, and are deliberatly attempting to obfuscate the record to appear squeaky-clean, I reccomend a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

CETI Patterson Power Cell

I'd like to report myself for breaches of WP:CIVIL (at minimum) in edit summaries etc on our CETI Patterson Power Cell article. I have had just about enough of POV-pushing fuckwits endlessly reinserting the same old rubbish about a failed 'free energy' device that briefly gained media attention back in the mid 1990s,but has led to no recognised science whatsoever. I have tried to explain policy. I have tried to point out why the sources being cited don't meet WP:RS. I have tried to explain that Wikipedia bases science-based articles on mainstream sources, not obscure blogs and 'journals' run by nobody in particular. The only response is more unverifiable garbage, guesswork and WP:OR in talk pages (on the rare occasions when there is any attempt at discussion), and totally-unexplained additions by an IP who then deletes the same junk on the next edit, only to add more. Articles related to 'cold fusion' seem to be attracting a large number of SPAs currently, and none of them seem to have any regard for anything beyond their delusional fantasies, and ludicrous hype. I should probably leave these articles to the loons, and to some other sucker prepared to take them on. Please topic ban me, before I blow an artery... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Its on AfD now. Since you reported yourself, this is what I have to say : You've done your part. Calm down, and work on something else for now. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

1 question. Why are you not trying to help write the article? Wouldn't that salve everything? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should I be interested in writing an article about a non-event? It is vacuous hype, and should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the amount of stress this seems to be causing Andy, I'm extending his block (originally for 24 hours) to 72 hours. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that calling people "morionic [sic] POV-pushing turds" and telling them to fuck off is not acceptable behaviour, no matter how mad one is. Talk page access will be left enabled. m.o.p 06:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• The two blocks of AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) are mindless bureaucracy. Yes, Andy is out of line, but when an excellent editor freaks out from an overdose of nonsense, they need help: remove the uncivil comments and leave a gentle note at Andy's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The extension is certainly a little eyebrow-raising. Why go from 24 to 72 like that for the same civility offenses but with no edits from Andy after the initial "cool-down" block was laid down? Really?! Doc talk 07:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Double jeopardy? - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• @Doc, extending the block was payback for Andy's strong criticism of a recent AFD close by MoP. This sort of personal point-scoring is unfortunate, but it's part of life on Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not acceptable if true. But Assume good faith in general --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock considered

• I'm minded to unblock and just order Andy to stay away from the whole thing till the Afd finishes - I don't think that overall it was reasonable to extend the block after he had stopped, although m.o.p's decision is not in any way bad faith. m.o.p. should have known better I'll take consensus on this - thoughts?Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• MasterOfPuppets' block extension doesn't seem to have any purpose. There's no explanation given for lengthening the block, there was no discussion with the original blocking admin, and the editor in question made no edits in the fifteen minutes between the original block and the lengthened block. What was it that required such an urgent override of the original blocking admin's judgement? There's a little paranoid part of my soul that thinks this looks like giving Andy rope ("Talk page access will be left enabled"), so that he might say something nasty in response to the block extension and thereby provide an ex post facto justification for the tripling of the original block's length. As admins, we should use great caution wherever we might appear – however inadvertently – to be making a bad situation worse through needlessly precipitous actions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'd go along with the unblock as a good will gesture and a pragmatic way forward. No need to rub salt in any wounds. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• unblock as per Elens conditions or as a minimum return to the original 24 hour block - Andy says the user Master of Puppets is carrying an "involved" position and the block extension is a result of as prior fall out in this previous recent ANI discussion-Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive726#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEnergy_Catalyzer - I can't see another explanation - also I would block Master of Puppets for the same time as he extended Andy's block without a decent reason. Youreallycan (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock as long as he stays away - extension of block was not justified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, not prepared to endorse the although m.o.p's decision is not in any way bad faith part of EotR's post.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh! Andy posted his comment while I was typing this out and getting edit conflicted. I would have said that m.o.p should not have been the one to take action if I'd seen it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unblocked I unblocked Andy per Elen's rationale and the support above.--v/r - TP 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously? That's not even half my original block. Just because he's a good editor doesn't mean he can throw a tantrum when things don't go his way. I stand by my block, and I think there should have been a longer cooling off period. --Chris 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Blocks are preventative, not punitive. We'll see which one of you was right in due course. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • We don't do cooldown blocks, you know that. Besides, Andy hasn't edited since reporting here and it's obvious he's fairly done with the topic. As blocks are supposed to be preventative, I just can't fathom how Andy will continue to be disruptive. He knows he crossed a line, he's admitted to it here. Had you blocked before this thread and he admitted to the behavior in an unblock request, he would've been unblocked anyway. There isn't any reason to either extend nor continue the block.--v/r - TP 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense; of course we do "cooldown" blocks. The notion that we don't place cooldown blocks is a classic Wikipedia myth right up there with "blocks are preventive, not punitive" and "The ArbCom can't rule on content". What you and Chris are really arguing is that what he called a cooldown block is really supposed to be a "punitive" block, and that we therefore need to make sure that the full measure of punishment is properly meted out.

If it were just a cooldown block, after all, there's no question that Andy is sufficiently cool now. Despite having his block extended by an involved admin – without discussion and for no apparent reason, and accompanied by the condescending-bordering-on-insulting non-rationale of "Given the amount of stress this seems to be causing Andy..." – Andy responded calmly and civilly. Since Andy a) is now apparently quite cool, b) has agreed to stay out of the original area of conflict, and c) just responded patiently and maturely to a slap in the face from an admin who had no business taking action here, he's being let off with time served. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In reality we do a lot of stupid things that we really shouldn't; we're human, after all. But the figure of speech is still "We don't do that" ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if we shouldn't do cooldown blocks normally, should we do them when the person seriously asked for one? I don't know if this has ever really been addressed and it's what happened here. Nil Einne (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

While master of puppets shouldn't have extended the block, the original 24 hours should have stayed in place. One of the core ideas of WP is that all editors - admins included - are equal. That someone is established (and Andy is certainly one of my favorite editors here) should not give them the ability to grossly violate policy. Unfortunately WP has gone from egalitarian to aristocratic, but I suppose this is the human condition and not specific to wikipedia. N^oformation ^Talk 22:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't give him any special treatment. Andy said he understands his behavior is wrong and won't continue to be disruptive. That is a valid unblock reason.--v/r - TP 22:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

TP Beat me to it. You can get unblocked once it is clear that the block is no longer needed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That is where I disagree, and get confused. Where did he say he understood his behavior was wrong "before" the unblock? The only edit he made while blocked was this, at no point while blocked did he acknowledged that his behavior was wrong (yes, he did post this ANI thread, however after he posted the thread he continued to be disruptive). Also, on a side note, my earlier comment was made before this edit, which I will agree, does indicate that he has calmed down and the block is no longer needed. Essentially what I'm trying to say is, unless I'm missing an edit somewhere, he was unblocked, and then apologized/admitted his behavior was wrong, which is imo the wrong order of proceedings. --Chris 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to toss in my voice; I extended the block because I found the insult grievous (no, I don't care if someone's a good editor - that doesn't give them the ability to fling curses without reprimand) and Andy's behaviour unapologetic. Now that he's apologized, everything's OK. The extension was made because I felt the violation necessitated it. And no, this isn't because there's a prior conflict. m.o.p 04:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why the rush? The original blocking administrator (I assume) had felt that the block length he had imposed was appropriate for the circumstances; it's not clear why you urgently needed to overrule his judgement in order to triple the block's duration. If you wanted to change the block length, there was still 23 hours and 45 minutes left to run on the original 24-hour block—lots of time to consult the blocking admin, or even return to the discussion here. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it also would have helped a lot with the perception that you were involved and acting unilaterally against an editor who had challenged one of your other admin actions recently. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A few editors were discussing this on IRC so I checked it out and went to block Andy for what I saw to be grossly inappropriate language. Upon going to block, I saw that Chris G had already issued one. We discussed it and I changed it to what I thought was appropriate. It's ironic that you see it as hasty when the very reason I took fifteen minutes to do it was because I was discussing with the blocking administrator. Of course, you're not expected to know this, but I hope that clears the air. m.o.p 05:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"...when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships."[21] How could anyone be expected to know that such a discussion took place when it isn't here? Better yet: why did it have to be off-wiki? It seems like a pretty straightforward issue with no need to take it off-wiki. Doc talk 05:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Because we were both on IRC already and it was a much faster solution. The issue isn't even that I wheel-warred or anything, it's that my action was perceived to be retributive. Now that I've explained why it isn't, and that Andy has apologized, I'd say everything's wrapped up. Right? m.o.p 05:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. There's your troubling violation of WP:INVOLVED and your troubling behavior as an WP:IRCADMIN. Of course, as an admin, you could get away with anything, but at least it should be noted for the record that you have done so. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Two things:

1. "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." My prior 'involvement' with Andy was in a purely administrative role when I did something controversial that he disagreed with. He also disagreed with everybody else participating in the AfD. If this makes me involved, I'm also involved with half of the userbase by that standard.
2. I like that you created that redirect as if administrators need special treatment with IRC over other users. Being a sysop is no big deal. Everybody coordinates on IRC all the time. Using it to discuss pertinent issues is not a bad thing. If this troubles you, my deepest apologies; however, I'm not quite sure it's something I'm going to stop doing, as I do not come close to agreeing that it's a problem. m.o.p 21:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagreeing with someone at an AFD is far different than having someone challenge your administrative actions at ANI, and end with you saying that you "already used my one allotted rouge action for this month." That you couldn't find anyone else to extend the block further reinforces that you were involved. That this block is the only incivility block you've issued since, oh, 3 years ago (I checked!) further reinforces the judgment. You are directed to note that "when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships," and basically stop doing that. Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Further, don't you think that lumping yourself in with the other participants at the AFD makes it incredibly clear that as opposed to weighing the arguments, you actually supervoted? Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.

Am I going to have to start denoting every time I'm joking? Or is it not blatantly obvious? I mean, obviously you didn't catch on, but that's a joke. See WP:ROUGE for the background. Maybe it's because I've been around for a while and it was more well-known in the old days, but yeah. Attempts at humour just make me more involved, I guess. As for the block - I've issued incivility blocks as recently as a month ago. Your research seems flawed. And I appreciate your input regarding IRC, I really do - I just don't intend to change how I work.

Deeper sigh here. Again, being a sysop is no big deal. I'm lumping myself in with the other users because, aside from my administrative action, I am no different from them. Given that we've discussed this a thousand times before (see the previous ANI thread), I'll say again; I closed as I saw appropriate. Calling it a supervote is just absurd.

I don't have much intention of continuing this discussion, though. I am not involved. Andy's apologized. Case closed. I'm sure this dead horse has been beaten enough. Cheers, m.o.p 23:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Invoking discretionary sanctions

As both this article and Energy Catalyzer are cold fusion-related, they ought to fall under the Abd-William M. Connolley descretionary sanction domain. AndyG is not the only one whose behavior has been pushing civility limits, but there is also a relentless battle to include all sorts of primary source and unreliable material to keep these various devices from vanishing into the obscurity of cheap energy scams and fads. The effort being devoted to keeping this in line is absurd. I invite any passing administrator to take a look into these articles and apply discretionary sanctions. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated I'm not going to get involved further with the article, at least until the AfD is closed, I'll do nothing about this myself, but I would like to point out that the same persistent SPA IP is still adding all sorts of badly-sourced and off-topic material into the article, with no regard to policy, or to talk-page discussions, Instead, we've had wild claims of a conspiracy, and attempts to justify ignoring policy on this basis: Talk:CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell#Lets_clear_one_thing_up. Can I ask that uninvolved contributors try to restore a little common sense here, and at least attempt to restrict soapboxing to a more manageable level - though to be honest, I'm not entirely sure that the IP isn't just out to troll - I'd best leave that to others to look into, however. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Would a semi-protection be helpful? That IP certainly does not look like they are helpful out here, but I don't want to unnecessarily close down avenues of discussion if the editors working there don't think it would be helpful. NW (Talk) 14:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A semi-protect on this article would certainly help. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is just one IP, apparently single purpose and disruptive, so I have blocked it. Should other IPs show up, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Cookiehead

I've asked Cookiehead (talk · contribs) to come here so we can get some admin opinions, as I don't understand that guy's approach:

• I observed yesterday that a few days ago, he restored a Bernie Fine talk-page comment that had been made by a since-blocked user called CincyLost (talk · contribs).[22] I suspected he was another sock of that user (who had been posting anti-Jewish comments), though I wasn't sure, and said so in the AIV. Admins concluded not. So far so good.
• Rather more disturbing, earlier this evening he did a significant revert on the Bernie Fine article,[23] which resulted in the restoration of the same anti-Jewish junk that the blocked user had tried to post. I would say that his change of "was" to "is a former" was correct. It was the blind reversion that was incorrect.
• Ironically, when I have repeatedly tried to advise him to watch out what he's reverting, he responds (see edit summaries in the user link above) with insulting comments that I interpret to mean that he thinks I'm lying about the effect of his reversion to the Bernie Fine article.

So, I don't get it. Could an admin or someone with a different style than mine speak to that guy and give him some good advice? (And maybe give me some in the process. And unlike him, I won't respond with obscenities.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that IP's from various places have been posting various anti-Jewish stuff:
96.253.220.30 (talk · contribs)
108.21.15.221 (talk · contribs)
152.121.19.254 (talk · contribs)
158.143.166.60 (talk · contribs)
which I take to be BLP violations as well. I will ask for semi-protection of the article unless someone wants to do it from here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Bugs, apparently you should fuck off. I'm quoting, of course. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeh, I was duly impressed by the eloquence and originality of that comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks like no one intends to do anything about it. But this at least gets it "on the record" for possible future reference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring & legal threats at Bay FM 99.3

Two IPs are actively vandalising Bay FM 99.3. I've requested page protection and reported one of the IPs to AIV but since legal threats have also been made,[24][25] I'm reporting that matter here, per Wikipedia:No legal threats. There are indications that both of the IPs involved are one person, so we have some sockpuppetry thrown in.[26][27] The IP that I reported to AIV has threatened "Through our network we have acces to over 200 IP addresses and will continiue to delete information until this page is removed in its entirity"[sic], and has stood by his word, removing valid sourced content.[28] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the editor make valid complaints about the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the complaints seem valid. In fact, some are completely ridiculous, like this one, claiming to have "deleted unverifiable information". The owner's name and original frequency were sourced directly from the station's own website.[29] The IPs have also been vandalising disambiguation pages to remove records of the article,[30] or to remove links to the article.[31] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked User:203.45.50.147 per WP:NLT. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted by the OP and by the "owner" himself, they have endless IP's. 165.228.61.164 (talk · contribs) has currently taken over for 203.45.50.147 (talk · contribs). You need to semi-protect the page, and that will fend them off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi'd 2 weeks. T. Canens (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, blocked User:165.228.61.164 for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Some of their posts are nearly illiterate and I'm not sure how seriously I take their threats of being able to manipulate IP addresses. But meh, it's semi'd, thanks Tim C. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both IP's emanate from Sydney, for what it's worth. The one item about an employee supposedly being fired because he couldn't get the article deleted needs to be added to the list of socking excuses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a blatant troll to me and so it is probably better to ignore, but I still think WP:DOLT is important to consider. Have we definitely verified that this information is not a copyvio? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I went right through the article and checked it to make sure it was all fine. I ended up fixing several extremely minor errors, mainly in the infobox.[32] Most of the content is actually sourced from the Australian government's public register of radiocommunication licences. Only a small amount has been sourced from the station's website but there's nothing in there that is a copyvio. There never was. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They have also taken their grievance to their Twitter account, which sticks out like a sore thumb among what is usually a humdrum rolling community calendar feed. As an editor experienced in mass media station articles there's absolutely nothing wrong here at all; all of the information is sourced to Australia's radio regulator except for the format, which is the only thing that could be argued out, however unlikely it is. The clipart station logo is also inarguable with all public domain characters and drawings. Nate • (chatter) 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather oddly, that tweet has disappeared, along with the 'Bay993FM' account that posted it. Curiouser and curiouser. Is there some weird dispute going on here which we aren't aware of? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is very weird. The 165.228.61.164 IP is making some rather strange claims on their talk page, such as saying that the domain that is registered to the station owners and which has been the official website of the station for years, and which is the website identified by several sources including google as the station's website, is not the official website. He's also questioning the credibility of the stations website in reporting content about the station and so on. He has even accused me of being associated with one of the station's competitors,[33] which is rather silly given that a competitor would be more likely to be trying to have the article deleted, or filled with incorrect information, than trying to stop that happening. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Tom Morris (talk · contribs) proposed deletion [34]. An elegant solution if it goes through. causa sui (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, my mistake: I should probably have checked the history of the article before proposing deletion. Without disclosing anything, I'd suggest that an admin with OTRS access handle this case from here with reference to VRTS ticket # 2011112910012043. I would find an admin to handle it but I will be very busy for the next twelve hours or so. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  I've picked up the ticket on OTRS and am attempting to handle it from there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  I'm starting to think that the email accounts and website of Bay FM 99.3 may have been compromised. User:165.228.61.164 has been making some pretty strange claims on his/her talk page and these, as well as demonstrated actions, just don't make sense. The IP claims to be the owner of the station and says he has fired the person who created the article.[35] Changing the station's url, then taking down both of the station's websites as well as the Twitter feed don't seem logical, as the website included advertising for the station, and the station has consistently been known as Bay FM (I live and work in the area) for the past 13 years. The comments made by the IP seem contradictory. The station's website now displays only the name "Coast 'n Country FM", yet when this name was in the article the IP removed it, along with other content,[36] and subsequently argued that that "Radio Bay FM" is the name of the station.[37] The IPs have complained about their logo being used here but, with this change to "Coast 'n Country FM", that really shouldn't be an issue. Given the circumstances surrounding all of this, I suspect that the person who was sacked may still be in control of the websites and other IT assets, possibly without the owner's consent, and that all of this is just a ruse to to destroy the article in retaliation for being fired. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  As if to confirm the above suspicions, the websites and Twitter account are now back online. Tweets indicates that they lost control of their servers.[38][39] --AussieLegend (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Should I send them a tweet checking on what they really feel about the article possibly? If there was a hack attack them I'm darned sure they're just as concerned about their Wiki presence being mangled as they are their website and social channels. Though to note it seems like their Facebook presence was never affected (I checked yesterday when I posted here and it was still just community calendar and station events on the feed, so they kept that locked down at least). Nate • (chatter) 05:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of administrator privileges by User:Toddst1

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

---

Administrator User:Toddst1 has committed abuse of his blocking privileges as admin.

User:Latish redone was blocked by Toddst1, who gave a reason for the block. Latish redone decided to appeal the block by using the {{Unblock}} template. [40]

Toddst1 made additional comments on Latish redone's talk page in order to support his block of Latish redone. [41][42]

Latish redone, in accordance with user talk page policy, and because of the clear conflict of interest involved in having the blocking admin provide further comments, decided to remove those comments so that the reviewing admin would see only Toddst1's block reason and Latish redone's appeal reason. [43]

This is where the abuse occurs. Toddst1 proceeded to block Latish redone from editing his own talk page. But, while Latish redone was blocked from editing his own talk page, Toddst1 abused both his admin privileges and the conflict of interest by continuing to add comments to Latish redone's talk page to bolster his argument for the reviewing admin. [44][45][46][47]

So basically, Toddst1 blocked Latish redone from providing arguments to be unblocked, while continuing to provide arguments to support the block. This is clearly abuse of admin power, in addition to a conflict of interest violation. I think Toddst1 should be desysopped, or otherwise sanctioned, as appropriate.

--198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Also, why don't you read the "Guide to appealing blocks" that was linked in the block notice where you would've found an email address (unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org) and you could've appealed there. Removing your talk page access isn't abuse. Don't blame your lack of attention to detail on abusive admins.--v/r - TP 14:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not referring to myself in the third person, I am not one of the involved editors, just an unregistered user. --198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, whose second edit was to this page. What an amazing coincidence. There are only a few things a blocked editor should be doing. One is to file a reasonable unblock request. Another is to engage in civil discussion. Deleting another editor's comments is NOT on that short list.[48] (Nor is socking.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw the unblock request this morning, and was quite surprised to look at the talkpage history: the blocked editor had removed "evidence" provided to whichever admin came by to judge the unblock merits. Really not appropriate, no matter what the talkpage guidelines say. If they insisted on removing commentary relavent to the block/unblock then page protection was inevitable. Now, where's the poultry? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I only have a few edits because I only edit when necessary, in addition to editing from a site where my IP address is subject to change arbitrarily. --198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is complete nonsense. There is no "conflict of interest involved in having the blocking admin provide further comments". On the contrary, it can be very helpful to a reviewing administrator for a blocking administrator to provide clarification of the reasons for the block. Removing comments relating to a pending unblock request is not "in accordance with user talk page policy". When the user had abused their talk page access to try to suppress comments about the block, removing the user's talk page access was perfectly reasonable. There is no "abuse of admin power", nor any "conflict of interest violation". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The IP is likely either a sock of the blocked user, or just has a grudge against Todd. In any case, the blocking admin leaving comments for other admins is standard procedure. I've seen it done hundreds of times. The IP's complaint is unwarranted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Heck, we even have an "unblock on hold" template for use when the original blocking admin is being specifically requested to provide additional information. Admins are required to explain blocks, and should provide additional info when unblocks are requested if things are not readily apparent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • So why wasn't that used? --198.137.20.208 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Clearly, the abuse comes from the blocking admin continuing to comment while the blocked user is blocked from being able to comment. --198.137.20.208 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor was abusing their rights on their talkpage by removing the information. Like I said before, access removal was inevitable. Blocks are quite often discussed on a usertalkpage while the person is still blocked from editing it - there was, after all, still an open unblock request. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • There is no abuse, no rule violation. But keep talking. You're looking more like a sock every time you open your mouth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that no warning was given before removing talk page access, but don't really think this goes so far as to be called abuse. Restore the comment, warn the user not to remove it while they are requesting an unblock, remove talk page access if they do it again. (EC: This comment was being added as the section was being archived, but I believe it's still worth adding. This could've been handled better. --Onorem♠Dil 15:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add to that gray summary box at the top of this archived discussion that "Admins should give warning(s) to the blocked user before blocking the user from editing his/her talk page." --198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC) And/or add that "Blocked users should not remove admin comments from their talk page, but should instead provide their own comments in dispute of a block." --198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A BOOMERANG addendum

I think the filer needs to be scrutinzed a bit more closely. 198.137.20.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s first edit was to remove the generic "there may not be a userpage" text from the page of Rhinoselated (talk · contribs), who was indef'ed as a vandaliam-only account, presumably because his last two pagemove vandalisms resembled that of Willyonwheels'. Rhinoselated once tried to add garbage to the Cam Newton article and once created a "Scam Newton" page, see User talk:Rhinoselated#Attacks in the article Scam Newton. also a curious redirect of Kelly Martin's user page to talk page. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhinoselated is too stale for a checkuser, but the quacking is getting very loud around here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely a similar pattern of editing between User:Rhinoselated, User talk:Latish redone, and the "anonymous 3rd party" IP user in the above discussion - very few good faith edits, lots of "humorous" vandalism, and plenty of over-the-top melodramatic arguing about reverts and the inevitable blocks. This person has been here long enough to thoroughly understand policies and procedures, and he seems to enjoy playing the game of seeing how long he can string out his obnoxiousness before getting blocked. I would be absolutely shocked if he doesn't have more socks out there, perhaps even a truly useful user account. Zeng8r (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more than clear at this point that Rhinoselated has at least a few socks out there. I've tagged them, but I think it would be better if someone else issued the sock/block evasion blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not a "sock" and I resent such characterization. --198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Either I'm missing something really important here, or we need to a be a bit more careful with our sock tagging. Aside from the curious redirect, is there any evidence linking Kelly Martin to Rhinoselated? Kelly Martin was active from 2004 to 2007; Rhinoselated edited beginning in 2010, and I see no obvious links between the two editors. (I've now re-deleted what looks to have been the blanked userpage of a retired editor.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Did someone tag Kelly Martin as a sockpuppet of Rhinoselated? I can't see now their use page is deleted but it doesn't look like Rhinoselated was tagged as a sock of Kelly Martin. My guess from Zeng8r said on Rhinoselated's user page is perhaps Rhinoselated redirected Kelly Martin's page to theirs which someone AGFed (which they probably shouldn't have) as an accurate self declaration of Rhinoselated being a new account for Kelly Martin Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm don't know what to make of the Kelly Martin angle. While helping to deal with Rhinoselated's mischief a few months ago, I noticed that User:Kelly Martin was redirected to Rhinoselated's talk page. I asked about it and never got a reply. Looks like somebody has recently deleted the redirecting user page. Zeng8r (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, Kelly Martin's talk page was deleted in 2008 (three years ago). Today (29 November) Rhinoselated redirected the user page to Kelly Martin's talk page. About 12 hours later, Toddst1 replaced the redirect with a sockpuppet banner. I caught this on my watchlist, and redeleted Kelly Martin's userpage a little while later. As far as I can tell, there's no other link between the two accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's this rather odd conversation: User_talk:All_in#I.27d_like_to_talk_to_you_in_private.... Zeng8r (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Which suggests they may have some history together even if there's a fair chance Kelly Martin herself doesn't remember. (I didn't remember removing the misleading info in Rhinoselated's user page.) Kelly Martin was also a fairly well known. I'm guessing Rhinoselated intentionally created the redirect to try to make the link as a form of vandalism and perhaps a subtle personal attack. And unfortunately Toddst1 while tagging sockpuppets and perhaps not being aware of Kelly Martin's history tagged her as well. BTW I presume the dates are wrong. Rhinoselated has been indef blocked since May so either someone else did the redirection or it happened earlier, possibly both if the IP reverted to the redirect (it sounds like it happened in January). Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've applied a narrow rangeblock (198.137.20.0/24) for 48 hours try to put a lid on the IP. Whether it's a sock (and the duck is pretty loud here) or just a nuisance editor, he wasn't making beneficial contributions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And I've blocked User:Latish redone indefinitely.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Has nobody else noted that "Latish redone" is an anagram of "Rhinoselated"? RolandR (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many of our trolls think that they're low-grade Batman villains? (I don't mean the scary, creepy, eerie villains of the latest Batman films; I'm talking about the cartoonish 1960's villains in vividly-colored but hideous costumes.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it works - User:NoPuzzleStranger was here for four months before someone realized it was an anagram of User:Gzornenplatz. --Golbez (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this link here for future reference. (Kidding... I think.) Zeng8r (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure The Riddler operated by Moscow Rules and the password to his lair was guarded with a bit more care than this user: [49] LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Check this out:[50] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody wiped a large portion of the above discussion about Rhinoselated's possible sockpuppet accounts, both anagramed and IPs. Perhaps there was a good reason to do so, but I couldn't figure out who did it and I saw no explanation. Given the aforementioned user's propensity to delete discussions that he doesn't like, I restored the deleted posts. Somebody really needs to figure out who removed them, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring them. I can't find where they disappeared either, but it happens perfectly innocently sometimes on this page, though it was awhile since I last noticed it. Once (no, twice), a good friend of mine "removed" posts of mine together with several others, without being aware of it. He's an extremely careful editor and I simply do not believe that he had accidentally highlighted the posts or anything slapdash like that. The ANI bug strikes again? Bishonen | talk 22:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Admiral A. Cybergnomi, reporting for duty, sah! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Death threats

Resolved

Probably not serious, but I thought it important to report this nonetheless. Dallasmartino (talk · contribs) has made death threats at Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Block and report to the secret service. I bet he won't be trolling wiki if men in black show up at his door step :). N^oformation ^Talk 18:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and reported to the foundation. They can escalate higher if they choose.--v/r - TP 18:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And now the diff has been deleted so the police can't see what was written. Bad idea. Good idea to report, bad idea to stonewall the report. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe some admins have the ability to pull deleted posts if needed, so that shouldn't be too much of an issue. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

All admins can see deleted articles and diffs. It's only stuff that's been deleted and oversighted that goes beyond the "standard" package of admin powers. Bencherlite^Talk 21:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And how many officers of the law are admins? How many admins are in regular contact with the law? Oh right...none. Epic poor decision making. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd wager the Wikimedia Foundation has staff to know if a death threat is simply a prank or is indeed serious. If the latter, they'll certainly report it to the appropriate authorities. --McDoobAU93 05:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@65.*: I'd sure hope you think more of your local authorities than that they stop an investigation at the first sign of it being "tough to investigate". Generally, I would think, these things are resolved through subpenas. It would just be fair to assume that a police office taking a "screen shot" wouldn't be a very effective policing tool. I would think that a affidavit from the Wikimedia Foundation with records from the database and logs of the transaction would help the police better. And they can't get any of that just by looking here or asking an admin anyway.--v/r - TP 19:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Likely student editing

I was looking at one of the articles brought to AFD yesterday: Human Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines Labeled for Use in Dogs. The article is currently on track toward deletion as novel synthesis/original research, with the first commenter remarking that "it is a research paper". In fact, based on the article history, I think that is exceedingly likely. In fact, there is a fairly expansive group of editors with similar names, most in the form 570xxx, plus one at 507xxx that may have been a typo at creation. From the talk pages of these editors and the articles they have created, it is obvious that they know each other from outside Wikipedia. I suspect this is a university project, possibly at Iowa State.

Contrary to the ANI banner, I have not notified these 16 editors of this ANI thread at this time, although I will do so if the community feels that is in our, and their, best interest. However, I want to avoid giving the impression of being unwelcoming (and ANI is a terrible welcome mat). Although some of their contributions have original research issues (as the one at AFD now) or are potentially forks of existing content (Hazard (risk), in particular), they are generally well-written and generously sourced. I seem to remember there is some management or outreach group to handle this sort of university project? Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with where groups such as this might be directed, but I'm confident that someone here has some experience with this sort of situation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:570ajk has a list of what's being worked on. If Iowa State is right, I'm guessing it's related to this course Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The pages you are looking for are Wikipedia:Ambassadors and Wikipedia:School and university projects. If you can identify the account of the professor, you should refer them to these pages ASAP, and make sure they work with the Ambassadors to help them smooth the process of incorporating Wikipedia editing into their coursework. From my personal experience in running into this problem before, it is often the case that the professor is doing things quite well, but the students are half-assing the assignment. Though it always pays to touch base with the professor just to make sure they have all the support they need. --Jayron32 06:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page trolling/soapboxing, unrepentant off-topic battlegrounding by User:Objectivist

Resolved

 – Blocked indef causa sui (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Objectivist (talk · contribs) aka "V"
• Notified [51]

A month and a half ago, NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) created a request for comment on the user conduct of Objectivist (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Objectivist. The RFC was on Objectivist's behavior on talk pages, which included posting to talk pages long rhetorical diatribes on philosohpical, political, and ethical issues unrelated to improving articles and baiting other users into confrontational debates. In particular, he posts opinion pieces at controversial article talk pages such as Talk:Abortion and Talk:Conservatism that are critical of conservative politics and inviting other users to debate his ideas with him, as he did here: [52] and here [53]. The principles at stake were WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Objectivist responded by trolling the RFC itself, first in his statement antagonizing NYyankees51 for being too thin-skinned to stand up to the "Truth" that Objectivist was sharing with him and the rest of us. A review of his contributions suggests this stirring the pot technique is standard, as he has met prior attempts to halt off-topic and irrelevant discussion at Talk:Abortion with accusations of cowardice and censorship of the "Truth" with the following indignant rant:

In discussions it is far worse to shut someone up by deleting what they say, than to shut someone up by proving what they do say isn't worth saying. The former is an act of cowardice, practiced by book-burners throughout history, who were afraid that a differing opinion would result in less control over other people. Truth always hurts liars and the deluded, but only those groups. Honorable people have nothing to fear from Truth. If you believe that a "pro-life" stand incorporates more Truth than a pro-abortion-rights stand, then you should be able to back it up in a Debate. If you can't back it up, then your so-called "truths" aren't necessarily what you think they are --that's a real Truth. You've thrown down the gauntlet by, apparently, not wanting others to see my willingness to directly Debate any "pro-lifer" into a kind of speechlessness on that topic (because just about anything you say can be used against you). Do you have the integrity to follow through? We shall see! V (talk) 2:07 am, 23 July 2011, Saturday (UTC−7)

I posted a statement to the RFC here describing Objectivist's behavior as patent trolling for adversarial debate, reminding him that talk pages (and ultimately, all pages outside the article namespace) are for coordinating efforts toward improving the encyclopedia, and asking him to limit his use of Wikipedia to means that serve that end. Several other editors weighed in.

Objectivist has since drawn Blackmane (talk · contribs) into a disruptive meta-debate at the RFC itself, ironically about whether his battlegrounding behavior is truly disruptive. Meanwhile, he shared on Talk:Cold fusion his opinions about what counts as a confirmation of cold fusion and what avenues researchers should be pursuing [54]. Yesterday, he posted a long statement on Talk:Conservatism in the United States proposing that a new section be added that incorporates novel arguments drawing a bizarre analogy between developmental psychology and conservative politics. He compares conservatives who support or enable industrial pollution to children whose parents failed to teach them to clean up their messes, and suggests the comparison should be made in the article. [55]. He then made the proposed changes immediately thereafter, posting a short and highly rhetorical POV essay to the article [56], but was reverted by NatGertler (talk · contribs) [57].

Evidently the RFC/U failed to reform his disruptive behavior, which has continued unabated since 2008. I'm inclined to indefinitely block him to prevent further disruption. causa sui (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I will object to having the [above] described as a "rant" of any sort. Look up the definition; the tone of the following is far more calm than vitriolic/ranting. Thus part of the problem here is that while the case has some truth to it, it also is overstated. V (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I should mention that the abortion-debate stuff served the purpose I had in mind for it, which was to enable the rapid gathering of a lot of Original Research arguments into one place. As such they are currently not useable in the encyclopedia, but in the long-term future, others will see them, and note the most-extremely-important fact that they are not copyrighted because they exist in the context of Wikipedia. Which means eventually they could be published in reliable sources, and no longer be disqualified per WP:OR.... Therefore there is no incentive for me to do more with the topic of abortion until such sources for those arguments become available. If Wikipedia editors/admins only focus on the short term, then they only see the debate, and not the point. V (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have described the long-term benefit/goal, for Wikipedia, of having an abortion debate? But then the debate would have been about that, instead of about abortion. V (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My, my, note all the descriptions that overstate the case. "RFC" stands for "requests for comment", and if any comment disputes another, then the essence of a debate begins to exist. Do you expect anyone to believe that all comments in any RFC page should follow the party line of whoever started that page? So, to label part of the content of the particular RFC being discussed here as a "disruptive meta-debate" is to overstate the case.

Next, when does logic become opinion? It is a fact, not opinion, that the cold fusion debate in Science has two main components to it. The first component is the claim that certain experiments yield too much energy to be explained outside of nuclear processes. The second component involves the type of nuclear process. Logically, if the first claim is false, then the second component of the overall cold fusion debate is irrelevant. Therefore it is most logical, not mere opinion, that CF researchers should strive to prove (if it can be done) that, indeed, certain experiments can yield too much energy to be explained outside of nuclear processes. And, therefore, the quality of my remark to that effect, on the CF talk page, is being distorted here, from logic to opinion, as in "overstating the case".

Next, regarding "Conservatism in the United States": The time stamp of my proposal, on the talk page is 18:12, 27 November, and the time stamp of my edit to the main article was 23:46, 27 November --more than 5 hours later. That hardly qualifies as "immediately thereafter" --but then, as I am continuing to point out here, the case against me is being deliberately overstated. Even the actual text I wrote is being distorted here, to help overstate the case. I wrote "... do Conservatives teach their children to clean up the messes they make? Assuming they do, then why, as adults, have Conservatives who run polluting industries been so unwilling to clean up the messes they make?" --and I am accused of "compar[ing] conservatives who support or enable industrial pollution to children whose parents failed to teach them to clean up their messes". Tell, me, exactly how is "Assuming they do" equal to "failed to teach"??? Not to mention that I know full well that many arguments provided by Conservatives, supporting industrial pollution, involve "money". Therefore I also wrote on the talk page: 'The evidence suggests that "naked greed" is a major factor of Conservatism in America, yet the word "greed" isn't in the article even once! But then, greed is an Imperfection, see?' I was trying to show how greed logically belonged in an "Imperfections" section of the main article.

Next, regarding "posting a short and highly rhetorical POV essay to the article", I had intended to write much more --including sources-- but got interrupted by other commitments. Note that for me the process of writing for Wikipedia usually goes (1) write some clean text, and then (2) make sure you have sources that support it, because doing it the other way around increases the risk of posting copyrighted material. I ran out of time while looking for sources. So I did not dispute the reversion, and even posted an apology on the talk page (which makes the first part of the next paragraph below an outright lie). Next time I will write the entire thing off-line, making sure that every appropriate sentence is sourced, so that I don't get caught short again, during the posting of it to Wikipedia. V (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I figured this would make its way to AN/I from RfC/U eventually. Objectivist seems to have a misunderstanding of the point of Wikipedia, what an encyclopedia is, and what talk pages are for. Since the RfC/U didn't paint the picture any clearer for him/her, I would support an indef block until the user agrees to tone it down and to take a mentor with whom he'd have to get approval before posting to talk pages. N^oformation ^Talk 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped that the rather extended debate would have opened his eyes as to what he needed to reform with even some friendly suggestions. Also ironically my linking to WP:IDHT ultimately proved prophetic. I would have to agree to a block of some sort. --Blackmane (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In his comments above, Objectivist has blatantly stated his purpose: to use Wikipedia to bootstrap his OR views into being published by a reliable source, so that he can then "legitimately" insert them into articles using citations from those RS's. That is a flagrant misuse of Wikipedia for his own POV purposes. For this alone, he deserves to be indef blocked, to prevent any further damage to the project. This is not a person who is here to add NPOV material to articles and improve the encyclopedia, and is not someone we need to have around, disrupting things for their own political purposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

served the purpose I had in mind for it, which was to enable the rapid gathering of a lot of Original Research arguments into one place. As such they are currently not useable in the encyclopedia, but in the long-term future, others will see them, and note the most-extremely-important fact that they are not copyrighted because they exist in the context of Wikipedia. Which means eventually they could be published in reliable sources, and no longer be disqualified per WP:OR - WP:NOTHERE. Indef, now. (I'd do it myself but I'm just about to go to bed and don't want to "block and run".)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Also support an indefinite block/ban/whatever. Also, per Bushranger, I'd do it myself excepting it is past my bedtime too. But I don't think, based on the above cited comments, that this person has any business editing Wikipedia anymore, per WP:GAME, WP:POINT, etc. --Jayron32 07:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I blatantly stated here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Objectivist/Abortion_Debate ) that I was conducting an experiment. If you-all are so dead-set against such experimentation, then I can certainly promise to not do it again --and follow-through on that promise. After all, it is the only such experiment I've conducted in all my years here, which makes it an easy promise to keep. Meanwhile, I hope you are aware that just because something seems like Original Research, it isn't actually always so. Someone somewhere could have published it in a reliable source, before the Internet Age, and which simply hasn't been uploaded yet. Not being able to find it in an internet search doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, with respect to that taught-to-clean-up-their-messes stuff above, and children who become political conservatives operating polluting industries, I find it very hard to believe that nobody else has ever made that connection (and polluting industries have been around lots longer than the Internet). But I haven't found a reliable source for it yet.... V (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SYNTH. Objectivist, the wikiterminology of Original Research is the same as that in the professional research world. Coming up with new ideas etc etc. This is strictly prohibited on wikipedia. Sourcing to a book is perfectly acceptable provided the book is a reliable source. Your intention to publish it here so that someone can later use it in a publication in order for your opinion to then be considered reliably sourced is gaming the system. Your comment above mine tells me that our rather tangential debate on your RFC has not made it any clearer what you are doing wrong here on Wiki and I would support an indef block on you. In fact, wasn't there a recent case of someone experimenting on Wiki for some obscure psychological study who wound up being indef blocked? --Blackmane (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Thanks all. causa sui (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Two userids?

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.

Discussion continued at the section below, User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Is it ok for an editor to "retire" an account, but leave it active, but then continue to edit with a new account? Assume he has been clear he is now using a new account, and has linked to it, but the old one is still unblocked. I don't see this meeting any of the items listed at Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate uses. I 'd prefer not to talk about a specific incident or editor for now. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought of that, but CLEANSTART is for editors who have decided to break all ties with their old account, abandon previous topic areas, etc. In this case, it's just two active accounts, an old one and a new one. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question is editing simultaneously with two accounts? GiantSnowman 21:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so--just the new one. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as the link between the accounts is clear and conspicuous, and the editor has actually moved to the other account – that is, he isn't interleaving edits from the two accounts – there's not really a problem. (It's not all that rare for editors to retire in a huff, and then come back—sometimes sheepishly, and sometimes under a new name.) It is pretty much mandatory for the new account to indicate the old account's name on its user and/or talk page, and advisable for the old account's user/talk to point to the new one. If the original account has a non-trivial block history, an admin should add a link back to the original account's block log to the new account's block log (a 1-second block with the link as the reason would do it) to eliminate concerns about concealing the previous account's history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's the user I suspect it is, both accounts are labeled as not active; the first is identified as abandoned, and the second as retired, with a clear link to the old username. The old username also linked to the new username in an edit summary, so there's no real potential for avoiding scrutiny. Horologium (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI requires that editors being discussed be notified. If Jayjg isn't planning on being candid as regards the subject of these questions this should be closed. Private behavioural issues worthy of action should be taken to ArbCom, who are th only approved secret police on the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, asking the question before escalating into WP:DRAMA is not a bad idea. Of course, as it's not an incident, I would have asked this question on WP:AN instead (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm trying to get a consensus while avoiding drama. And that goal has been achieved, so it was a good thing to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but as long as the accounts are publicly linked, "retired" or not, I wouldn't worry about it. 28bytes (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• People abandon accounts and start new ones all the time. If the person isn't being disruptive, vote stacking, or tag-teaming, no big deal. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for the helpful advice. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do think it is disruptive for people with a history of sanctions (e.g. more than one 3RR block) to do something like this, especially if they are still editing their old topic areas. NW (Talk) 14:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And on that note, I've just realized/discovered that this editor has returned to some of the articles in which he previously had major conflicts, and is now espousing essentially the opposite position to those he held with his previous account, on exactly the topics that led him to "retire" his first account. Another editor has described this (accurately I believe) as "trolling". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case I think you are going to have to identify and notify the editor in question. 28bytes (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, below. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What if you get a question or request on the talk page of a long abandoned account, do you have to answer with your new account (possibly confusing the sender of the message or adding something like The Editor Formerly Known As XXX next to your username) or is it permissible to log in under the old account just to answer the question and then continuing back editing under your present account? S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Abusive message at the Feedback dashboard

Could an admin please deal with this unacceptable feedback that was left by an indef-blocked vandal? --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've hidden the comment. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note that we have an article about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shows you where my mind is. I interpreted it as a term (slightly misspelled, though) used as an insult in Spanish, which I won't bother reiterating here per WP:BEANS and whatnot. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible to block people's ability to edit the feedback dashboard? I've just hidden a bunch of WP:NPA violations by P3Nl566. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• The vandal in question just posted some more disgusting inappropriate feedback. There really needs to be a mechanism that can prevent blocked users from posting at the feedback dashboard. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, we have a Feeback dashboard--that's really interesting! The things you learn at ANI... PS Nyttend, I hid a couple more by that joker. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Is that a dealie that's accessible from the "rate this article" thingie? Someone's actually using it??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Nope, that's a different thing for new editors. And it could use some serious cleanup, folks...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Need an admin for a page move

The House on Mango Street has been moved to I have to write a stupid essay on this book and it is really hard so i am taking out my anger on it's wikipedia page. We'll need an admin to move it back. Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done per WP:COMMONNAME. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And WP:COMMON SENSE. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 02:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

At least it's reasonably creative as vandalism goes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome; I just felt like doing it for an unusual but valid policy-based reason rather than for the obvious one. Thus I also left a note that the user had been blocked for 604,800 seconds instead of for a week :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:VAND? ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 06:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, the most pressing problem with this page title is the use of "it's" instead of "its". Don't they teach good grammar in school these days? --B (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No grammar for you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's a greengrocer? Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, really 42 minutes with that title? Egad!!! LOL, and all that jazz.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious how many people (if any) found it by accident while it was at that title... Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Best part is that I Googled it, and it actually came up.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And it also picked up Worst Book Ever Writen, which was the title for just a fraction of a minute. Amazing how fast their crawler works! Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding both of those to WP:DAFT now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block – None of this user's edits have been constructive. Moreover, there's this. –MuZemike 03:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that I removed the barnstar when I added the block notice. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't wait to see what Grok.se makes of this. Rich Farmbrough, 11:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

How long is 604800 seconds in days, hours, minutes, seconds?? S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

1 Week exactly Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

drunkposting?

What is the general practice with drunk posting? I mean in the theoretical that it occurred. (Then again who posts sober?)

TCO (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Serious answer ==> WP:DRUNK
• Less serious ==> Drink early, drink often.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing Under the Influence is also highly relevant. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A "friend" had this question. TCO (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So like a Wikipediholic, but with alcohol instead? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A friend told me that doing RCP while high is a bad idea. Just sayin'. causa sui (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The policy is: results are all that matters. No one knows if you're drunk or not. We can only judge users by the content of what they post. --Jayron32 04:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a drunk.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that doing NPP while high might cause extreme cases of giggles :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

G dash D only knows what keeps those über-nerds at WikiProject Insects going. Can't be Coffee and Cigarettes, as I'm sure none of 'em have even heard of the White Stripes. And I should know.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How much leeway do we give for information on a User page?

How well do we tolerate outright lies on a User page? I doubt very seriously that a 13 year old is a vice president of Microsoft. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Seriously? One person's outright lie is another persons obvious joke. Who cares? This is not anything worth getting one's panties in a bind over. If it bothers you, ask them on their talk page to take it down. But if they don't, so what? Do you seriously think that anyone who happened to read that userpage would be duped by it into believing that person actually WAS a vice president of "miccrosoft" [sic]? Let this one go, there are bigger fish to fry... --Jayron32 06:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone of that demographic would want to pretend to be a vice-president of Microsoft. Not cool, dude. --NellieBly (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's never been the best name for a company. I'm surprised any man would want to be associated with anything that was either micro or soft, and especially not both at the same time. Makes it difficult to score with the ladies... --Jayron32 07:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Must be true. How else could their products be explained? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - see Bob. Ravensfire (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User insists on including contact information on his talk page.

User talk:Sudhir Kumar Garhwal has been masquerading as geo stub about a village in India. Not really a problem, except for the fact the heading "Notable persons" lists the mobile phone numbers of the people listed there. None of them are subjects of articles in the main space. Removal of this sensitive information has been reverted twice: [58], [59]. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The phone numbers on that page have now been suppressed, per policy - Alison ^❤ 06:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to suppress all edits prior to this one. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And also on Bidsar. Ok, I think that's them all now ... - Alison ^❤ 06:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Done! - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Tartanator: Bullying, ownership, threats

I'd like to please get some eyes on the behaviour of Tartanator (talk · contribs) as displayed here. He appears to be on a mission to exclude a couple of relevant, topical, supported sentences about the Tiananmen Square event from Beijing. Despite apparently clear consensus for the material to remain, Tartanator appears bound and determined to bully, bludgeon, revert, shout, and steamroller his way around any attempt at discussion and consensus-building.

This is not necessarily a request for administrative intervention in a content dispute, though Tartanator does appear to be acting tendentiously, belligerently, willfully, and relentlessly against consensus. There are, of course, other channels for addressing difficult content quarrels, though most of these channels are effective only to the degree all involved editors voluntarily honour the process, and it does not appear Tartanator intends to do so. The material in question complies with V, CITE, and RS. It is directly and obviously apposite, for it concerns a notable event that took place in the city that is the subject of the article. The material is appropriately concise and bears a properly-formatted link to the main article for more in-depth coverage. Everything about it appears to be in accord with all applicable Wikipedia policy, protocol, and general practice.

Every contributor aside from Tartanator who has offered an opinion on the matter, either by dint of edits to the article or comments on the talk page, appears to agree the material should be included. Tartanator, who appears to hold stridently fervent opinions on matters related to China (Update: 30 November 2011, 03:33, Fastily (talk · contribs) —the same admin who locked down Beijing!— deletes Tartanator's user page at Tartanator's request; the linked material is therefore no longer visible) apparently does not want the material included. Following his six immediate reversions of four editors in five days ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]) to keep the Tiananmen Square material out of the article, after which he visited the talk page to flatly assert the rectitude of his unilateral deletion on the last of those five days [66], he had what appears to be the great temerity to request and receive a lockdown of the article on account of (his own) edit warring.

He has removed others' comments from the article talk page [67], [68]; has issued what appear to be physical threats [69], has attempted to use the threat of his own anger and Wikipedia's administrative channels as a means to silence other editors [70], [71]; has misused Twinkle-generated warnings in an almost random manner to harass, harangue, and intimidate another editor [72], [73]; and has asserted that he intends to carry on pushing his own point of view even if the material he dislikes is properly supported by reference to reliable sources [74].

Other editors and I have attempted to engage this editor in productive discussion on the article talk page while objecting in a largely civil manner and without personal attacks to what looks like pretty questionable behaviour on his part. I'm growing exasperated, though. Obviously I can (and shall) step back and disengage from a conversation attempt that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, but I do feel this editor's behaviour warrants some scrutiny and possibly administrative sanction. Time is somewhat of the essence in this case; the article lockdown expires on 2 December after which it appears likely Tartanator will resume working to exclude material in violation of pretty clear consensus for its inclusion. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct - Mailer Diablo 08:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I did and decided to post here instead. If that decision was definitely in error, I'll move this report over there. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C08:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hear hear, Mailer Diablo. Scheinwerfermann, be wary of TL;DR, "I didn't hear that", and failure to consider the actions of ALL parties' involved (that would be you, me, and Nodar95). I think it is very fair game to expect that Nodar95 would be boomerang-ed for an edit summaries like this, this, and a flat-out accusation of vandalism here. You unfortunately continue to dodge these matters, and are in the mindset that I am the only editor in the wrong here. I asked you multiple times on the talk page to focus on content, and yet your responses are almost all lectures on policy or some other form of commenting on the contributor. This is arguably more worrisome than anything I have done—what if you continue to do this in other discussions? It holds discussions up and is not at all productive.
• Though I was convinced earlier that Scheinwerfermann would not believe this at all, I will state this now: After this edit by Nodar95, I had not realised until then that what Nodar95 last inserted was different. You know, it is very difficult to assert the true intentions (and for that matter, faith) of someone who nastily says "Let's see how this gets censored"; from experience I also know it is close to impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone with such a despicable attitude. Only at 00:54 29 November did I realise what the change was (hence the edit summary) and brought it up on the talk.
• Induction does not work outside of mathematics, Scheinwerfermann; you have not a shred of evidence that I will continue removal. In fact, after the input of Jiang, I am now willing to insert material on major post-1911 events to serve as a balance.  The Tartanator  08:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics is deductive, not inductive, and arguments outside of mathematics can be inductive or deductive. N^oformation ^Talk 08:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• That post which you falsely claimed to have been a physical threat (it was a description of what had already occurred) has since been clarified. Calling this warning random is completely unwarranted considering Nodar95's edit summary. Perhaps you yourself enjoy accusing others of censorship and maybe even being a Wumaodang and it would behove you to take a great leap back and reflect on your errors.  The Tartanator  09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The series of event described above by User:Scheinwerfermann started after my addition of the following line to Beijing article at 22:06, November 22, 2011‎: "Tiananmen Square has become an internationally known square in Beijing following the Tiananmen_Square_Protests_of_1989."

At 06:45, November 23, 2011 that sentence was deleted by User:Tartanator with the associated comment at 06:44, 23 November 2011: Since the appropriate way to proceed with the lack of outside reference is by using Template:Citation_needed, not by deleting an editor’s contribution, I reverted the deletion, added references to my contribution in Beijing article and commented the deletion as an act of Wikipedia:Censorship at 18:09, November 23, 2011.

At 04:10, November 24, 2011‎ the same sentence was again deleted by User:Tartanator with the following comment on User_talk:Nodar95 at 04:12, 24 November 2011. And the following added comment at 04:14, 24 November 2011 on User_talk:Nodar95.

Since there were now strong indications that User:Tartanator will be deleting that sentence no matter its validity I moved the problem to Talk:Beijing page at 02:30, November 25, 2011 with the following entry. At 17:48, November 25, 2011 User:Tartanator deleted my entry in Talk:Beijing page, again in violation of wikipedia’s policy, with the following comment: “this is not the place for you to make MORE personal attacks”. At the same occasion (at 03:10, November 25, 2011) I reverted User:Tartanator deletion on Beijing and simplified the sentence to the following writing: "Beijing was the location of the Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989."

As anticipated the sentence got deleted at 17:45, November 25, 2011 by User:Tartanator. At 22:21, November 28, 2011 I requested Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism against User:Tartanator as both my edits and discussion entries were systematically deleted. From 22:31, November 28, 2011 until 01:25, November 29, 2011 a revert/delete sequence took place with User:Tartanator systematically deleting the multiple restorations of the Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989 reference by either User:Gaijin42 or User:Scheinwerfermann.

At 00:25, November 29, 2011 User:Tartanator added an entry on Talk:Beijing, related to the entry I originally posted at 02:30, November 25, 2011 but without reverting his deletion of that entry. From that time a lengthy interaction took place on that page between User:Tartanator and multiple editors, with an unanimity supporting the presence of the following sentence in Beijing page: “Beijing was the location of the Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989.” with the references added at 18:09, November 23, 2011.

At 01:26, November 29, 2011 Beijing page was granted Wikipedia:This_page_is_protected, thus stopping any further deletion of the Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989. The irony being that Wikipedia:This_page_is_protected status was originally requested by User:Tartanator at 01:09, November 29, 2011. I concur with User:Scheinwerfermann fear that User:Tartanator will resume his deletion of the sentence once the Beijing Wikipedia:This_page_is_protected status expires.

Added to this there are proven instances of the following violations (at the minimum of Wikipedia:TPG) by User:Tartanator:

• Use of deletion as a censoring tool, as described above.

• Personal attack on User_talk:Nodar95 starting at 04:12, 24 November 2011

• Threat of “getting your account blocked” on User_talk:Nodar95 at 04:14, 24 November 2011.

• Threat of "having your mouth shut" on User_talk:Nodar95 at 08:57, November 30, 2011.

• Threat of deserving “far worse” on Talk:Beijing at 03:52, 30 November 2011. Nodar95 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Tartanator for a week for edit warring, which is what should have been done in the first place, and unprotected the page. I take a very dim view of edit warriors attempting to game RFPP, and with four editors disagreeing with him, and Tartanator over 3RR, it is obvious where the problem lies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

IP proposing deletion on my page

I have noticed an IP adress (130.58.248.157) has nominated my page for deletion. The user has a history of vandlism. The page is Eden World Builder.

Thanks

sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 13:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You can remove PROD notices yourself, even if you created the article. However, the IP does have a point - there are no reliable sources indicating notability in the article, and a brief Google on my part hasn't found any. It may be that Eden World Builder does not pass WP:NOTE. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, per WP:NPA, please don't throw accusations of vandalism around. The IP does not have "a history of vandalism" - they have only made 4 edits, one of which, in 2007, was identified as vandalism. See WP:VANDAL for a definition of the term here on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's not your page, WP:OWN. IPs are allowed to prod articles. One edit in 2007, one edit in 2008 and two edits in 2011 is hardly a history of vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You also need to ensure you notify the subject of an ANI discussion. I have done this for you, but in future please ensure you place a {{subst:ANI-notice}} tag on the talkpage of any user you mention on this board. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For reference, the article in question is now at AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden World Builder. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Editor from Chile using multiple ip addresses to evade blocks

Active IPs: 190.46.108.149 (talk · contribs), 201.215.208.83 (talk · contribs)
An active editor from Chile is frequently rotating through various ip addresses, committing personal attacks and block evasion after numerous warnings and previous blocks. The editor has been blocked several times before, including here for personal attacks [75]. It was later discovered that the personal attack was actually made while under a block from a different ip address [76], also for a personal attack. After this somewhat lengthy discussion at ANI, it was decided that the ip should be given another chance (which I agreed with) since some legitimate edits were reverted out of hand. The block evasion was overlooked, with some editors and admins approaching the ip offering to assistance [77] in the future. Unfortunately, just a few days later, the ip address returned and made yet another personal attack [78] and promptly received a 31 hour block, upped to 72 after excessive talk page personal attacks [79]. In defiance of the block, the ip then switched to another address and returned to editing [80]. The ip also edited an archived closed ANI thread, calling another user dishonest [81]. This editor has openly stated they will ignore blocks and use multiple ips to circumvent [82] ("I have no respect so will ignore them") [83]. This blatant sockpuppeting and block evasion needs to be dealt with. -OberRanks (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

All that needs to happen for peace to prevail is for people not to be blatantly opposed to IP contributions. I've been blocked for things that are ignored if they come from people with usernames. I've been accused of not discussing things when I always leave edit summaries. Usernames revert my edits with such comments as "rv IP edits" and clearly dishonest accusations of vandalism and apparently that's fine. From another IP address I wrote a lengthy article on an important topic basically from scratch, and got not a single word of thanks for that. Instead, I got harassed and blocked for making a trivial edit to a different article. Does it surprise you that I don't feel like being terribly co-operative with certain people? 201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if this is an example of you using edit summaries to communicate, I don't think you're helping your case. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The article I wrote, in case you are interested, was International Ultraviolet Explorer. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, sockpuppetry refers to multiple accounts being operated by the same person. I've never done that. I edit from one IP address at a time. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours on 06:03, 29 November 2011 for personal attacks, switched ips to avoid the block and edited again on 11:36, 30 November 2011. Still actively editing The Road (2009 film) while under your original block. That's using multiple accounts for block evasion. -OberRanks (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My IP address changes without any prompting from me. I have never used sock puppets. Let's not get away from the point: all that needs to happen for peace to prevail is for people not to be blatantly opposed to IP contributions. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:EVADE...if one of your IP addresses gets blocked, it is you the person who are blocked. Resetting your router to get a new IP address and continuing to edit is evading a valid block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I oppose blocking the IP at this time. The most recent edits to Road appear to be about some cast selection material in the cast section. I looked at the Smit-McPhee part - it has a reference, but the content here doesn't appear to be in the reference. The reference has some related material, however. The content here could be rewritten in accord with the reference and/or moved elsewhere in the article. But what exactly is the underlying dispute about? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The user is under a 72 hour block from a different ip for committing a personal attack [84]. While under that block, they switched to a different ip address and went back to editing. The ip is trying to deflect this to a content dispute on "The Road" when this is simply about blatant block evasion. -OberRanks (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The content dispute aside, this editor is engaging in block evasion, edit warring, and personal attacks, and shows absolutely no sign they will stop.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The merit of whatever block you're talking about depends partly on the content issue. On the other hand, there are quite a few other users involved in this who have done various things against policy. Note that policy only authorizes reversion of a banned user's edits - restoring what may be unsourced material just because it was removed by a user blocked under a different IP strikes me as not only unsupported by policy, but a curious inversion of priorities here. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for pointing that out, I was wondering the same thing. Anyway, I count 6 reverts at least, in violation of 3RR, whatever the circumstances may be. And no one but this ip committed a personal attack. I think people have been abundantly patient with this situation. -OberRanks (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism are a personal attack. Calling me a fucking weasel is a personal attack. Calling me mad is a personal attack. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DENY exists to discourage block evasion - the content also appears to be sourced. Restoring material deleted by a blocked use is a legitimate reason to revert provided the content is sound. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That page refers to vandalism. Why did you link to it? 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The real issue isn't the content, it's that this editor has repeatedly removed it with no explanation and engaged in disruptive behavior to get what they wanted. The priority is to prevent a disruptive editor (they've been at this for months at various articles) from further disrupting the encyclopedia with edit warring and personal attacks, and evading blocks to continue doing more of the same.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Disgusting lies, yet again. I have extensively explained what I did. Those reverting have failed to do so. There's no way you could have mistaken the situation or not seen my explanations; you're simply lying. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC with many) I think a bigger issue when it comes to that particular case is that there's clearly some sort of content dispute. I freely admit to not checking the ref (and still haven't) before reverting as I didn't much care about the content dispute. (I also didn't give a great deal of thought as to whether the seemingly sourced stuff when I reverted, they removed was really POV etc as they claimed. Per BRD, it's fair for RJ who was the first user to get involved, to revert and discuss the changes. Except that the IP is blocked and therefore cannot discuss the changes and has made no attempt to discuss the changes anyway other then via edit summaries where they have used personal attacks. (RJ can of course initiate a discussion but when reverting a block evading IP deleting apparently sourced info I think I think it's hard to criticise them for not doing so.) Perhaps most importantly, AFAICT the IP never even mentioned the info wasn't properly sourced, just suggested it was unnecessary, POV or promotional which is clearly always going to be a matter of dispute. The user behind the IP is clearly aware they have been blocked, and are evading their block, they simply don't care.

Remember one of the reasons we allow people to revert banned users is because it's unresonable to expect users to have to carefully check the edits, of someone who has completely lost the trust of the community, to see if there is any merit to them. I think this clearly applies here when we have a situation where there's some sort of content dispute and perhaps the content at heart is not be properly sourced, but this was never noted as a reason for removal by the IP. If they want to wait out their block, and then calmly discuss the changes on the talk page, I suspect many would welcome that and perhaps there is merit to their concerns even without considering the alleged sourcing issues. This isn't going to occur as long as the user keeps evading blocks and refusing to discuss changes on the talk page.

(BTW AFAIK I have no involvement with this user until I commented here and reverted once in the article.) The funny thing is of course this user keeps insisting how unfair things are to IPs, yet I suspect if a user had created enough accounts in quick succession to get around as many blocks as they've apparently had so far, I suspect we wouldn't even be discussing any of this and by now they'd be blocked for at least 1 month and probably pushing to indefinite.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Follow up, I've reverted again. Also I can confirm what Gimmetoo said that one of the lines is unsourced. The other one is sourced, whether or not it belongs. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP has changed anyway. From a brief look into the history, it seems they've been involved in Falklands War. I took a look and found the most recent edits were from Special:Contributions/90.214.41.57 who added about 3 minutes after the last contribs from the above IP, what is either vandalism or unsourced POV pushing twice quickly self reverting both times. I rollbacked anyway as the net effect was a formatting error (space between comma and word). Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)(Struck per below)

That one doesn't appear to be him. Ip from London. All of this editors ips come out of Santiago, Chile. I typically use the "WHOIS" tab to see who I'm dealing with. -OberRanks (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies I didn't geolocate as the IP looked similar to one of the ranges the IP comes from. The other IP is back anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The last time this came to WP:ANI (less than a week ago), the IP editor promised to refrain from personal attacks and start to use the talk page. Then went straight back to revert warring and being uncivil as before. Never mind a 72 hr block, the guy was blocked for 2 weeks as User talk:190.46.108.141, then was back less than 24 hrs later. Its clear he is using IP addresses for block evasion [85] Let's see now... turn off the router... turn it on again... :), is grossly uncivil and delights in doing so [86] "I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely". Its time to consider a range block and its time to stop excusing this behaviour because the guy is upset that people disagree with him. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The situation at The Road (2009 film) is getting out of hand. The blocked ip has not only switched accounts and is editing the article under a standing block, but is on at least the 6th or 7th revert in violation of WP:3RR. Since I dont know much about the content situation there, or the policy about reverting blocked editors, I plan to make no further edits there. But, so far, we have violations of WP:NPA, WP:EVADE, and WP:3RR with no signs of stopping. -OberRanks (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

They've made it pretty clear they have no intention of ceasing the problematic behavior.[87]Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"wee curry monster", what I said is that if people stop making wantonly false accusations then there will be no problems. People like you keep on making wantonly false accusations. Ergo, we have problems.

As for you, you edit-warred on an article you had no previous interest in, just because I edited it. You reverted my edits for the sole reason that they came from an IP - "rv IP edits". You edit-warred to restore POV to Falklands War. You are, in fact, a known and sanctioned POV pusher. My simple removal of blatant bias from Falklands War triggered a major grudge from you which shows no signs of abating. You are a problem. But you're getting not just tolerated but encouraged, simply because you once filled in a form and have a username. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As the IP continuously repeats this falsehood, I will point out the sequence [88] I reverted the IP who was editing warring to restore a paragraph in which his edits had changed the meaning, in this case to imply that Prince Andrew travelled with the press pack. I then followed his contributions and noting the removal of content on Ian Gow I once reverted with the summary "rv IP edits" but thereafter resorted to my standard practise of more informative edit summaries. On Ian Gow he revert warred to remove content and when I tried to talk about the edit on the talk page he resorted to personal abuse [89] with comments like you You dopy little fuck and Cunts. On Falklands War, I had no problem with User:Antandrus edit, that addressed the issue with the change of meaning. Check the edit history of both articles or my contribution history. I offer a fuller explanation, since the IP's claim he is reverted solely because he is an IP editor is regularly accepted on face value. He was reverted as his edits were not constructive. As to claims of a "grudge", they are simply another manifestation of claiming to be persecuted to avoid the repurcussions of his actions. The guy does not contribute constructively, his conduct is destructive and if he isn't prepared to edit with the acceptable norms of wikipedia should be range blocked to prevent damage to the project. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"(I also didn't give a great deal of thought as to whether the seemingly sourced stuff when I reverted, they removed was really POV etc as they claimed..." - so you just reverted for no reason. Do you think that might be a little bit ridiculous? 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note: - I have blocked this IP for violating 8RR. --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I also reported the matter here -OberRanks (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I didn't revert for no reason. I reverted because you were a block evading user trying to force changes on an article which had been disputed having already violated 3RR (although I didn't notice that part at the time). I didn't and don't have a personal opinion on the changes, but since they are disputed, they need to be discussed not forced on the article via block evasion. The lack of any real discussion didn't help, but the block evasion even if it was for other reasons pushed it over the line. If you want others to give due thought to your edits, you need to give due respect to your fellow contributors, which you seemingly haven't to most so far so far. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW you might not have been wrong about that IP, he claims to have written International Ultraviolet Explorer using IP 90.199.34.136 whois says BSkyB in the UK. IP 90.214.41.57 on Falklands War whois also says BSkyB. We appear to be dealing with an editor using proxies rather than a dynamic IP. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an issue in and of itself. Can someone look into that?Cúchullain ^t/c 16:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I think it is without a doubt this user will return before the 3 day block expires, editing under an alternate ip address, violating yet another block using a different ip. There is no reason to think that anything is going to change. If we do have another incident, I would recommend an indef block with standing permission to revert any changes made under alternate/sock ips. Everything that has gone on adds up to a clear pattern of WP:DISRUPT. -OberRanks (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough that was the IP I saw which made me think it was them (as I checked that article to see what they were saying they contributed), although as said I didn't check the IP info. However both the above IPs seem to come from the same Chilean ISP. Have any other ISPs been seen? Presuming it is the same user, perhaps they simply have access to some computer, proxy or whatever in the UK with the Chilean IP being their normal connection (or vice versa). However I think we need more evidence before worrying about it. If there's no clear cut overlap, perhaps the user simply moved (the IUE stuff was back in August). Having a UK user vandalise the Falkland War article isn't exactly surprising, so no real evidence it's them despite the timing and similarity with a past declared IP. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism campaign?

Hi, I've been mostly inactive lately, but came across this, as a link posted by one of the anti-Wikipedia trolls over at Yahoo! Answers. I followed the (thankfully decent) reference and made the obvious fix in the short run, but as for the long run…

I went to look up when the vandalism was added, and noticed that it was added by a James470 (talk · contribs) in the original revision of the article, when most of the article text was added. Would people please take a look at his other contributions? I wish I could assume good faith, but I can't ignore the blatancy of the error involved, and there are a few other hints like this edit and summary. Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 15:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That editor didn't add the "Emperor Palpatine", it was already there, and he just seems to have overlooked it when he added more material. It was probably a misspelling/typo of "Palatine". By the way, you should have notified the editor that you're mentioning him here. I've done that for you. Voceditenore (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "already there"? The editor in question created the page. And the Palatine explanation doesn't make much sense in that context. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

His other edits seem fine to me despite his somewhat acerbic approach on talk pages at times. Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry! I didn't look far enough back in the edit history. But I still think that it might have been a typo. The connection is that Emperor Palatine was a title for the Holy Emperor. Maria Theresa was married to Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Presumably, the St. Francis Mass was in honour of his name day. Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that there was such a thing as an "Emperor Palatine". Count Palatine (Imperial) was the title for an official in the Holy Roman Emperor, not the emperor himself. However, this is of course irrelevant to the matter of this thread. It was probably an honest mistake, at least there is no evidence in the edits I looked at that James470 has done similar things in the past. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It could easily have been finger-memory. Connect the "Palatine" title with the Emperor, and the brain sends to the fingers "Palpatine". (And one wonders if that might be where Lucas got the name to start with himself!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could be wrong; I'd prefer to be! There are a few things that could be coincidences; it just smells slightly fishy to me. I'll put this down as an apophenic moment for now and revisit it later. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 02:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan

User:Off2riorob has, in the past, expressed rather strong views on who he considers to be a Jew, particularly if they are British nationals (see for example, this statement), and apparently believes "British" and "Jewish" are mutually exclusive (see, for example, this comment). I first ran into this at the Ed Miliband article, where Off2riorob was quite insistent that Miliband was not Jewish, despite Miliband's own explicit words to the contrary, and that no mention of his ethnicity should be made in his biography. He also removed Miliband from the infobox of the British Jews article.[90]

More recently this issue came up again at the British Jews article, where an editor added Daniel Radcliffe to the infobox. Off2riorob was quite insistent that Radcliffe could not be in the infobox,[91][92][93][94][95][96] despite the fact that Off2riorob was aware that Radcliffe himself had stated publicly "I'm very proud of being Jewish." Off2riorob also expressed very strange (and what many might consider offensive) views on various Talk: pages; he stated outright that Radcliffe was "not a British Jew" (indeed, that we were "falsely asserting he is a Jew"), that he was a "half Jew" at best, not a "full Jew", and insisted that we must "Get a better Jew for the infobox". As I pointed out on the Talk: page, I was rather surprised to see someone in the 21st century still applying the Mischling Test.

The issue arose again last week, when I copyedited the "Personal life" section of the Miliband article. My editing really was simply for readability and flow; I did not add any material at all, nor remove any significant material. Yet Rob reverted me, with no specific rationale other than it was a "stable version",[97] and that the WP:BRD essay gave him a "right" to do so.[98] In fact, he reverted the article six times in a span of four hours or so, continuing to revert even after being reported at AN/3RR. He claimed to "have repeatedly, to no avail requested talkpage discussion" but notably refused to initiate such a discussion himself, despite being explicitly asked on his User talk: page to do so. He also reverted under the claim that the matter was "Under discussion - on the talk page", despite there obviously being no such discussion on the Talk: page. This seems to have become a persistent behavioral pattern when the issue of Jewish ethnicity of British nationals comes up; edit-war irrationally with multiple editors while accusing them of "tag-teaming" (see e.g. [99][100][101][102][103][104][105]).

After the 6RR at the Miliband article, Off2riorob was blocked for 48 hours and "retired", but then returned as User:Youreallycan. "Retiring" an account and starting a new one (publicly connecting the two) is apparently not in and of itself a WP:SOCK violation, and his initial edits were reasonably innocuous. Today, however, he started adding information to the Ed Miliband article based on his new argument that Miliband is Jewish, and that his ethnicity is significant and should be highlighted. This is, to my mind, a clear example of WP:POINT.

I think that at this point it is no longer tenable to claim that Off2riorob is using a new account because he wants a WP:CLEANSTART. Furthermore, it appears to me that he is unable to comply with policy when it comes to the topic of Jewish ethnicity. I suggest he needs to take a break from editing regarding it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support the proposal that this editor be instructed to stay far away from issues that have a Jewish angle. His contributions in this area risk discrediting the encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DIVA much? He's been around for years, he knows how things work. Whilst he's at liberty to swap accounts like this (I'm sure he knows the policy far better than I will ever care to), this is self-centred flouncing of the worst sort. It certainly doesn't reflect well on him, the POV pushing over Jewishness doesn't either. I'm sure that any admin will see right through it in terms of neutrally applying policy to User:Youreallycan, should the issue of blocking arise again, and note that the same editor already has one block for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg and others from the I-P topic area have warred over this stuff for years, basically Who is a Jew? in terms of our usually Wikipedia-wars. No one comes here with clean hands when dealing with this topic. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is both completely unsourced, and your usual dig at me - and frankly, it's a bit tiresome. Since you're one of the "others from the I-P topic area", are you stating that you have "warred over this stuff for years" and don't "come here with clean hands"? Please try to make constructive contributions; just because I open an AN/I thread, that doesn't mean you have to come and diss me with vague accusations based on ancient disputes you've had with me. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is neither socking nor a clean start because Rob has made no secret that the accounts are linked. At a guess, he changed the old account's password to a random string when he retired and then came back because, like many here, he is a Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. He was correctly blocked for edit-warring with several editors over JayJG's copyedit, but I am not convinced that his contributions today were in bad faith.

On the content issues, the Milibands are definitely both Jewish and British. I think that Miliband is rather more than just the Labour Party's chief spokesman but rather the person who does most to set its policy and his speech to conference immediate after election did much to set that policy. The JC is a fairly reliable source on this. On the other hand, I had not really heard of Radcliffe as being Jewish.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else, comparing your opponents to Nazis invoking the Nuremburg Laws is not an effective way to de-escalate the situation. causa sui (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob has done a lot of great work in enforcing the policies about biographies of living people but is occasionally overly passionate about their views. It doesn't last long and I'm sure this issue will be resolved shortly. There are, however, a couple of subject areas that seem to provoke stronger then necessary reactions from them. This is one, LGBT issues are the other. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute: take it to the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
- It's not easy to be a neutral in the Jew and Homosexual topic areas. Miliband describes himself as a secular Jew. - one - two - the word secular is never mentioned in either citation - if anyone can find support for this recent unattributed alteration I will appreciate it. - Acording to wikipedia, Ed Miliband sees himself as a secular Jew - or attribution required. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC) "Secular" doesn't appear in the first one but he does say 'Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing'. Really, it seems like it's a good idea for us to say "secular" here since it's a faithful representation of the source that doesn't tread into copyright/close paraphrase waters. causa sui (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) "Secular" does not appear in either citation and Miliband has never stated at all that he sees himself as a secular Jew. I am not seeing anything that fairly supports us suggesting Miliband sees himself as a secular Jew - its false representation and undue weight to a single comment from a subject. Youreallycan (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC) The sentence presently reads: "Miliband describes himself as a secular Jew." Perhaps it should be changed to read: "Miliband is a Jew" or: "Miliband is Jewish." Would that represent an improvement? I see nothing wrong with the word "secular" as it is consistent with everything that sources say on the topic, but I offer my versions as alternatives. My alternate versions omit the term "secular". Bus stop (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Bus stop, this is AN/I - discussions regarding article content belong on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) AndyTheGrump—you, and User:Causa sui, and User:Youreallycan, are discussing the wording involving "secular Jew" in the Miliband article—are you not? Am I permitted to weigh in with an opinion and a suggestion? Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC) I'd have to agree with Rob/Youreallycan over this one - to state that "Miliband describes himself as a secular Jew" one would really need a direct use of those words - though of course we don't know for sure if this isn't a quote, lacking a citation. Back on topic though, it seems that Rob is either out to stir things up, or, as he admitted to me after a previous bit of shenanigans, not entirely sober. I'd not realised it was Rob when I responded on the article talk page, and had I done, I'd have probably just told him to go to bed, sleep it off, and enjoy his hangover tomorrow. That might still be the best course for now - after all, as Miliband/Jewishness-related dramas go, this is hardly of any great significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC) I think the biggest problem with using the term is that Secular Jew is a redirect to Jewish culture. Miliband identifies as Jewish, was brought up by other Jews in a non-religious background and sees no need for religion himself. This makes him a secular Jew. However some of his discussion in the ES puts in doubt if he had a Jewish upbringing in a sense that justifies the link through to Jewish culture. A second problem is that the words "describes himself as" are not referenced. We have evidence that he dscribes himself as Jewish but not in a religious sense, but not that he describes himself as a "secular Jew". --Peter cohen (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Non-practising Jew? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Given the material available in sources we would not be far off-base in writing in our article: "Miliband is Jewish but not religious." or: "Miliband is a nonobservant Jew." I think these are standard English locutions for the idea of being Jewish but not ritually observant. Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, standard English locutions seems relevant. As the recent IP address's uncited alteration, I have replaced the in the previous cited content, that said, Miliband is Jewish though not religious. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC) "secular Jew" was probably the wrong term anyway, as it refers to someone who follows aspects of Jewish culture without belief in the Jewish faith. Miliband, according to the sources, does not habitually follow Jewish culture, in addition to not having a religious belief.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Elen—I have seen no source saying that Miliband "does not habitually follow Jewish culture" nor do I recall ever seeing a definition of "secular Jew" as indicating "someone who follows aspects of Jewish culture".[106] I think the term secular Jew simply refers to someone's being Jewish but not observant of ritual as it pertains to Judaism. Sorry to be a stickler over terms but terms are what all of these arguments seem to be 100% about. I think the term "secular" was fine in the sentence that Bbb23 put into the article in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Ah now, I say this because I read something at the weekend which led me to say that. Let me see if I can find the reference. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - if there are strong objections to my editing as User:Youreallycan then I will return back to my previous account - right now I am still undecided as to moving forward my what or not contribution position may be. I might decide to rename or to totally stop contributing or to do something else - clearly I have recently been questioning or confused as to if or not or where I want to be contributing to the project but Off2riorob is an account in good standing and I would object to any unwarranted restriction of that account. Youreallycan (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

On moderate inspection...

I do not personally see any violation of the sockpuppetry policy. No attempt to disguise, no good hand bad hand, no skating away from sanctions on one, etc.

I see why people are concerned about your behavior (independent of account status or use) but I think that any discussion of that should be removed from any account-related stuff. As long as you continue to operate within the established account use policy that's not an issue. It may confuse people a bit, but you aren't evidently doing that on purpose. I think the question was raised in good faith, but I'd support putting that part to bed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my experience with Off2riorob on Boris Berezovsky is very similar. It appears that bbb23 and Off2riorob may act in tandem, and their actions on that and other articles relating that BLP were absolutely disruptive. Editors (me) wishing to insert information from scholarly sources relating to the BLP were reverted without question, and I was hounded by Off2riorob[107][108], which ultimately led to him being warned about trolling and harrassment by an admin[109][110]. I can't remember if he was warned about following of my edits, and acting in an overtly battled way. For example, referring to a request to a WikiProject as disruptive, as well as claimed that my report of bbb23 for edit warring was disruptive, and tried to portray my posting to the Russia and Biography WikiProjects, as well as to BLPN, and starting an RFC, as being disruptive, when in fact it is what is suggested editors do when there is a dispute. He obviously also tried to poison the well, by bringing up a 3 year old block of myself as evidence that I was acting in a most disruptive way. Of course, this was occurring after an editor was banned for actually being disruptive on the Berezovsky article, and whilst User:Kolokol1 (with an admitted WP:COI) was whitewashing the Berezovsky article in the lead-up to the court case which saw Berezovsky sue Roman Abramovich. His editing on this BLP showed a complete lack of good faith, and now that I refer back to this discussion, bbb23 was basically insinuating that other editors were adding anti-Semitic information to the article, when that was not so much the case at all, it appears that the 25% expansion on the article done by the now-banned editor was justified by off2riorob and bbb23 based entirely on the "Jewish" angle, and tried to pull the "anti-semitic" card in doing so. Given other information in this thread, some things now make sense to me, but whether it is a wider problem, well that is for others to determine. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You again and your unfounded accusations. Despite peppering your comments with links, you can't back up just about anything you say, particularly your comment that I "insinuat[ed] that other editors were adding anti-Semitic information to the article". What a crock, and it's offensive. See WP:NPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have re-read the thread in question, and it MAY appear that you were talking about the allegedly anti-semitic remarks of Klebnikov. If that IS the case, I will retract that part and apologise. But the rest stands. You and Off2riorob acted in a most disruptive way in that article, tried to assert COMPLETE AND TOTAL ownership over the article, whereby every single edit had to pass your pre-approval, as if you were both some self-appointed article vetters. If this occurs on other articles within this topic area, then I would suggest that Off2riorob either learn to act collaboratively, and don't troll and harrass other editors like he was doing. If this was a one off-case, then it may be excused, (not by me however), but if this occurs time and time again, then perhaps that is something that needs to be looked at. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Again - all this colloquy shows is that labelling anyone as a particular religion or ethnicity is a major and ongoing problem in the area of biography on Wikipedia in general. All of the rest of the discussion above simply strengthens this particular opinion. And seeking to go against any editor for holding such an opinion is absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, except that in this case, both Miliband and Radcliffe label themselves as Jews. But that's all beside the point. It's not Rob's opinions that are the issue, it is the fact that he acts on them in violation of policy. The issue here is his behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect—I fail to understand. Are you saying that when reliable sources say that Miliband is Jewish, that does not become information that we can pass along to the reader? Why wouldn't that become includable information in a biography on Miliband? Mind you I am not talking about a biography in which reliable sources are in conflict with one another about this. Obviously it is more complex if one good good quality source says that he is Jewish and another good quality source says that he is not Jewish. But what if all sources (that address that point) are in agreement that Miliband is Jewish? Would you still maintain that such material is not proper for inclusion in a biography of Miliband? If that is what you are saying I quite frankly don't understand it. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue at hand: the point of this section is not to discuss exactly how any individual should be labelled, or even Rob's use of two accounts, but rather to address the rather obvious behavioral issue - when it comes to the issue of Jewish ethnicity, Off2riorob does not appear to be able to abide by policy, whether it is WP:3RR or WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there any examples of him breaking WP:3RR aside from the time that he got blocked for doing it on Miliband? WP:POINT is only ever blocked for when it becomes disruptive, is he doing something that is impeding others from building Wikipedia apart from his having honest content disagreements on talk pages with arguments you believe are not in line with policy?AerobicFox (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yog(h)urt

At Talk:Yoghurt there is a very long running discussion about what the title of the article should be. Having failed to achieve anything a few weeks ago when invited to the discussion by RFCbot, I went away again (as I really don't care one way or the other). I looked back to see if any progress has been made, only to see some gross incivility from several parties following on from an anon comment (that may or may not have been trolling). I've hatted the entire section [111], but having been previously involved (and having been accused of bias towards one side on the basis of my nationality) I don't want to get into it any further.

Completely uninvolved admins would do well to at least keep an eye on the page if nothing else. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Having read through that discussion... It's entirely unfunny how a single letter can generate such lengthy and acrimonious discussion. Do they really not have anything better to do :S --Errant ^(chat!) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR and leave it the heck alone :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as that! About the only thing they agree on is that there are no national ties, so the relevant provision of ENGVAR is what title the article was established at. What they can't agree on is which title that is - it was started at "Yogurt" but has been at "Yoghurt" far longer, they do not agree on the relative importance of these facts, whether it is now "established" at "Yoghurt", whether it is (or has been) "stable" at the present title (whether move protection, reverted moves, and/or move discussions have any relevance to whether it is "stable"), or just about anything else. Except possibly that it vitally important for it to be at the right title. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would in fact be why I walked away quite some time ago, almost entirely due to Born2Cycle's atrocious behaviour. The page remained on my watchlist, I saw the trolling, I removed it. And was promptly attacked by Born2Cycle for my troubles. His behaviour really has gone overboard. → ROUX ₪ 21:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

True, B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Has any of the editors discussing Born2Cycle notified that editor that they are being discussed here? If not, please do. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the discussion is not an editor; if you wish to discuss an editor, please open a section with an appropriate title. Uniplex (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • They hadn't, I have now done so [112]. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, this is a very long-running argument that has long been enshrined among the lamest edit wars ever. Not that that excuses anybody's current behavior, but I thought I'd add some historical perspective. Carry on... Zeng8r (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and this pathetically long history is summarized here: Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle statement

I deny engaging in any behavior coming close to being "atrocious", or attacking anyone, and submit no evidence to the contrary has been submitted, or exists. I admit to reverting and criticizing the removal of one user's harmless comment by a second user in a situation where the harmless comment is evidence that happens to support a view opposite of the position taken by the second user.

I also find Bwilkin's comment above -- "B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist." -- to be a personal attack on me, and completely unfounded. I request that Bwilkins refrain from commenting on what he believes others do or do not believe.

I also note the observation that editors who are genuinely not interested in an issue tend to stop paying attention to it. In general, if someone really doesn't care if an article is at X or Y, he normally does not participate in an RM discussion about whether the article should be at X or Y. In particular, if someone really didn't care if this article is at Yogurt or Yoghurt, he wouldn't participate in RM discussions about whether the article should be at Yogurt or Yoghurt. To participate in such a discussion, and then deride others for participating because "it shouldn't matter" is disingenuous at best.

For the record, I do care about resolving the very long conflict over this article's title. This issue has been debated for eight years now. The article was originally at Yogurt, but then it was surreptitiously moved to Yoghurt about a year later, on Christmas Day. There was an obscure notice about it hidden inside a comment, but no discussion. Within a few months the objections started, and there has never been consensus support for Yoghurt, despite eight years, eight formal RM discussions, and countless informal discussions. I'm sure it seems like a silly issue to many, but the fact is that dozens and dozens of editors have cared and have participated in these discussions over the years, and there has never been a resolution. I sincerely believe that once an admin moves the article back to Yogurt, per WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN (which is designed specifically for a situation such as this - when all else fails return to the variety of English of the first non-stub version), the issue will finally be resolved. I find it ironic that the only obvious solution is the only one that has not been tried, and ferociously opposed by those who claim this is a silly unimportant issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As the admin who closed the last RM discussion, and got nothing but endless grief from you, I can confirm your behaviour about this matter is very much churlish, childish and uncollegiate. fish&karate 23:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

B2C; over time I have come to the realisation that it really does not matter one jot whether article such as these are at one spelling or another (assuming redirects are in place). If there has been 8 years argument over a single letter I have to ask the honest question; who the hell wastes their time arguing about it? (Also; FWIW the point of RETAIN is meant to be to stop protracted arguments without a clear "right answer" - obviously it failed in this task.. so perhaps a relevant policy might be LEAVEASIS :)) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Errant, like I said, dozens have participated (BTW, I didn't start even one of the eight yoghurt->yogurt RM proposals - all of which have been decided as "no consensus", and I don't believe there is any person who started any two of them), so it is obviously important to very many, on both sides. We can't say RESTORE_ORIGINAL_TITLE has failed since it has not even been tried. We can say LEAVEASIS has failed because that has been tried, for eight years, and has clearly failed. I suggest LEAVEASIS fails in cases like this - where the article was moved from its original title for no good reason because those who favor the original title have reasonable objections that will only disappear when the original title is restored.

As a comparison, I should note that the similar Iodised salt (though the history of its title is not as long or as contentious) has stabilized now that is back to its original title, and that title was moved from it's original title through a legitimate/formal RM discussion that achieved unanimous consensus in favor of moving among those participating. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

f&k, I apologize for seeming to have been churlish, but I was quite frustrated with your closing and reluctance to explain it. It took you a week before you finally began to provide an explanation, and that only after several editors, including at least one other admin, made requests for you to do so, and you never did respond to my follow-up comment [113]. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Edits by re-curring problematic editor La_goutte_de_pluie

LGDP is apparently back at her old behaviour of re-wording articles to fit her personal opinions. The latest example now is her changes to the text of the article to remove the word "greater" from Tan's tenure at GIC coincided with significant moves towards greater transparency in the investment fund’s activities because, in her own words Temasek was never really transparent to begin with[[114]], and the previous source used transparency, not "greater transparency"[[115]]. That despite the obvious fact that the title of the said source itself is "Singapore sovereign wealth fund promises 'greater' transparency". This ex-admin/editor has had serious brushes with the rest of the community here, even involving Jimbo Wales himself, close to 3 months back regarding her questionable edit behaviour that dragged on from multiple ANIs[[116]]to RFC [[117]] and the enforced break has apparently not dampened her past "enthusism". Zhanzhao (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to fix the rather poor acronym you created that's not even related to their name, and makes it a very different meeting ... very uncivil. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was 6am over here, I just woke up and was typing without my specs. Sincerely really a careless mistake ((fingers were on autocruise.... her name isn't rally easy to remember, will stick to Elle from now on). (Tiptoes back to recent contribution list to see where else I messed up:P) Zhanzhao (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

She is in Category:LGBT Wikipedians so it may be a subliminal accident. causa sui (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Plus she just violated the "only 1 edit per 24 hours" rule that was created for Vivian Balakrishnan [118] which was set up as a result of previous arbitration efforts with her.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, the rule is only 1 revert per 24 hours, which I have not broken. "move towards transparency" was the original long-standing wording, and I never even wrote that part. I have no real interest in the current affair, only to keep it free of COI. Furthermore, "greater" is meaningless without comparison. Are we really arguing over one word? I am concerned about corporate whitewashing, that's all. (I am currently dealing with it over at Range Resources). That's all I seek to oppose. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The 1 revert per 24 hr rule you broke was on the Vivian Balakrishnan page. You were erronously referencing the Tony Tan page I believe. As for the use of the word "greater", if you look at the rest of the sentence, the point of comparison/reference is the timeframe of the subject's entrance as a point of reference before/after. If it were any other editor I may have ignored it, but based on your past edit history, Elle, you have a tendency to downplay actions or emphasize critiques particularly of the certain politicians whose article you edit, which makes it really hard to AFG your edits. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Umm, what? I only made 1 revert in each case. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment on the edit: the quotation marks around 'greater' in the original source would seem to indicate that the source is reporting what they said, but doing so ironically. That would support elle's edit. I think the best thing to do is to leave the adjective out of the article, but the title will be there in the reference. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The quotation marks did not exist in the original source, I only added them in the text above to draw attention to the word that was being removed. This is easily verifieable by hitting the original source here [[119]]. This render's the implied irony a non-issue, as well as invalidates Elle's reason for removing it. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A free version of the article is available here. [120] In fact, I feel like deleting the reference entirely, since I realise it's OR. There's very little mention of Tony Tan Keng Yam's role in guiding Temasek towards transparency in that article. The source reads, "Singapore's Government Investment Corporation has promised greater disclosure about its activities, amid mounting concerns about the secretive fund's influence after high-profile investments in UBS and Citigroup." However, "greater" is subjective. Greater from what? It was secretive to begin with. Why are you so insistent to call me out over removing what I saw as a very subjective adjective? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

However subjective you claim the wording to be, it was still the wording as used in the original source, by a reliable publication; not just that, the title of the whole article. By removing that word, you are attempting to weasel it away from the original intemt of the writing. As you quaintly put it in your reason for its removal, you are of the opinion that there was no transparency to begin with, which means you have your own personal take on the matter. The best you can do is quote that FT called it as such, hence attributing the exact wording to them. Rather than try to change the meaning of source by rewording it as you have done. In this situation, the onus is on you to explain why you are deviating from the source, rather than pushing the responsibility of reverting a change to someone to is merely using the exact wording as per the source. Its fairly ridiculous really. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User wants to share private contact info of a celebrity

AlexisC.NPMS (talk · contribs) claims to have the real phone number for Hunter Parrish and wants to share it. Notifying here since it seems the most appropriate board. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 00:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As an emergency measure, I've indef blocked the user and revoked Talk page access to prevent their revealing the information -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

IP "Sock-puppet" and vandal

An anonymous user at 174.117.71.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked at 02:23, 30 November 2011 for persistent vandalism on a large number of articles (second block). At 15:51, 30 November 2011 an anonymous user at 38.116.202.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited Passive voice, adding the same words that 174.117.71.185 had added 13 hours earlier. 38.116.202.13 has likewise been previously blocked, and had been warned a half-dozen or so times in the past two weeks about persistent vandalism. I am not sure if these are the same person – many of the vandalized pages are different, but at least Passive voice is the same. If they are not the same person, 38.116.202.13 must have consulted the page history of Passive voice and known that his/her edits were tantamount to edit warring. 38.116.202.13 last edited more than 10 hours ago, so I am not sure what, if any, action is warranted, but wanted to bring the incident to your notice. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, they have more in common: compare this with this. Will block. Cnilep, if that passive voice nonsense continues, please visit WP:RPP and ask for semi-protection. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sam Moser acting in contravention of community ban

69.135.200.184 (talk · contribs) posted in one of Sam Moser's old threads, using the same train of illogic (granted to prove the opposite point, but for the same reasons). The IP address is located in Dayton, Ohio; which as can be seen by checking this other IP used by Sam, is where he lives.

Sam Moser was community banned for all kinds of crazy and harassment. Time for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• That seems pretty clear. I've blocked for a week. Let's see if he comes back with his all kinds of crazy. If other admins think that this IP might be static enough to warrant a longer block they are welcome to extend it. One of my buddies lives in Dayton and this might be him; I'm going to tell him he needs to get a job and stop posting nonsense. Thanks Ian, Drmies (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Threat of legal action

Resolved

 – User talk:Ostreicher has been blocked.

The user User talk:Ostreicher has issued a threat of legal action in Talk:Dead by Dawn (YouTube Movie). reddogsix (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User has been blocked. reddogsix (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Indef'd. Not a very credible threat (I don't think a lot of lawyers are willing to "sue this crap out of this wikipedia"), but combined with the recreation and attempt to remove the deletion tag, this doesn't look promising. Any other admin is welcome to unblock Ostreicher so long as xe retracts the legal threat, however, you may want to consider that the editor claims on the talk page to be the same person as the producer of this alleged forthcoming film, so some counseling might be needed there, too. I'll let someone else handle the speedy deletion for formality sake. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone with time trying to explain it to him might be productive and a kind thing to do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Adarsh9896

Why were my, and another User's, comments deleted from the edit history of User talk:Adarsh9896? The edits themselves were not removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears something was oversighted. You'll have to ask an oversighter why. --Jayron32 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)