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

Not again..

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.

Interaction ban enacted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Frankly I am just sick to death of having to put up with this user's hostility so I'll just report this right away. User:Timbouctou (even after being warned and blocked for a week for exactly that sort of behavior) once again arrived on a perfectly amiable discussion between myself and a third user and immediately started intensely revert-warring, threatening [1], and insulting my intelligence by implying I do not know my own language ("perhaps your Croatian might not be perfect" [2], he of course knows full well I am a Croat). I mean this sort of stuff just ruins the discussion right then and there and you know there is no chance of an amicable agreement from that point on, its one-post instant disruption.

When I asked him to stop, he just replied with "yeah yeah, spare the usual rants". Bearing in mind the two previous ANI reports about this user's flaming [3][4], and my previous experience with him, I don't even want to wait for this to escalate to the point where I'm called a "psychopath". It seems the user "got over" his block and its just business as usual all over again. I honestly feel this person's "out to get me", attempting to provoke me into another one of his conflicts to then try and get me blocked in retaliation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in commenting your distortions and rants. The matter is explained quite clearly at Talk:Zoran Milanović#Atheism and I would have reported you here for editing against consensus and violating WP:3RR anyway ([5], [6], [7], [8]). And all this in the very same article where you had violated WP:3RR and started an entire drama involving half a dozen editors over which image should be used in the infobox ([9], [10], [11]) two months earlier (and were even accused of harassment over it by the image uploader, twice). Looks like getting blocked eight times for edit-warring did not do the trick. Hopefully a ninth one might send the message more clearly. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rants", right.. As I said twice before, Timbouctou only ever tries to attack me in response to being reported himself, trying to prove I really do deserve his treatment. This has happened time and time again, and here as well, a discussion is a "drama I started", some new user's uninformed accusation of "harassment" is brought out, as well as everything I might have done over six years on Wikipedia. (As far as I can see, those four edits took place over the course of several days. And while I am sure Timbouctou would not mind to get himself blocked as well only to get me blocked for a longer period, I will point out he neglects to mention he reverted three times [12] [13] [14].) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, DIREKTOR's first three reverts occurred at 13:23, Jan 3, 18:24, Jan 4 and 21:35 Jan 4. Following the third one I reverted warning him that he had no source for his insertion and that he would be reported for edit-warring if he continues. He then simply reverted again on 05:21, Jan 5. And as has been pointed out in the thread at article talk page by User:GregorB and then by me, DIREKTOR's insertion about the politician's beliefs is unsupported by the source provided. DIREKTOR hasn't got a source and he hasn't got consensus. His modus operandi consists of writing up essays on the nature of atheism, and then, not wasting time to wait for a reply, reverting the article back, citing "per talk" in the diff description. I guess that is his idea of a "perfectly amiable discussion". Timbouctou (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake. This type of WP:HOUNDING and poor interaction between DIREKTOR and Timbouctou has already been going on for a very long time, and we need somebody to stop this current useless conversation. They have both been involved in several bad situations and now they going out harrassing one another once again. How unnecessary. Minima© (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake. This is not a case of WP:HOUNDING at all. User:DIREKTOR has problems with pretty much anyone editing any article he is involved in because of his editing practices and regularly gets into conflicts all over the place. I believe User:Nuujinn is currently drafting a RFC/U about his behaviour. User:Joy also had something to say about his "amiable discussions" last time DIREKTOR dragged me here in mid-December, but was ignored. User:Fainites had topic-banned him back in April but it seems it didn't work because Fainites' assessment of his behaviour is true today as it was back then. Timbouctou (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Minima. Excuse me, but I do not think the harassment can possibly be characterized as mutual. I believe you'll find I've been going well out of my way to avoid having any contact with Timbouctou whatsoever. I do not find him pleasant company. On the other hand here's another recent example (in addition to the previous ones listed in past discussions) where I am having a normal amicable discussion with others only to have Timbouctou arrive to oppose me. Its like a weird reverse of "if you have nothing good to say say nothing at all": he basically "reviews" what I do, and if he feels my reign of terror needs to be curbed, he joins in to oppose my position, and, often enough, to attack me. If I'm not seeing Timbouctou appear in a discussion, its likely because he can't think of a way to oppose me.

As I said in the previous two discussions [15], and even after being told by others to focus on his own actions, all this user does is try to paint me as a menace and a troublemaker whenever he is reported. This is my perception, but I see this not only as irrelevant in justifying his actions (along the lines of "he deserves it"), but as personal attacks. And yet again in this thread as well, he's justifying his harassment - with more harassment here on ANI. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To be quite fair, DIREKTOR is not only edit warring with Timbouctou, but also with GregorB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And in terms of edit warring, it seems to me that DIREKTOR's hands are less clean, with as many reverts as he has (not that Timbouctou is at all guiltless). I'd be inclined to block DIREKTOR over this, especially given his already extensive block log, but would also consider a block of Timbouctou, since he's also got a history of this offence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And to be even fairer, I am, as usual, only restoring the status quo. Gregor was bold, I reverted him and we had a standard, amicable discussion on the talkpage. Then Timbouctou arrives and we basically end up here. My problem is that I carefully avoid edit-warring to push new edits (per WP:BRD I discuss when my new edit is reverted), and so I can't stand it when people try to push new edits through edit-warring. "Force over reason" is how I perceive it. My block log is extensive because I edited a lot less appropriately years and years ago (when I was really just a kid :)). My point is, why block anyone over edit-warring? The edit-war is over, WP:3RR has not been violated, and to do so is just punitive.

Also, as I said, I strongly believe it was (and is) Timbouctou's intention to provoke edit-wars and then report me with my longer (ancient) block log, banking on me getting a much longer block. I mean the guy dislikes me that much. Its likely his idea of "retaliation" for being blocked for a week after a string of personal attacks, and that strategy appeals to his perception of me as a "troublemaker" ("you're a menace and now you'll pay for it"). It wouldn't be the first time either. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The status quo enjoys no protected status at Wikipedia, for the simple reason that the status quo sometimes contains factual errors, POV etc. Therefore such reverts have no exemption. And as for your block log being ancient, I wouldn't call 8 October 2011 ancient by anyone's definition. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's a partial response isn't it? :) No, the most recent one isn't of course. Look I'm not saying I am blameless with regard to the tiny edit-war (and its about as tiny as they get), I'm saying that 3RR was not really violated by either party, that its over, and that it would be punitive to block anyone. But I'll say it once more: this is Timbouctou switching the subject away from himself over to the user he is harassing (as he does every time, edit war or no edit war). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocking both of you to stop you both from engaging in your silly bickering war would be certainly not qualify as punitive, it would be palliative.--Adam in MO Talk 09:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, except that it's already stopped.. Sigh. If you guys want to block, fine, block me for posting four reverts, not over 24 hours, but since January 3. But what annoys me is how this thread has departed off topic, and how my behavior is being equated with that of Timbouctou - which indicates a lack of understanding of the wider context. Is anyone reading through the two older cases? This is not a "silly", minor issue, at least not where I'm standing. I posted this to report a continuation of the same behavior that Timbouctou was warned for, and then blocked for a week [16][17]. This user won't leave me alone, I'm asking for help and a review of the user's behavior, and all anyone can do is focus on the four reverts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If by "it's already stopped" you mean you won't revert that most recent edit, sure, I won't block. Are you indeed saying you won't? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah. Didn't I stop edit-warring and post this thread? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• How many times has one of these chaps dragged the other to ANI? Isn't it time for an interaction ban? Whenever they bump into each other things start exploding. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Basalisk: I never dragged anyone to ANI in my 6+ years here. On the other hand, DIREKTOR is what some call "a visitor" at ANI. I was never reported for anything by anyone other than him and all my previous three blocks came after interactions with him. On the other hand he seems to have a problem with someone somewhere on at least a weekly basis. All I ask is for him to accept consensus and stop owning articles. That is pretty much it. But it seems too much for him. Dozens of people asked him to stop it over the past two years to no avail. In the end it is always him who reports others because he considers ANI to be an editing tool. Once here, he gets a short block at most or a millionth warning to play nice and everything is back to business after that. I find it astonishing how a guy who chased away so many people from this project still manages to get so much sympathy around here by gaming the system. Timbouctou (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't have a lot of sympathy for either of you; I rarely remember all the details of ANI discussions from weeks and months previous, but I remember your names cropping up many times in the past and therefore feel that when the two of you together it causes nothing but trouble. I know you're not the only person to have had a problem with Direktor, but I'm just making the suggestion that you will, naturally, have less trouble with him if you just avoid him. What do you think? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

...all that being said, direktor has got to stop attributing religious beliefs to BLPs when he has absolutely no sources to back up the claims. He seems to have a compulsion of going around tagging BLPs as atheists, regardless of what sources actually say. I also suggest that the use of non-English sources is unhelpful when used in relation to a highly-contentious issue. This is the en-WP after all. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Basilisk: Everybody knows that he owns a few dozen articles and normal editors avoid them like the plague by default. That is the status quo, that is, most people avoid him already. The line where he gets intolerable is when he appears in articles which are actually edited by other people and goes against consensus and/or bites newcomers. Notice that in this particular instance I reacted only after he chose to ignore disagreement expressed by User:GregoB, a long-time user in perfectly good standing. I know that GregorB would have probably just walked away not wanting to waste time on DIREKTOR, but I don't think we content editors need to put up with it any longer. I don't enjoy being dragged over here every now and then, but to be honest I'm sick of everybody editing Croatia-related articles just shrugging it off and accepting it as fact of life. But I see what you meant - I do not have any intention of following him around and my interests are wider than his so there are areas where I can be useful without bumping into him. Of course I can do that and my life would be a whole lot easier. But I doubt it would solve the problem long-term. Timbouctou (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Direktor blocked I've blocked Direktor for 1 week. Direktor knows what the WP:3RR is and stopping at exactly 3 reverts is not a change in his behavior, it's trying to game the system to avoid a block. Escalating the block to 1 week per previous blocks will be a deterrent to future edit warring. The issue isn't just a WP:3RR issue but also a WP:BLP issue. In this case, I think User:Timbouctou is exempted from WP:3RR because of the BLP issue of whether or not to label a living person as a specific belief or non-belief. --v/r - TP 14:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for temporarily unblocking me TParis. I appreciate it, and will not edit anything other than ANI.

Regarding my block, I won't challenge it, even though I feel like a week-long sanction might be somewhat excessive for 4 reverts/3 days, but once again, in all objectivity, I feel like the matter was not treated fairly. I'm not going to discuss the issue here, but, as I pointed out on my talkpage, the WP:BLP exemption does not apply to User:Timbouctou any more than it applies to myself, and I believe the opposite is a mistaken assumption. WP:BLP would apply, for example, if I was adding unsourced information and Timbouctou was removing it, while this dispute (and this is evident from the relevant thread) concerns precisely whether the information was directly sourced or not. We even went into the dictionaries. Timbouctou challenges this, but from my point of view, Timbouctou was removing directly supported, sourced information and I was restoring it.

To say WP:BLP apllies to him especially is to "rule" in his favor in the dispute about what the source supports ("yes Timbouctou, the disputed content was not sourced as you said and you were right in removing it, so now you don't get blocked for a week"). And that is anything but fair in any context, and especially considering the discussion and a review of the sources was cut short. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban

User:DIREKTOR and User:Timbouctou should be banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI reports about each other for 6 months except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban.--v/r - TP 14:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Support as proposer.--v/r - TP 14:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – always trouble; iBan will help both to move on to more constructive editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basalisk (talk • contribs)

Comment I agree with everything except the "replying to each other in any discussion" bit. Can that be dropped? (Btw I had to correct TP's post above - it's User:DIREKTOR, not User:Direktor) Timbouctou (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I lurk around ANI every now and then and have noticed these two butting heads a lot, regardless of who started it or who did what to whom. I heartily support an interaction ban. Timbuctou, dropping the "replying to each other in any discussion" bit as you put it rather renders an "interaction" ban pointless, don't you think? Blackmane (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if everything else was kept it would still be an interaction ban since we'd be banned from undoing each other's edits. But if it comes with the standard package I'm fine with it. Timbouctou (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Appears to be the logical next step. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that a variation of Timbouctou's amendment makes sense. An interaction ban, with the very specific exception of discussing article content on an article talk pages, would enable third parties to more easily ascertain whether an edit to an article is good or bad, where one makes an edit and the other disagrees with it. If it doesn't work, the exemption is easily removed. —WFC— 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Setting the edit-war aside, I would like to ask the question whether it is fair that, in addition to being the only one who is blocked, I am also now to be forced to restrict my edits? The tendency on WP:ANI is always to "equate the guilt", as it were. And its a strong tendency, because I have to point out again: the harassment is not mutual, and I challenge anyone to show otherwise. I don't WP:STALK Timbouctou around, its vice versa.

To be perfectly blunt, what I am saying is: why should I have to stay away from Timbouctou? I don't hate him like he despises me, I tried my absolute best to have us reconciled five separate times (5:0 as far as that's concerned), but he just plain thinks I'm some sort of "menace" he's called-upon to protect Wikipedia from. You saw above he doesn't even like the fact that I use capital letters in my username (likely the font annoys him as well to no end).

This thread is about just the latest manifestation of a long-time pattern of harassment ("perhaps you don't know your own language?"). How does it make sense that my editing should now be in any way restricted thanks to this harassment? I avoid the user like the plague anyway, to be sure, but why should I, for example, be sanctioned if I happen to respond politely and appropriately to something he writes? I'm not the one harassing him - its the other way around. Please put yourself in my shoes for a moment: you get harassed for months, the user harassing you is warned and blocked, continues to harass you - and now you're supposed to restrict your activities on the project because of this guy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an interaction ban, not an interaction blame. It's in everyone's interests, yours included, if this particular bear doesn't get poked. Maybe the cause of that is that this particular bear is especially growly, but it's still a reasonable restriction that you should stop poking it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, for the love of god, yes. Swarm ^X 20:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It seems hardly a week goes by without a report here concerning at least one of these two, and usually both - and there really are more important things for people to be doing than constantly dragging them apart -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Discussion between these two does not work; ever. This means the attempted amendment is a farce - the time for polite discussion is long past. As such, the only way to protect this project from the massive timesink is to implement a full-bore interaction ban ASAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm sure we are all quite tired of scrolling past this stuff every time we come to AN/I. They clearly just do not work well together and everyone will be better off if they can just steer clear. causa sui (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I can't remember a time when there hasn't been an active thread involving some conflict Direktor has been involved in. This would be a good start. --Jayron32 01:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. However i don't get, with all due respect, why here on en.wiki (i write mainly on it.wiki) you allow such a recedive editor to continue editing on the encyclopedia. How many times one has to be blocked for the same things before being undefinitely banned? DIREKTOR has been blocked 10 times and restriced many times. And surely Timbouctou behaviour is problematic too and needs, in my opinion, a temporary ban. Being too fair lead the same things happeing times and times again... AndreaFox (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, and tolerating Timbouctou's stalking and harassment has led to it "happeing times and times again". AndreaFox, forgive me for asking, but what are you doing here? Yes I know you would absolutely love to have me indeffed or something, I'm sure, but isn't this survey supposed to be for admins? And aren't you the guy with whom I've had a few disputes over Italian/Yugoslav issues? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
    • First, i suggested blocking Timbouctou too ("needs, in my opinion, a temporary ban"). Second, it doesn't seem so to me (Basalisk and Blackmane aren't admins from what I see). Third and last, yes, 2 whole years ago i wrote on one article (and it was the one on Yugoslavian dictator Tito, so I don' get why you talk about "Italian/Yugoslav issues") on which you wrote too (but after that we never meet each other again and, as anyone can see by my contributions, I mainly edit on wrestling articles, so you're wrong) and there were the same problems that have emerged here and partially emerge again from your last comment (presumpion of bad faith, constant attemp to misrapresentate situations by changing the subject form you to other editors'supposed problems, edit warring, personal attacks and so on). So i can see you are engaging again in the same behaviour that has been stigmatised so many times (read the comment above mine, which is from an admin, because it is expressive of the situation). And I'm questioning if it is usefull to close eyes again on your behaviour after 10 blocks and countless ANI or if it is more appropriate to try and solve this problems you cause permanently. AndreaFox (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, if you look at the introduction at the top of the page, it says "any editor may post here". Sometimes there are non-admins who have helpful suggestions too. Such as, IMHO, this ban, which was suggested by me. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Break it up, you two. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. BLP violations are not solved by interaction bans. If the draft RfC/U on DIREKTOR does not have the desired effect, kick the whole thing up to ArbCom. They signed up to solve complicated situations like this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The latest issue has accusations of BLP violations flying around, but the longer term situation between these two goes way, way beyond this latest incident. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Both editors have been blocked together on three separate occasions where they have been involved. It's quite clear that these two editors can't seem to work together very well. Minima© (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal

I believe a requested move (RM) discussion for John VI of Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that was still active was prematurely closed. The discussion was still active, and there were multiple replies going on the same day when an administrator (User:The ed17) abruptly closed and moved the page. I appealed to the closer for reversal, but to no avail (unfortunately, I was not very polite in the heat of that shock, but others should not have to pay for my thoughtlessness).

I would like to request an uninvolved administrator to reopen the discussion and reverse the premature move.

• Talk page shows the continued how active the disussion still is Talk:João VI of Portugal
• Talk page of the closer User talk:The ed17#João VI, with reactions to the closing.

This page has been subjected to the same requested move before (including earlier this year earlier RM), and the decision consistently has been to leave the page at the same stable, long-standing title. Although this renewed RM had fewer participatants, discussion still proceeded and strong opposition was expressed. But an administrator stepped in, interpreted it as "consensus", closed it and moved it, while active discussion was still going on (there were many replies on that same day).

Immediate disatisfaction with the change is evident on the talk page, and the discussion is obviously still active. You might also notice that this name change implicates other similarly-titled pages (John I, John II, John III, etc.), and the controversial move immediately resulted in a brief spate of move-warring across other pages. Clearly, this needs more discussion. The move was premature and should be reversed back to the stable, long-standing title it had before the move and discussion re-opened.

Walrasiad (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As I see, the requested move was opened 03:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC). Requested moves can be closed any time after full listing period (also seven days). Thus the close of this requested move wasn't premature. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There was Christmas lull. Discussion was very active again. There were seventeen (!) posts on the topic the very day it was closed. Indeed, I found abruptly closed while still in the course of composing a reply. Walrasiad (talk)

There was little chance of the consensus changing when only people who had already participated were arguing, in my view. There was no later move-warring, just typical WP:BRD. My view is that an RfC needs to be raised to decide what name the articles should be under. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you're saying. People were in active discussion. If you admit consensus wasn't changing, then the page should have not been moved but left in its current state. I hate to bring this up here, but it has also been brought to my attention that you recently sought out the assistance of one of the more active participants in this debate on an unrelated matter (collaborating on each other's Featured Articles). While I am certain your closure was not elicited nor done as a favor, I can't help but wonder if your judgment of "consensus" was not inadvertently affected by your close familiarity with one of the more vocal editors for the move. Again, I mean no disrespect, and I am sure you endeavored to be fair, but we are all human and judgment is imperfect. It would put my mind at rest if another less-involved administrator at least looked at this RM closure with a fresh impartial set of eyes, and decided whether or not "consensus to move" had been reached and the closure and move warranted. I am all for opening RfC to the wider community and resolving this matter, but I think it fair that the page be first restored to prior state, so that people coming to comment are clearly aware what the long-standing, stable status of the article has been, and where the burden of proof lies. Walrasiad (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If I felt my judgement was compromised, I wouldn't have closed it. I remain firmly convinced that my assessment of the consensus was correct. I'm going to back away, let this ANI run its course (read: let neutral editors weigh in), and then let's all open an RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

They should be in english, for english readers to understand. Afterall, English Wikipedia is for english readers. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All the supporters of this diastrous name change should be investigated for canvassing and/or other non-ethical behavior. Looks pretty much like a group action to pollute the language intentionally. Very destructive consensus in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

C'est la vie. Alarbus (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I think João is more appropriate, since that seems to be favoured by sources (both anglophone and lusophone). I would remind GoodDay that although this is the "English Wikipedia", it covers foreign subjects too. Including, in this case, a Portuguese monarch. One of the perils of having articles on Portuguese people is that we may sometimes have to use Portuguese names; accuracy is pretty important in an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is xenophobia allowed on Wikipedia? Some of the remarks here and at João VI of Portugal's talk page are way out of line. --Lecen (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Xenophobia? Once again with the grotesque low personal attacks? No one's made nationality an issue except you Lecen. Walrasiad (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

When will we 'english only' speakers, get our language Wikipedia back? Heck help us, if a movement begins, to change the Japanese monarch articles to Japanese. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good close, good move. The unhappy parties seem intent on misnaming anything "foreign". Bad businesses. Alarbus (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As the closer suggested, the obvious course is a rfc on the use of the name. RMs have limited participation, and are subject to distortion by a small number of people who feel the same way on something. In this case, the issue is broad enough that others might be interested. The cure for limited attention is wider attention. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If you're not in any way involved, how about drafting an RfC on this and getting a goodly number of uninvolved in on this? I'm not much involved, but I see others (in this thread) who involve themselves in all sorts of moves involving diacritics and "foreign" names. It's not healthy for the project. If not you, someone... Alarbus (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But this needs to be moved back to the long-standing stable page before an RfC run, so that outside commentators are clear what the status quo was and where the burden of proof lies. I have participated in many RMs, and never have I seen "consensus" so misinterpreted by a closing administrator as happened here. Now, even if this closing admin honestly believed at the time there was consensus, I think it is pretty clear now that there isn't consensus. So I'd like to remind administrators to apply the policy WP: Consensus states: "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Walrasiad (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I do still believe that there was consensus. You need to stop criticizing my close, which was right numbers-wise (6 to 3) and arguments-wise (my judgement), and let outside people here comment (which they may not do, thanks to the vitriol expressed by you and others). Either way, soon after we need to move to an RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was premature or ill-advised or something. It should take more than a 6-3 to declare a new consensus for a long-standing title that was last thoroughly discuss just a year ago and had a 9–9 split over the issue. Especially since there's a big contentious broad principle at stake here. Do a centralized RfC on it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some of you might have missed the point of what is truly being discussed here. A move was requested based on what is the name mostly used by English speaking historians. The name is João VI. We have 53,800 results for João and 40,800 results for John. Ed17 closed the discussion because here were no longer replies except for three users who against the move who kept debating by thsemves. So far, so good. What some may have not noticed are the comments by three users with a high dosage of xenophobia.[18], [19], [20] and [[21]], to name a few. This is the kind of behavior that should not be allowed on Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, as proven clearly in the talk page, your numbers are misleading. And I am getting increasingly tired and annoyed of your bald accusations and insinuations about the motives of people about whom you known nothing about. You and only you have made nationality an issue. You have repeatedly, not only in this debate, but also in the user talk pages, related to your failed Featured Article candididacies when people disagreed with you. Your paranoia is misconstrued. At some point, you should realize that just because someone doesn't agree with your view, or doesn't thnk Portuguese spellings should be forced upon English wikipedia, they aren't necessarily xenophobes, and to accuse them of that is disgusting and dishonest. Walrasiad (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I object to being slandered here as xenophobic. Anyone who knows me or even has looked at my WP user page would find such personal attacks om me ridiculous. I find them extremely offensive. STOP THAT MUD-SLINGING! And stick to the subject! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not WP policy, as I understand it, that frequency of use should be more important than common sense in naming articles, as long as frequency imbalance is not overwhelming, which is not the case here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be "John VI of Portugal", followed by, (João VI de Portugal). Which follows the pattern found on John II of France[22] and Henry IV of France[23]. Maybe this should be the pattern for all royalty? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think so, but that is to be addressed in an RfC, not here. The only issue in this ANI is whether there was consensus for the move or not. And if not, then it should be corrected as per "no consensus" policy in WP:CONSENSUS and the page moved back to the long-standing stable name. The RfC, and all the comments about names, can follow from there. Walrasiad (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. See WP:COMMONNAME and the closely related point three at WP:SOVEREIGN. In any case, the question here, as I understand it, is if I judged consensus correctly at the RM linked about. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Premature looking at it objectively and carefully, reading it all, taking into account the holidays and also the apparent identities of some of the "voters", plus WP common sense policies on everything, including WP:USEENGLISH. That's not to say I want to criticize Ed, who I'm sure acted in good faith (sadly, more than I can say about some of the others involved). SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that admins hestitate to ... well .. do what admins are supposed to do? And why is it that Alarbus, who has all the hallmarks of being a returning editor and who shares a position with Lecen and Ed on the FA director issue (and a review of their editing histories and talk pages shows that Alarbus came to support Lecen over the "Wehwalt for FA director" issue-- a phrase first seen from Alarbus on the Lecen issue[ [24]) are now editing on the same side of a conflict? As Lecen has already shown, there is an abundance of articles that refer to John by his name in English, this is the en Wiki, and we have naming conventions here. That there are slightly more sources that refer to his Portuguese name than the translation to English is irrelevant to the issue: there is an abundance of sources that support his English name and that translation, so it should be used on en Wiki. WP:SOVEREIGN says "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference ... " English! Feel free to point out what I'm missing. And by the way, besides the curious nexus of the apparently returning editor Alarbus suddenly supporting Lecen's content positions after they came together on the FA issue, there has been a long history of canvassing on this suite of articles, so again, why the heck aren't admins looking at the things they're supposed to be looking at: disruptive behaviors, returning editors with a possible agenda, possible meatpuppetry-- is it rocket science or did we not have an arb finding a few years ago about coordinated editing? Why must we have an RFC when we have policies and conventions? Why are admins unable to sort this here and be done with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me say muito bem dito in beautiful Portuguese. Thanks SandyGeorgia! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

three edit-conflicts, getting ridiculous! :Wait, what? I don't really have a position on the FA director issue right now. That's why I want an RfC. Have I unintentionally expressed one? Afaik, Alarbus and Lecen haven't contacted each other before a few days ago. It may be that they share several philosophies about Wikipedia and naturally gelled. I thought that the argument that there were more sources calling him Joao was proven, and there were more people opining with stronger arguments in support than those opposed. That's why I closed it as "move." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not faulting you Ed-- an editor very legitimately came here looking for help, where for all the world I can't see where he's not plainly right, yet he's having to battle a Lecen-Alarbus coordination that developed a few days ago over another issue, and no admins will just take this on and solve it, so what should be clear right here and now gets drug to RFC, wasting a lot of time. This is why ANI doesn't work and admins are held in little regard. Please explain why this is rocket science, and please explain why admins can't see that Alarbus has all the hallmarks of a returning editor with an agenda, who is supporting Lecen here because of other issues? Gosh, is anything above f'ing c's just too hard for admins to deal with? What about the fellow who came here with a legitimate issue who is getting ignored? I've had to call out canvassing in this suite in the past-- is anyone even looking into that? And Serge, if you have diffs, post them here-- you have to make it very easy here on ANI, because not all of them will look beyond obvious vulgarities for which they can issue an easy block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

More background: before I knew him at FAC, I had edited with Lecen at Hugo Chavez. While we share views on what has gone wrong in that article to make it POV (the who, how and why it came to ignore reliable sources to become a pro-Chavez hagiography), Lecen was so argumentative and disruptive on the talk page that he effectively shot any effort to NPOV the article in the foot, using the talk page for long anti-Chavez rants, ([25][26]) leading me to recuse on his FACs, where he then went on to alienate reviewers and delegates alike with the same intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style,[27] leading him to sour grapes at FAC,[28] leading to Alarbus's post about the Wehwalt for FA director campaign. Lecen is very difficult to edit with, which is why he's having a hard time getting FACs reviewed-- he argues with everyone about everything. So give the poor fellow who came here with a legitimate issue a chance; solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, obliquely you are because I'm the one who closed the RM. ;-) I've been waiting for a neutral admin or editor to look at the discussion and assess my close (aka the original issue raised in post #1), but I think the vitriol here has stopped people from entering the discussion. Anyway. I have to run to work now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, you can make a wrong close without necessarily being an incompetent admin or complicit ... I'm alerting you to the problem, but my issue is with other admins who do nothing unless someone curses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha – my bad. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's particularly hard to make a good close when there are disruptive behaviors, canvassing, and the like going on, so yea ... where are the other admins to help out here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rfc, seems the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC on what or whom? Which part of the various Wikipedia pages on naming and foreign languages is unclear? Please explain why the naming aspect isn't fairly clear cut and well spelled out in the pages linked above-- I may be truly dense. Unless you're suggesting an editor RFC for disruption ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear, that we should use english. Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark; Pedro V of Portugal; Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece (to name a few), should be Frederick, Crown Prince of Denmark; Peter V of Portugal; Paul, Crown Prince of Greece. The problem is a few editors who seem to be pushing their 'mother-tongue' on these article titles. What kinda Rfc is pushed, matters not to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Though we are drifting more and more off topic, I do not agree re: bios of living people after 1900. By about then, everyone had legal names with legal spellings, so Frederik should remain Frederik, Carl XVI Gustaf should remain Carl Gustaf etc. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

...that's not specifically within WP:SOVEREIGN. The names have to be the most-used in English literature. The issue here is that certain English transliterations may not actually be predominant for some names, but not all, so the RfC will decide what names they should all go under. Or at least that's how I'm envisioning it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the exchange at User talk:The ed17#Appeal to resolve RM and SergeWoodzing I wish to point out to you that when closing a WP:RM debate it is not a question of counting "votes" it is a question of reading the opinions expressed and seeing how they match the WP:AT policy and the naming convention guidelines.

It seems to me that the debate was closed before these issues had been properly aired, and many of the opinions expressed did not examine the evidence and present it using the policy and guidelines to help them come to an informed decision. The sort of questions that should have been asked are outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title.

After skimming the debate I do not see any analysis presented of the usage in reliable sources in the article. I do not see a survey of what other general references use and the Google search seems to be flawed.

It would have helped every one come to a more informed decision if a Google search had been done on English language books published in the last 25 years or so. If that had been done then the results seem to indicate that "João VI" or "Joao VI" is about twice as common than "John VI". But I have not looked at the quality of the sources and that would take time to do (an ANI is not the forum for it). Also there has been no discussion about whether "João VI" or "Joao VI" is more common in English language sources.

I think the RM ought not to have been closed as a move because the evidence had not been presented in such a way that an informed decision could have been reached by the closing administrator, on the evidence presented during the RM debate, and I do not see a summary of the informed reasons for the move presented by the closing administrator, which if given could have gone a long way to defusing this row.

As an administrator who has closed debates before that are contentious :-o I know what a thankless task it often is. I suggest that in this case that unless on consideration Ed decides to reopen this debate, the customary period of six months is allowed to pass before the debate is resumed with a new WP:RM. I particularly do not support an RfC over this issue (it is forum shopping) and often RfCs get even less support than RMs and RMs have an advantage over RfCs because they tend to attracted editors who are familiar with the WP:AT policy and its guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to PBS on admin "The ed17"

Thank you for your input. I respectfully request that a different admin be put in charge of this decision, as I don't believe the closing administrator User:The ed17 is competent to make this decision.

Support the respectful request and admire the excellent and comprehensive field work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was holding this part of my argument back, to give Ed time to make the right decision. But User:Lecen has just now tried to get me frivolously blocked a second time, this time on 3RR, when I resisted Lecen's attempt a few minutes ago to introduce an automatic archiving bot to remove the older (but relevant) discussions on the John VI talk page before this ANI was resolved. As a result, I am not sure if I'll be blocked or not, and might not be around to see Ed's reply and the progress of this ANI before laying out this case.

It is not a pleasant case to make, and I wish I wouldn't have to, but Ed's failure to rectify his error, and Lecen's increasingly hostile shenanigans to induce my silence, leave me little option but to present the case fully now. I have tip-toed around it thus far. But I feel that so long as the situation continues in the present state, there will be more collateral damage, and resolution must be quickened.

Let me state it openly: I am not satisfied that User:The ed17 acted ethically or in a manner befitting of an admin on this matter. I believe ed17's judgment and role in this closure was elicited at the request of one of the more vocal participants, specifically User: Lecen, who I believe also canvassed other participants, to undertake the move.

This charge is based on the following factors:

• Ed and Lecen are close collaborators on Featured Article candidacies (FAC), and have been for over a year, Ed and Lecen are extremely friendly, intimate collaboraters, and in e-mail contact with each other, as a cursory glance at their talk pages show, e.g. just from the past year (2011), from Ed's talk page:

*Dec 10 (Lecen canvassing Ed for Requested Move vote (on a different page). Note revelation of e-mail contact between them over this.)

• Jan 11

* Feb (FAC coop)

• Mar (note: here Ed moves a page at Lecen's request, without RM),
• Apr (FAC coop)
• Apr 2 (on a problem with an FA commentator)
• Jun 1, (FAC coop),
• Jun 2 (what looks suspiciously like a plan to manipulate an RfC to help Lecen evade a block, and a curious comment about the "arbitrariness" of admins),
• Sep (FAc again)
• Sep (recommending Lecen to author op-ed for the Bugle)
• Oct
• Nov (FAC coop)

* Dec (FAC review coop)

* Dec (greetings & gratitude)

• Side note: Lecen's contributions to Ed's FAC on Talk:South American dreadnought race

and from Lecen's talk page (from 2011)

* Jan 11 (Lecen warned about Canvassing for FAC by another party)

* Jan (Lecen's edit-warring quarrel with Cpripper over John VI/Joao VI in Empire of Brazil page)

* Jan (CPripper warns Lecen of 3RR in attempting to impose Joao VI over John VI in Brazil article. Lecen follows it up with counter-threats on Crpipper's page)

* Jan (Lecen & Paulista01 frustration over failure of RM for Joao VI/John VI, blame nationality of admin, plan re-run)

* Jan (Uxbona summarizes wiki policy on monarch names, rel. John VI)

* User talk:Lecen/Archive 7#Luso-Brazilian History (Ed expresses interest in joining Lecen's Luso-Brasilian history wikigroup; note participation of Asyntax, Paulista01, in this (who also participated in this RM). Note also Lecen's revelation of his frustration to Ed of first RM ofJoao/John VI in Jan 11, part of the quarrel of which can be read just above.)

* Apr (Ed urging Lecen not to leave, Ed characterized as a "good and loyal person")

* Dec 11 (FAC coop)

* Jan (post on Ed's FAC, Ed expresses regret at Lecen's departure, urges alternative projects, future collaboration - three days before RM fiasco).

finally from User:Lumastan (Chritiano Thomas) page, an indication (in the Portuguese language) of the connection between the John VI name and Lecen's departure this past December 2011:

* [29] translation: explaining his departure, Lecen says "I had interest in writing other articles on Portuguese history but lack of support has destimulated me", referring to FA reviewers being "sometimes some real arrogant ****" who frustrated him. He then goes on to point out that "I wanted to improve the D. Joao VI article, but I hate the name "John VI' and the editors here on Wikipedia love to "americanize (or more precisely "anglicize") the name of the their monarchs....I tried to change the name, but I did not receive the proper support".

It has given me no pleasure to trawl through talk pages collecting this, and even less pleasure posting it here. The point of airing all this laundry is:

• 1. to demonstate a pattern of intimacy and cooperation between Lecen and the Ed for at least a year. Most of it is legitimate and fair, but some of it is close enough to suggest a serious compromise of impartiality.
• 2. This collection also demonstrates that it is impossible that Ed was not aware of Lecen's the frustrations and acrimony over John/Joao VI.
• 3 It also notes Ed's awareness of Lecen's threats to depart as a result of his frustrations with critical editors and lack of new projects, a departure which might compromise the FA candidacy of Ed's article on the dreadnaught race, all of which suggests Ed might have had a disposition to "do something about it".

On the basis of this, I believe it highly unlikely that Ed's appearance at the RM was a coincidence of patrolling RM page, and very probable that it was elicited by Lecen, or volunteered as a favor by Ed to Lecen to forestall his threatened departure.

In furtherance of this hypothesis:

• Lecen's other suspectedly canvassed participant (User:Alarbus) was also working closely with Lecen in FA issues, came in only minutes before Ed also came in and closed the RM. I believe this suggests was a timed response to a Lecen elicitation.

• As PBS noticed above, Ed did not satisfactorily explain his rationale for closure, neither at the time nor in the follow up discussions. In his responses to my protestations and appeals, Ed has made no reference to any particular point or argument made, but has simply spoken in generalities, suggesting low familiarity with the points in the debate. I believed this is indicative that he did not actually take the RM seriously, or take any factors other than his friendship to Lecen into consideration in his decision. I suspect he simply closed and moved it without bothering to read it, at the request or as a favor to Lecen.

• I also find Ed's citation above of "only three opponents" of the move in this ANI, which is false, to be suspicious, as it simply reiterates the situation as interpreted by Lecen, and stated by him in other venues. (e.g. [30]), suggesting he never took a careful look.

• Although I recognize I protested a little strongly immediately after the shock, Ed did not and has still not provided satisfactory justification, and his consistent reply to my concerns and appeals has been to brush me off and tell me to "go start an RfC". At one point, he even referred to my concerns as "lame" with a mocking link WP:Lame [31].

• that upon closure, Ed immediately pushed his current FA candidacy of his FA candidacy article on the Dreadnought Race in the reply to the protests over the closure [32], which I believe is a significant hint of him eliciting grateful participants to reward him with a favorable review of his FAC. Lecen has duly done so today. [33] This seems like tit-for-tat payola.

• Ed's failure to recuse himself from acting as an admin in a debate in which a close and intimate collaborator and confessed friend was engaged in, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety, is further proof he did not approach this matter impartiality or ethically.

I therefore submit that The Ed acted partially, unethically and corruptedly in this matter, in a manner inconsistent and unbefitting of an admin, with the conscious knowledge and intent of violating WP policy, that he was not fit at the time to make an impartial judgment about the RM of this article, and he is not fit to make any further judgment relating to it. I request that another admin take over the matter, and reverse the close & move decision and restore the page to its long-standing, stable situation, as per WP:Consensus policy.

While I am sure some will take exception to these charges, on the basis that the evidence is purely circumstantial (I am not in the possession of any actual e-mails between Lecen & the Ed), I believe it is at least sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Ed appeared to act with impropriety in this matter, and that therefore the decision should not depend on him.

I regret having to air such accusations in this forum, over what I am certain was only a momentary slip. I have previously appealed directly to Ed's good sense, duty and responsibility, to put an end to this matter promptly. But his refusal to countenance it has left me little option.

At this point, I have no interest in petitioning for Ed's admin privileges to be revoked, or for any ethical investigations or sanctions, or for any further investigations of canvassing, but simply want this matter resolved promptly, and this entire thing placed behind us.

I would, however, like to direct admin's attentions to User:Lecen's recent aggressive personal attacks & mud-slinging accusations of xenophobia (e.g. [34], [35]), attempts to archive the talk page away ( [36] [37], [38]), and frivolous attempts to get administrators to block me (ANI, 3RR) as part of a pattern of disruptive behavior designed to derail this ANI and my continued participation in it. I believe the swifter this matter is resolved, the quicker those disruptive shenanigans will cease.

Thank you for your attention. And I sincerely regret things got to this stage. Walrasiad (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)T

It's rather late so I haven't read everything above, but will tomorrow at some point. As ridiculous as it seems, the only reason I drifted across the article was the computer game Victoria 2. I was playing a campaign as Portugal (still am, actually, though I'm not doing very well) and decided to look into the actual Portuguese history during that period.

By the number of links above, I apparently have many more interactions with Lecen than I previously thought. From the links I reviewed, though, many seem were incidental (e.g. the Bugle op-ed was purely because Lecen was the only editor I specifically knew was from Brazil, or I reviewed a FAC and he thanked me for it). I'm not sure what the RM -> FAC implication is about, as I've been working for months to get the article to a FAC standard, and afaik Lecen has only translated a few Portuguese-language sources for me (hence my sadness at his intended retirement, as I plan to write more on Brazilian warships). The "lame" comment was in direct reply to "People are insane (as a species;)"; I've never attacked someone in my time here and certainly wouldn't start now. As for the email so prominently linked at the top, I have no recollection of it, nor is it in my email archive. As far as I can remember, our interactions have mainly been limited to being interested in roughly the same area and era of history, along with occasional requests for advice. Should I have recused for having previous interactions with one editor in the discussion? If so, then I apologize and invite a neutral admin to review (and correct, if necessary!) my close. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read through most of the rest, and I'm a little taken aback. Nearly all of the links from Lecen's talk page do not involve me. As for the hypotheses above,

1. There has been some cooperation, mainly in the area of Brazilian history, where we are both active. Beyond that, not so much.
2. Not sure how I can defend against this, but I had not looked at the naming disputes beforehand. I don't think I actually clicked the link given in Lecen's archive 7, which is backed up by my rather bland answer.
3. I take the insinuation that I closed the RM to get support at FAC absolutely reprehensible, as attempts to 'game' FAC in this manner are taken very seriously over there. I did not and would never do anything specifically to gain support at a FAC of mine. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

When you said "...If this change is undertaken, I will not respect it, nor will I adhere to it, but will continue referring to Portuguese monarchs by their common anglicized names"[39] you were not joking. I will not even waste my time discussing The ed17's ethics. He is a well known and respected editor here. About the other editors mentioned here (Paulista, Cristiano Tomás, Astynax): like myself, all of them are well known contributors of Brazilian/Portuguese articles. About the move now: nothing of new was occurring on the discussion, except for Walrasiad and two other editors who were opposed the move who kept arguing against it. None of them have made any contribution to articles about João VI, nor his son Pedro I, nor his grandson Pedro II. See the discussion on the talk page: they opposed the move because they saw it as an attack against Anglo culture (I'm not kidding, go see it for yourself). Plus: Walrasiad talks as I was the mastermind behind the entire discussion. I had a marginal role on the discussion (see João VI's talk page history log). I made a few comments here, at the ANI, arguing over his inappropriate behavior (insulting the administrator, foreign culture prejudice, etc...). P.S.: I took the liberty to notify[40][41][42][43] the other editors accused by Walrasiad since he didn't do that. --Lecen (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not attribute partisan motives to me -- I wish to make it clear that I have not (and would not) act in concert with Lecen or any other person. I form my own views and am not afraid to express them. However, I am commenting here because Lecen has asked me to. I have a doctorate in economic history and regularly monitor EM, CFD, and certain AFDs. I would express a lot of respect for PBS (which I have come across in WP), who provided me with a lot of help over some edit-warring in the days when WP was full of unreliable information and citing sources was quite usual. That issue was ultimately resolved in my favour, after I had published something elsewhere - in aplace where it could be cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remember that this entire conflict is being caused by three editors: Walrasiad, GoodDay and SergeWoodzing. They are the three editors who opposed the move and are creating a false feeling of "general opposition" to ed17's closure. They are few, indeed, but they can yell very loud. GoodDay and SergeWoodzing are two editors well known for their staunch oppotion to anything they regard as "too foreign". None of them have ever made any contribution to João VI of Portugal or have shown any interest on the King's life. Do not mistake three editors' unreasonable complains with a general unrest. --Lecen (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There's that word again "Foreign". Why are you making this an nationalistic/ethnic thing? It's an linguistic topic we're dealing with here. It's not a Canadian -vs- Portuguese argument. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A sole purpose account[44] to vote.[45] This is what I call fairness. --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you withdraw that accusation, unless you have evidence. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? But you don't find odd the existence of this account? --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am none of these editors; I find the suggestion that I created an account in August in order to meddle in this discussion, which did not exist then, too weird to be seriously insulting. It was suggested that my comments would get more respect if they were signed, from those who had trouble remembering "not to bite the newbies." (I seem to have begun with an English ship.) This does not seem to be working out; I may return to anonymity. Subnumine (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I apologize for taking a long time to answer. Here is what I think: This discussion has become passionate, it can’t get anywhere. The reality is that regulation is a little confusing, we are supposed to give priority to English names, I agree, but it also states that we have to take into consideration the most used name in modern sources. Using the last one I based my decision, I supported the use of João VI instead of John VI because most modern historians use João VI. Among these is British/Canadian historian Roderick J. Barman, one of the best in his field. I would also like to note that most if not all of the English speaking historians used as sources in Brazilian/Portuguese articles use João VI, that being said, I would rather have both names on top. I believe Lecen tried to do this in the past but one editor complained, he made all hell break lose because of an English translation of a royal name, you can’t please everybody. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Satisfaction and Apology I was advised to stay from the ANI, but I would like to come on the record here to thank The ed 17 for his replies to what certainly the most distressing allegations and thank him for clearing them up. I would like to record unambiguously that, for my part, I believe Ed's answers are sincere, and that I am reasonably satisfied there was no dishonest intent in the closure of the RM. Given the proximity to one of the participants, it would have probably been wiser to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I believe now there was no actual impropriety and that appearances, however unfortunate, were coincidental, and that I jumped too quickly to conclusions. I would also like to extend my personal apologies to Ed for the hastiness by which I submitted these allegations, not giving this ANI time to evolve, which might have allayed my suspicions and forestalled this ordeal. And furthermore, and especially, to apologize to Ed for the unsavory strength of some of my speculations about motive, which I now retract, and if they are repeated beyond this forum, I will personally take it upon myself to repudiate. However, let me also reiterate my continued belief that the closure and move was in error, but I am satisfied that there was at least no dishonesty behind it. Walrasiad (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User Blospa

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but Blospa (talk · contribs)'s contributions seem very odd. Could be normal vandalism, but I wonder if there is more to the user. Very confusing. (Had it been straight vandalism, AIV would have been the place, I think; but I wondered if this quacked.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 1:37 pm, Today (UTC−8)

I notice the user was blocked whilst reporting this (also, I don't have access to deleted contributions, but when I checked there were at least 6 nonsense pages of just Margaret Thatcher). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 1:38 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Time to blacklist that image and set up an edit filter.Jasper Deng (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−8)

IP problem

129.133.127.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is being very unconstructive, to say the least. He made mass changes to Masonic bodies, and did not wish to discuss those changes when they were reverted. I'd note he claims on the talk page that he doesn't care about the article. He also is warring over terminology on List of Masonic Grand Lodges and again, "doesn't care" about the article, per the talk page. Nevertheless, he obviously isn't staying away from them. He is a lurker or sock, as his first reply to me indicated he already knew what my course of action was going to be (which an inexperienced user would not know), and he seems to be more interested in being POINTY with User:Blueboar than in actually making contributions to Wikipedia. most notably, I asked him to discuss changes, and he replied on my talk page that he "does not write with my permission", which wasn't at all what the point of the statement I made was. So he's creating a problem for some reason, and I think I know who this is, although I'm not going to feed the trolls - a CU, if needed, will serve the same purpose. MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want a CU to look at this then try filing a report at WP:SPI, but I'm afraid you're going to need to disclose the other IP/account you think is controlled by the same person and supply diffs showing similarities in their behaviour. I don't think the CheckUsers are inclined to go fishing for possible socks in the way you're describing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it'll definitely need some work; I'm not planning a fishing expedition by any means. MSJapan (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the IP's reaction when I reverted an edit he/she made was unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational. That said, my interaction with him/her has been minimal... so I can not speak to potential puppetry. Blueboar (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is for sure an IP hopper from within Wesleyan's network - 129.133.127.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked several times for PA, etc., with several edits to similar articles (Skull and Bones and Wesleyan itself, for example). I would therefore suggest that, rather than belaboring the issue, the problem be resolved with a schoolblock, which shouldn't adversely affect much, since universities (including this one) are on winter break. MSJapan (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that other Wesleyan based IP, MSJ. Now that I look at both edit histories, I have to agree... it does seem likely to be the same fellow - he's editing the same articles... over the same issues... and with the same combative (and wikilawyerish) style once someone opposes his edits. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I changed four short paragraphs at the intro of Masonic Bodies. Mass changes? 2."and did not wish to discuss those changes when they were reverted" I did discuss those changes on this complainant's pages. I also told him then that I was not going to change *anything* he had reverted. 3 - "He also is warring over (another page)" I am not, I haven't changed anything on that page, I have had discussions with Blueboar over that page and have not edited anything since we have been discussing. 4 - "as his first reply to me indicated he already knew what my course of action was going to be" I said he was going try to precipitate a war, and then be the first to complain about it to the admins. Which is *exactly* what he as done. 5 - Blueboar is the editor of the other page, and the two are reinforcing each other. They're acting together, although they are pretending on this Administrators noticeboard like Blueboar is a disinterested party.

Look, the situation is plain. Blueboar hovers in wikipedia. He has a dozen, ten dozen, however many pages that he considers his own to superintend, and he vigorously fights anyone who dares change any of "his" articles any way he disagrees with. I've run up against him before in articles in Freemasonry. (I've also run into similar types all across wikipedia.) Unfortunately, Blueboar doesn't write all that well, and his editorial choices are fairly iffy, so that the pages on Freemasonry are pretty miserable. ---I am sure, by this point, other people have noticed that many topics will attract fans, and that fans will have excessively positive conceptions of their darling subjects, and those people, as editors, will fight tooth and nail to prevent anything but the rosiest of pictures to be painted of them in wikipedia. That's Blueboar as far as Freemasonry goes. And the pages on Freemasonry will always suck. Likewise with the pages on Wesleyan University. I challange anyone to look at the edit histories of any major university, and they'll see the same vigilant few names reverting the edits of other editors. (By the way, I type via my ISP for a reason, but I didn't expect *anybody* to publicly post the location of my ISP. Shouldn't that be a violation of privacy guidelines? Shouldn't MSJapan be reported for that?) MSJapan is another vulture hovering over the Freemasonry pages. I've never met him before, but his escalation of this dispute to the Administrator's notenook was easy to see coming; he's true to type and a blood brother to Blueboar. (Actually, given that both of them are likely Freemasons, it looks like their sworn bortherhood may be coming into play as a lite conspiracy. It also explains how they found each other outside wikipedia.)

By the way I stand by the edits as made. Blueboars edits are cumbersome and confusing, and I defy anyone to make a sensible statement of the mess MSJapan has made of Masonic Bodies. And I have done nothing but stand up to them in their user chat pages. This claim here on this noticeboard is only a result of them looking ridicuous to themselves on their own user pages.

By the procedures of wikipedia, when I changed Masonic Bodies, MSJapan should have read it as changed, and made whatever improvements he saw fit, (perhaps reincorporating some things I removed), and back and forth. He did not. He reverted the whole article, and it has not changed since. **I want anyone who thinks I am an 'edit warrer' because of that, plase post why.** MSJapan should be reported for not following guidelines. Instead he posted omnious messages on my user page. That was intended as a threat and it was a threat. I called him on it, and here we are.

Wikipedia is NOT a place where users can freely edit anymore. It has matured to a point where virtually every page has admirers who hover over them, and who fight against any changes whatsoever. There's no scholarly debate here, there's not even debate. There's just indignant pride.

Look no further for the reasons why wikipedia is what it is. And how it has become limited.129.133.127.112 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Need we say more? I rest my case. :>) Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear anon at 129.133.127.112 - Shouldn't that be a violation of privacy guidelines? No - if you look at the bottom of your own IP/contributions page here on wikipedia, you'll see there are links to DNS lookups etc, in order assist wikipedian with finding out location of IPs for these sort of situations - it helps to confirm or deny a pattern of constructive editing OR abuse by those who choose not to register an account. By the procedures of wikipedia, when I changed Masonic Bodies, MSJapan should have read it as changed, and made whatever improvements he saw fit, (perhaps reincorporating some things I removed), and back and forth. He did not. Go look at bold, revert, discuss for a generally accepted discussion of how the system DID work on the part of other users. Comment on content, not on the contributor. You're playing the Masonic conspiracy against you card, it's unrealistic. Based on prior IP contributions and the interactions that have resulted from them, it seems clear that conflict is what you desire to create on wikipedia, not better content.--Vidkun (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Vidkun, your magisterial dismissal of my position "that conflict is what you desire to create on wikipedia, not better content" would have more credibility if my contributions are on many pages, and even my contributions to the pages in dispute here weren't so substantial. As it is, you're just engaging in personal smear, and not the either any principles of reason, or wikipedia guidelines. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Really? Really, Vidkun? Really?129.133.127.112 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Vidkun, since I am here to create controversy and disruption, was I the one to make it an Administrator's issue? Was I the one to call the re-write of four paragraphs in an intro a major edit and a outrageous violation of wikipedia policies? Was it me? Just checking, Vidkun. I just want to make sure we all have the facts straight.129.133.127.112 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This person is not really an unknown quantity per se - I ran a tool on the two IPs, and found overlap on the List of Masonic Grand Lodges article and talk page from months ago (April 2011 for the article and July 2011 for talk) where the 244 IP was reverted by Blueboar and myself on the article and said IP tried to justify turning the article into a linkfarm "per policy" on the talk page and was contradicted by an uninvolved user. There's also overlap on five other articles. That prior experience pretty much explains the whole situation, but it also proves that this is a perennial problem, as there's overlap editing issues on Skull and Bones going back to 2010. I would therefore still request a schoolblock on this range to prevent future recurrences of disruptive editing, as it seems that the IP is going to blame the system for his behavior as opposed to taking personal responsibility for it. MSJapan (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the the conspiracy theories, MSJapan. How come you can't defend your edits on their own terms? 129.133.127.112 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of Sheodred and MarcusBritish

• Sheodred (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• MarcusBritish (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

I dread digging up old ground here, however, an exchange on EdJohnston's talk page has convinced me that I am not alone in my concerns.

Sheodred was indef blocked by EdJohnston on the January 4. The immediate cause of that block was this edit. The basis for the block was this decision on ANI/3. It also came after poor (another editor has said "silly") behavior, including blocks for incivility during a voluntary one-month topic ban. Sheodred, it would appear, has left the project rather than ask the block be reversed. One concern I have is that this block is out of proportion and lacks genuine community consensus for what is, or has turned into, an effective ban and is in excess of WP:INDEF given the relatively low level of disruption caused to the project.

However, and more importantly, I'm concerned that it fails to address a deeper context and the behavior of others involved in the conflict. There are a number of editors whose behavior is worrying to me. However, in particular, the behavior of MarcusBritish causes me concern.

The two editors have graced these pages a lot over the last month or so in connection with their mutual behavior (Sheodred, MarcusBritish). While Sheodred's behavior was silly, IMO it was MarcusBritish who truly pushed the limits of the behavioral guidelines in what appeared to be vindictive behavior on his part. One of the more shocking of examples of this was a threat to contact Sheodred's university to have him expelled under the veil of using the university's computing services for harassment. One of the more bizarre examples of MarcusBritish's behavior is this excessive archiving of discussions on Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (more in archive). See also the general tone of BritishMarcus's exchanges with other editors on that page, which is typical in my experience of how he addresses disputes.

It is hardly surprising that those on the receiving end of this kind of behavior go off the rails, as Sheodred did. I'm afraid that indefinitely blocking Sheodred does nothing to address MarcusBritish's battlefield-like behavior and may even embolden him.

Requests:

• Sheodred: Block be reduced (or removed) per WP:INDEF, even though Sheodred has not explicitly asked for it
• MarcusBritish: A community sanction of some sort (mentoring, civility restriction, topic ban)

Note: I am involved in this dispute to the extent that I have contributed to discussions on the topic at the centre of the dispute at the manual of style. However, I don't recall interacting either Sheodred or MarcusBritish (or to any great extent if I have).

--RA (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Both editors 'might' benefit from mentoring. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the old news... 2011 this was from, right? Do remind me, as I'm sure time has passed since and I'm too busy to listen to another Irishman moan. Pushing a plough over a ploughed field, or clutching at straws.. take your pick. Lot of moot and fallible points here. Also a lack of neutral tone. Also COI from OP.

• I'm a neutral party, even Sheodred recognised this, and apologised for his reaction, and recognised my abilities as a neutral editor: [46]
• Archiving was in relation to a de facto banned user called George SJ XXI much earlier, and not Sheodred. The hyperbolic reference you make is irrelevant and seeking to use evidence which precedes the dispute you have a problem with.
• "one of the more shocking examples" – why shocking? Looking to scare some editors with more hyperbole RA? You can't stop people doing whatever they want in the real world, so you must be confused that sysop gives you magic powers beyond Wiki. If a person feels harassed online, they can go to the police, or a lawyer. But legal threats were not required. Whistleblowing to his college was an option, and quite legal. Not shocking. The thought that he might be expelled is your implication, and further hyperbole.

Your comments are fairly speculative and lack any real "evidence", RA.

Try the "Marcus is a nationalist English bastard" line? You'll find a lot of evidence disproves that too. You'll find I don't give a flying-fuck about Irish or British articles, with the exception of Duk of Wellington. And only because he falls in my main subject.

I don't have time for this shit. Old news. Wasting ANI time RA, bad adminship and some gaming going on here. Sheodred in touch with you via email, is he? I suspect he is. Whatever purpose this serves, I'm not fucking interested. Got better things to do, because I'm very busy writing articles, whilst you're pissing about looking to sling some more mud. Pathetic.

Nor responding further. Waste of ANI time. Sheodred was severely disruptive to 50+ articles even a week ago after a block he persisted in being pointy and insolent. I didn't even need to comment.. it was his own doing. Well done EdJohnston, good block!

Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

MarcusBritish, my general opinions would be more along the lines of yours rather than RA's and Shoedreds, which they'd both admit, however i am agreement that from what i seen - you were provocative and antagonising towards Shoedred in quite a few statements. Whilst Shoedred is not innocent, neither are you, and to be honest some form of sanction should have been giving on you. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes but we are not gong back down that dusty road, are we - retroactive sanctions? Why not ask the blocking admin if he objects to a reduction? It seems Ed is of the position that any request to unblock is better coming from Sheodred himself - I support a reduction to timed served - currently we appear to have so few active contributors that every one matters. Youreallycan (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't see the issue here EdJohnston, made it clear when he blocked Sheodred it was not "forever" and could have been lifted if he had agreed to the topic ban which does not seem unduly unreasonable, he also said that he feels that any unblock request should come from Sheodred which again is not unreasonable and absent any request I don't see what there is to do here. If Sheodred makes a request but is not happy with the conditions then by all means come back here then and lets talk about it then. Mtking ^(edits) 22:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

@Youreallycan, RE: retroactive sanctions — that is why I am not suggesting a block for MarcusBritish. However, the behavior I am describing is not in the distant past. MarcusBritish's response above shows that a battlefield mentality and incivility is still a live issue with him. I don't want to see another editor come away feeling vindicated and rewarded for that kind of behavior. It only encourages it.

That is why, for MarcusBritish, I am suggesting some form of community sanction. I suggest a civility restriction. --RA (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not good at civility restrictions - we are better at give them enough rope and whack them with the hammer. As far as a civility restriction goes - at present a loud swear word would echo round an almost empty building and when it returns there would be a faint echo of, last one out shut the door. Youreallycan (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"I'm too busy to listen to another Irishman moan" - this is wholly unacceptable. If I were an admin I would block you just for that. N^oformation ^Talk 23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflicts) As far as I'm concerned RA, Sheodred was properly blocked. Really and truely his broad pattern of behaviour falls into ArbCom enforcable territory (WP:TROUBLES - both these editors were placed on formal notice of the remedies) and Ed was absolutely right to go to indef. And if Ed hadn't blocked him another uninvolved sysop would have. Further, the reason that Sheodred has not been unblocked is because he refuses to agree to modify his behaviour and per MTking it's up to him to make the first move.
  On the matter of MarcusBritish, while I see what Mabuska is saying that this has left MB feeling he "won" we don't do retroactive sanctions. However as demonstrated by MB's unnecessary outbursts here he clearly hasn't got the message that he's been given in numerous conduct threads (here on ANi since September 2011 and in two blocks in late November 2011) about WP:BATTLE.
  As MB was previously formaly placed on notice re WP:TROUBLES I've brought this to the attention of ErrantX, who is also uninvolved & has background, and I'll consider whether or not this new behaviour requires action in light of that warning and MB's overall pattern of condct towads others--Cailil ^talk 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent evidence suggests to me that there may be something wrong with MarcusBritish. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Depression.. instigated by people like RA, an amateur admin who apparently "not" knowing that we don't do retroactive sanctions, but also knows that whilst Sheodred cannot respond to this topic, I can. Given that I'm clearly bound to get pissed off at going through this crap again, wasting my fucking time further, I realise now that he's just baiting. Let it be known, this is RA's battle.. he started it as he's calling the shots. And canvassed only those involved on EdJohnston's talkpage to reply to it.. this isn't a sanction request, it's a personal campaign created by RA. I apologise in advance to everyone who was bored of this matter back in 2011, a month ago, and realise it was a WP:dickish move for RA. Let's all hope he gets a star on Hollywood Boulevard in recognition of his amazingness to stir up old shit. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding, Marcus, that you believe your inappropriate behaviour is not your responsibility, but that of other people? Are you implying by this that you have no control over your own actions? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Stuff like this:

"...I'm too busy to listen to another Irishman moan. Pushing a plough over a ploughed field..."

is no way to interact with other editors. That should stop. bobrayner (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an overtly racist personal attack and I'm honestly flabbergasted that an admin hasn't given a 24 block at the very least. N^oformation ^Talk 08:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Its certainly close to racism but I don't think it is as bad as the threats to contact Sheodred's University and to take legal action against them. It was probably bluster, but its intimidatory and seems to be seeking out conflict for its own sake. It was obvious to everyone that Sheodred was heading for a block. MarcusBritish seemed to want to stamp all over the corpse making a loud noise at the same time. I hadn't realised there were two prior blocks for uncivil behaviour, given that it seems time for some type of restriction and/or a more substantive block if that would get the point across. --Snowded ^TALK 10:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You're still taking crap Snowded, from a month ago and you're still just as boring. And you're a liar. I never mention taking legal action, and you bloody well know it. Contacting a college is whistleblowing. And if you have a problem with it, I don't give a shit. In fact, I've discussed the matter previously with an admin off-wiki via email and they acknowledge that it is my right. Go figure! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I quote " If the UCC refused to do anything, I might consider threatening them with legal action". Mind you I think "I don't give a shit" more or summarises your view of other editors and your willingness to work with them --Snowded ^TALK 12:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

D'uh! That says I might have threatened his college off-wiki if they didn't act on whistle blowing. His college is not an editor, so the suggestion is not aimed at any one. It isn't even a legal threat, it's a possibility. Pushing the realms of fantasy aren't we? As for "working with other editors", this is off-wiki (that thing called "real life") and doesn't involve editors, and certainly isn't any of your business. But keep pushing that point... you might have a baby! Given that the suggestion was conceived last year, you might be due now. Love holding onto old news, do you? Do you think if my threat was to be taken seriously I wouldn't have fucking done it by now? And if you do keep pressing that point, I will, just to spite you. Then he can only blame you for misrepresenting him. Morale of the story: stay the hell out of things that don't concern you, stirring up a storm in a teacup can often overspill. Problem in you is "I think", but you don't think properly. Seem to have a thing going, you and Sheodred.. you defending him.. cute! <3 Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I rest my case --Snowded ^TALK 14:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As Shoedred and MarcusBritish both seem to be quite passionate and arguementative in the same area of Wikipedia - British/Irish articles, or articles containing British/Irish information - maybe they should be both topic-banned from them. That could hopefully keep them apart (if Shoedred requests a unblock and abides by Ed's condition) and stop them getting dragged into conflict by taking them away from the conflict zone. In regards to MarcusBritish's recent outbursts, they do merit sanction.Mabuska ^(talk) 10:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I see the insipid cabal of people RA canvassed have come out of the shadows. IQ Test for Mabuska: Apart from Duke of Wellington, find us a list of articles on British/Irish topics that I've edited, from my contrib history. Articles that is, not talk, MOS, etc discussions. Also find any war edits, reverts, etc from those articles. Then go read the link Hoary posted above. Then I'll accept your apology for pre-judging me and accusing me falsely, and making a topic-ban motion based on zero evidence. What country do you live in, one where they hang now, ask questions later? And if you accuse me of nationalism again, I'll consider it a PA of the highest magnitude. Sheodred either needs to remain blocked, or agree to the unblock terms Ed offered to stay clean. I was never unclean to have to worry. Go figure! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Having interacted with both these editors I found Marcus blunt, but so too have I found Shoedred blunt and with a tendency to side step. What worries me is the post above highlighted by Snowded, where did Marcus get such information , if on wiki does it require a mention in such a hostile and very bullying way? The comment above about ploughing a feild is stereotypical racism and would digust many ,uncivil and racist to say the least. Marcus has contributed to IMOS only since he interacted with Sheodred, the only reason Sheodred got banned is he edited Bio's in a manner similar to Marcus' suggestions after coming back from a block, which to say the least is ironic. The fact that Marcus now calls RA's action here a waste of time yet brought similar to the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts board with a list of edits from Shoedred , [47] most of which where non-contentious , "Packie Bonner: — added "Irish" to lead" , that made me laugh , born in Ireland, holds Irish citizenship , one of the most capped Irish players off all time and Marcus is using the addition of Irish as a point of ethnic conflict ? But the most interesting point is Marcus' list of personal attacks on there, yet here it has been shown the he made racist comment and a use of information to engage in action that might have serious consequences outside of Wiki. Do we all who comment have to wonder if Marcus will contact our bosses after we do a lunch time edit on the office computer? Or do we have to wonder will he give away our personal details on here? The threat he made is more serious than any block on here could ever be.Murry1975 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bahahahah! LMFAO! I'm actually howling with laughter that "ploughing a field" could be construed as "racist". ROFL! What is means, FYFI, is "churning over things that have already been uncovered" – in short, RA is opening this magnanimous joke, based on something which happened a month ago, using "evidence" from so far bar, I'm sure my grand-parents were still alive. Racist, God if that isn't a total breach of AGF I'll walk into my local high street and pull my pants down! LOL! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheodred identified himself as being at Cork Uni using their computers when he socked. The rest of your comments are accusations, and WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:BALLS. You worry too much, obviously. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I find your underlying sentiment, that when I take it to Geopolitical conflicts no one gives a shit, but when RA brings it to ANI everyone should take interest, very interesting. Further evidence of Sheodred sympathies and COI indicative of this remark. All want him back to pursue his editing of Irish subjects. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The rest of my comments are questions not accusations Marcus , please dont misqoute an other editor to try and give a false sense of what was said , the isnt AGF is it? And another is that a personal comment about my state of mind on the end of the above comment? PS I find it a tad odd you accuse this of time wasting when your Geo-Ethnic one was in my opinion a farce. Do I want Sheodred back editing articles ?As much as I want you editing them Marcus, just as much.Murry1975 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you aired suspicions which were not appropriate. And as for your last sentence, a) what you want isn't important, but more to the point b) I DON'T edit them, because I don't give a hoot about Irish (or British) subjects, excluding Wellington. So you make a moot point, and the same mistake as others. Still waiting for someone to find some Irish-subjects I've edited in my 5000+ contribs which support these false accusations. All I can say is tra-la-la-la-la, because you won't find any. The accusations about me British/Irish edits are false, lies, pure bullshit. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said Irish/British articles I just said articles, I never accused you of editing any Irish/British articles again stop misqouting. My suspicions? Yes they are mine and I have aired them, were they appropriate, given the threat you made yes they were if you hadnt made such a threat I would never have asked such questions. Your language is becoming uncivil and you need to calm down read what is typed and respond in an appropriate manor.Murry1975 (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You're also very selective in your ANI discussions and what opinions you raise, given that you were supporting my neutral opinions recently [48]. As I've said already, the "threat" was dated back in mid-December. No one gave a shit then, it's too late to do anything now. Like I said.. if you plough a ploughed field, you don't unearth anything new, it's just the same old mud to sling! This thread is and remains a charade. You might consider redacting your unwarranted suspicions.. they are facetious. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering one of my edit summarys here was "reply to the nice chap who helped me", is my opinion meant to be dictated by others? I gave you support on your neutral stance that doesnt mean I would support the threat you made. You seem to think there is a time limit on such things as threats, the threat is my issue for concern not whether you acted upon it but that you made it. Your remarks of me redacting my suspicions as they are facetious, they are concerns for me which I raise. Has there been an apology for the threat and and have you redacted it? No. Do you admit that the threat was inappropriate ?Murry1975 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary appeared more patronising than genuine, but at least now you understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of being misinterpreted. I will never apologise for making motions to being harassed. As for redacting, the comment should have been left to die.. the fat of the matter is, RA is well aware of how passionately members of WP:Ireland are in throwing their weight into an ANI against someone, regardless of whether they really care or not, it's a form of WP:RANDY, enabling an ANI despite weak relevance. On the flip side, British people are generally lazy bastards who don't act on things fast, or too late. What governs this topic has fuck-all to do with what I've said, but is in fact veiled support for Sheodred's edits. RA is abusing ANI here, and letting the topic be mobbed by those he pre-determined an outcome with, canvassed, and such. This isn't ANI, this is witch-hunt behaviour, with mob mentality. Once again I stand by MY integrity as a Wiki editor, and that my edits do not have any pro-British leanings, that my actions against Sheodred were initially in good faith and it was his reaction and support from WP:Ireland members that led to it spiralling. That was, as I've also said, last year. He DID harass me, and I advised that if he persisted I would report him to his Uni for abusing their systems. Again, that it is called "whistleblowing" and is perfectly legal. Wiki is not a legal site, and has no business trying to prevent this, its editors are in no legal position to control what people do off-wiki. The comments made by Snowdred are irrelevant and hyperbolic shite. The only times Wiki has a legal right to get involved is in mater relating to physical threats, death threats, etc. What is the case here is that people disrespect other editors, and would rather they feel harassed, as I did, that take action to relieve the problem. That makes those editors sanctioning harassment, and driving off editors. The fact that Sheodred felt threatened by my suggestion at contacting his college is because he is guilty and knows there would be repercussions. Whereas I know I am guilty of nothing other than defending myself, my neutral position, and bringing a disruptive editor to the attention of wiki, who was protected, defended and WP:RANDYfied by WP:Ireland members who "approved" of his behaviour. As for Sheodred's last block, which RA is using as an excuse for this ANI, I was uninvolved.. he brough it on himself by persisting in war-editing, POV-pushing, and attacking editors and admins for warning him. Since mid-December upto this bullshit discriminatory thread, opened by RA to subject me to further WP:Ireland member harassment, under the false impression of "concerns", I have been busy with other things, totally unrelated to Sheodred and his erratic editing of Irish people. That speaks for itself, because I am, and always was, a better editor than he in terms of objectiveness and neutrality: interesting, is it not, that he tried to make my Wellington lead another IMOS policy despite attacking me over it? The fact of the matter is, this is a WP:Ireland game, I think it's racially-motivated, and only aims to attract biased attention. And the proof is obvious, because it has only drawn those members who have been involved with WP:Ireland's attempt to push a new IMOS which I protested and led to it being abolished. So this is nothing but an attempt at retribution. Nothing to do with Wiki, it's a simple plot to get back at me on behalf of a failed pro-Irish policy. I would but my hand on the Bible and swear to that! This is an old stick, which was dropped in December and should have been left dropped. I thing RA's ulterior motives need bringing into question here, because he has introduced this under false pretences, with no evidence of relevance. This is laughable, because you're wasting your time, my time, ANI time, and are going to achieve absolutely nothing. Because I have no intention of admitting to being wrong, and I don't accept your judgement. This will have to go to ArbCom before I ever take it seriously, because a swamp of WP:Ireland views is not impartial, it's just an open form of meat puppetry supporting either pro-Irish RA, or pro-Irish Sheodred. Take you pick. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Marcus you have only reaffirmed the fact that you think it is within your right to make the threat. That is not the case and you really need to calm down. Why not apologise? As you said the only thing Wiki can do outside of here is if you make a legal or death threat. The reason that only IMOS editors are responding could be the fact that you and Sheorded edit in different circles and the only over lap is the IMOS.Murry1975 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've said all that I need to say.. fact remains, if no one was interested when I raised concerns which related directly to Wiki content last year, then there's no reason for anyone to care about this, which doesn't relate to anything but a blocked user who has stated his intentions to quit because he can't have all his own way. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed and this bad faith discussion is vexatious and was pre-planned. It won't get anywhere, I don't have intention of listening to IMOS editors waffle on about their poxy concerns for a blocked and highly harassive individual. You've conceded that this it wasn't a physical threat and is therefore not a Wiki concern, so really even you have nothing more to say either that matters. Even GoodDay recognised that point, moments before I typed it. So in conclusion, I have better things to do.. life is short and ANI is often nothing but word gaming, egotism and sniping. When WP:Ireland gets involved it becomes territorial with an abundance of predators. The only reason WP:TROUBLES exists is because small-minded people with Irish and British nationalistic views incited enough hate to force ArbCom into implementing such enforcements. I don't intend to be a part of that hate, and although this is a indicated as a pure indulgent hate-campaign against me, notably because Sheodred can't partake in it and RA wants him unblocked and me molested, I couldn't care less. As they say.. "the sun'll come out, tomorrow". ToOdles! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Marcus, I'd advise you to calm down - your accusations of canvassing and comments about editor's intelligence are not helping your cause. Tea and biscuits? GiantSnowman 12:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If MarcusBritish had suggested he was going to Sheodred's university to kill him off or beat him up, then we'd have a problem. However, MB didn't do that; so no problem IMHO. Also, the 2 editors-in-question, haven't been in contact with each other for awhile. Plus, Sheodred is in retirement. We should consider 'closing' this thread & moving on. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay MB's recent comments i think mean that this thread can't be simply closed and everyone move on. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And just what sort of admin action would you envisage? Not sure why this was opened here in the first place since the issue is stale and it seems like the wrong venue. I agree with GoodDay — close this piece of drama and move on. Mojoworker (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the comments above by MarcusBritish show that the issue is far from stale. Being the subject of a thread on ANI is stressful, so some outburst is understandable. However, at some point, it is expected that a person will calm down and begin to give their perspective without attacks and accusation. That doesn't appear to be happening. The subject of the tread is MarcusBritsh's hostile approach to others (and a desire not to see that go unchecked or potentially encouraged). His behavior here demonstrates that hostile behavior continues to be a problem.

Cailil has asked ErrantX to consider how to approach the issue. Let's see what comes out of that. In the mean time, I too would encourage MarcusBritish to calm down. --RA (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly I am supposed to do here :) Certainly there seems no obvious admin actions to be taken. I've talked to Marcus numerous times about the way he interacts with people here on-wiki, and suggested it may be combative/inappropriate. He does not feel that is so, which is his prerogative of course. If people still feel there is an ongoing issue then the correct venue is WP:RFC/U. However Sheodred was blocked on unrelated grounds; after returning following his and Marcus' earlier spat he managed the indef all on his own. So tying his current block in with anything Marcus has done (i.e. saying Marcus has misbehaved and this should affect the current block) is not going to fly. The only concern I have is the threat Marcus made to contact Sheodred's university; obviously this is inappropriate and if Marcus makes such threats again, or acts on them, then we can revisit the matter (and block/ban him as appropriate). Marcus, just for the record - contrary to everything you have said so far; actively pursuing an editor in real life is something we will block and ban you for. And simply threatening to do so is a chilling effect that will also get you blocks if you keep doing it. As I am sure you can appreciate; someone with a history of pursuing editors, with whom they have a problem, in real life is not the kind of person we would welcome in the community. If real life action has to be taken then the WMF is there as a neutral body to take such action. At the end of the day; this is just a website, and there is no need to pursue each other to the grave over small things. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Errant. My 2c before we close this:

• Without question, consensus RE: Sheorded is that the block was correct and that it is up to him to appeal it.
• We will not be placing a sanction on MarcusBritish at this time for his behavior in relation to Sheorded or elsewhere.

No less, I believe the substantive point regarding MarcusBritish's battlefield mentality is abundantly demonstrated by his conduct in this thread alone. As I wrote in the inital post, it is hardly surprising that those on the receiving end of this kind of behavior go off the rails. It is not welcome here.

If I believed that MarusBritish would take your words to heart, Errant, I would have confidience that issue would be resolved. I doubt it, however. I don't think he has learnt anything from his experience with Sheorded or here. I continue to fear that he will simply be emboldened by it (or, as others have said, will come away with a sense of satisfaction and vindication). So, give 'em rope. --RA (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Last words? Sure. Get off my back RA, my mother's dead and I don't need another one up my arse! Your petulant hounding has been noted and will not be forgotten. Several editors have commented on the futility of this thread, and you still persist in being pretentious and patronising. Try WP:IDHT, as it applies to you here. If you took this down-talk tone with someone like Malleus he'd fuck you over for treating him like a child, and believe me, if you take it with me again, so will I.. sysop, with which you are an amateur and unreliable IMHO, doesn't make you anyone's parent, guardian, mentor, or master. Quit the condescending attitude, quit the hounding, quit the COI related ANI threads, quit anything that is detrimental to Wiki (Randy and cabals come to mind) and quit supporting Sheodred's misdeeds, he's gone by his own "rope". As for that last rope.. I've cheated death in ways you can't begin to imagine, in real life, so your threatening tone doesn't impress me, son. I see you losing that mop, long before I lose anything. I suggest you drop the predictive crystal ball act, and go continue your virtually SPA contribs, and stay out of my hair. I'm very easy to get on with, FYI, and have been involved with plenty of people in the main areas of Wiki FYI, and achieved much, AN is a bureaucratic sideline and bad for your health, there should be a government warning, but the only people I take a negative attitude to anywhere are <insert Malleus' "C" word>. You don't intimidate me, despite the attempt, and your "summary" back there is subjective and self-indulgent egotism. Live your own life, stay the fuck out of mine. Civility is like respect; when you abuse someone's trust you don't get either. This ANI was vexatious abuse full of bullshit, and given the lack of credible support, was needless time wasted, so you can stop blowing your own trumpet now, we've heard it and it was out of tune. As a mop, learn not to make bad judgements again any time soon, they might bite you on the arse. Lessons learned both ways here, so you will gain something: experience. Can close this can of worms now.. none escaped. Hopefully now we can focus on other things that actually have importance. Last word: Bye! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The above post demeans Wikipedia and it requires a substantial and serious response. 58.7.251.206 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sock of George SJ XXI - indef blocked months ago for SPA disruption by Beeblebrox, and my favourite stalker ever since. Hi George! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You should be careful not to mistake the outcome of this ANI thread as a vindication of your conduct, Marcus. Just as several editors have commented on the futility of this thread, several have also commented on the inappropriateness of your behaviour. If there's a case of WP:IDHT here, you're just as guilty of it yourself, and it's certainly hypocritical of you to expect RA to abide by criticism in this thread if you're not willing to do so yourself. As for your advice to 'quit anything that is detrimental to Wiki', I would suggest that people may actually listen to you dole out that advice if you were capable of following it yourself. If you think your current attitude is in any way beneficial to the wiki, you're deluded. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to make a bold, black-and-white statement here after reading the entire thing - archive, remove - whatever, just move on - can it. --Nutthida (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I regard a threat to report someone to his university for what they do here in the same light as a threat to report someone to their employer: harassment. If the matter is that sever as to warrant going outside Wikipedia, it should not be taken by one party in a dispute against another but a neutral enforcement here, as we do with egregious trolling-- a threat to do this has a dramatic chilling effect in either case and cannot be permitted to become a weapon in a dispute here. Certainly, in both cases a person has a right to do it--but pursuing that course is incompatible with cooperative Wikipedia editing. And, if unjustified, that sort of action can also be regarded as harassment, and sometimes is. Everyone has a right to go outside the community to the r=RW authorities, but if they do, they are for the time being placing themselves outside the community. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper again

With this edit I am sorry to have to say that Dr. Kuiper already violated the interaction ban we agreed to recently. I have no other recourse that to propose a

Permanent ban on Interaction ban between me and Pieter Kuiper. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to where the interaction ban is explicitly made? I cannot find it. --RA (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion here that suggests there may have been consensus for a ban on direct interaction, but the discussion was not closed before the thread was archived, and no conclusion was explicitly formulated.  --Lambiam 21:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that a request as important (?) as an interaction ban could be shelved without a solution. I remember that another editor specifically tried to take steps so that wouldn't happen in this case. Sorry! I thought there was an interaction ban in place. (Isn't there actually, for all intents and purposes?) Should I request that now, or what should I request? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've notified Pieter Kuiper. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no interaction ban in place. Although last time some editors supported an interaction ban, that doesn't mean that there was enough consensus to actually go ahead with it. In fact, I would interpret the relative lack of comments as meaning that most regular editors here didn't think a ban was worth pursuing. Seeing as there was no consensus for an interaction ban last time, your suggestion of an outright ban now seems extreme to me, particularly given that the edit in question looks helpful. Is this the only recent interaction between you and Pieter that you are concerned about? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned, as you may remember (?) from when you tried to help me last time, about any and all interaction between me and a person who has stalked me for years and subjected me to such a huge amout of uncivil, snyde, rude and cruel treatment that the very mention of his name shatters my nerves. I am deathly afraid of Pieter Kuiper, but I guess nobody will ever be able to help me in getting him to stay away. It's even scarier to me that he pops in like this, after a few months, and begins the same old unjustifiable mud-slinging (trying to link to your latest notification about this ANI on his talk page, but don't know if that will succeed- depends on multiple headings there). Just goes to show how that his slurs and insults are unrelenting and never will cease. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked for neutral comment here, intending that the image contributors should not factor into such neutrality. Note Kuiper's reply, wearing his "concerned and objective" disguise there. Also note whose image he wants out. It's all personal and vindictive with him, always. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So even though, as you say, there have been months without crossing paths on Wikipedia, you still maintain that he is stalking and harassing you? I see only one taking it "personal and vindictive" here, and that is you, Serge. You interpret everything Pieter does in the most negative way possible. This is ridiculous. You make some pretty serious accusations with no diffs to back them up. Someone should do something about these constant frivolous reports of yours. --Atlan (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Atlan: I don't need any more attacks on me prsonally right now, thank you! You are unaware of even a small part of what I have been subjected to for years and the amount of evidence I have submitted before. I thought there was an interaction ban in place when I submitted this. You missed that too. I agree with your last suggestion, except for your cruel adjective "frivolous" and your gross exaggeration "constant". What should be done is the interaction ban I have requested here, and which was supported by a majority of neutral editors then, after such a permament ban had been imposed on Kuiper and me on Commons at my request. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I was well aware of your erroneous assumption that there was an interaction ban in place. I am also aware of the "evidence" you submitted before, because I read each and every ANI report by you. That's exactly the problem. Each time it was explained to you that no stalking was taking place. However, you suffer from a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and you have simply ignored it every time. Yet you manage to read a consensus for an interaction ban when there clearly was none. That's selective reading for you.

Furthermore, you come here and call another editor a stalker, vindictive, uncivil, snide, rude, cruel and a hurler of slurs and insults. Yet when I say you make serious accusations without properly backing them up and you make frivolous reports, you feel personally attacked. Really? You do not see the double standards you apply?

Lastly, what I find especially damning is that the end result of Pieter Kuiper's "terrible and scary revert" is that he suggested a new image on the talk page, which you went ahead and added to the article, without so much as a "thank you" (while going out of your way to thank JoelWhy for not agreeing with you). No, instead you continue pushing for a ban and lamenting the "lack of help" you get here.--Atlan (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor is advocating for linking to pro-pedophilia sites on a talk page

Resolved

Radvo (talk · contribs) has linked several times to sites that advocate for pedophilia, notably MHAMIC (Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors information center) and IPCE (International Pedophile and Child Emancipation) as well as helpingpeople dot info, on Talk:Rind et al. controversy ([49], [50]). I have repeatedly removed them [51], [52], [53] and stated in no uncertain terms that linking to these sites is never acceptable - they are not reliable sources, and they are far, far, far too partisan for an illegal act to ever be convenience links. Despite this, Radvo is still arguing for the sites to be considered [54]. May I request the community have a look, and perhaps stomp, hard? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Pedophilia this should probably be reported directly to arbcom. N^oformation ^Talk 02:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Report per WP:CHILDPROTECT Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, done via e-mail to arbcom, will follow-up further tomorrow morning. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above advice looks like it was given mindlessly. If WP:CHILDPROTECT came into play, it should, by all means, be reported without any discussion. However, I don't see where that policy comes into play— how is this user trying to advocate pedophilia in any sense? This diff looks like a good faith effort to seek a third opinion on the disagreement. If these links advocate pedophilia in any way, they should absolutely not be used. If they repeatedly try to insert such links into articles, action would probably be necessary. But I certainly wouldn't say this user's behavior warrants a report to arbcom in the interest of child protection. Just MHO. Swarm ^X 03:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Historically, the general rule has been to tread with caution on this subject. Generally we don't even have discussions about it, we send it to arbcom, they either block or not and that's the end of it. N^oformation ^Talk 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've already e-mailed arbcom, but it would be very helpful if you provided that third opinion, or at least further demonstration of the community consensus that linking to these sites is flatly unacceptable. The IPCE, MHAMIC and helpingpeople dot info sites do indeed advocate for the legalization of adults having sex with children, I did just enough research to confirm that fact. From a research perspective, they're totally unacceptable convenience links, they're never going to be reliable sources, and the page contents are for the most part worthless - the scholarly sources are plentiful and well-documented, as well as easy to turn up via google scholar and pubmed. There is simply no reason, good or bad, to link to them - and a multitude of reasons not to. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how that is at all relevant to my above comment. Swarm ^X 03:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, user Radvo also linked to the Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center and the International Pedophile and Child Emancipation sites on his userpage (he removed it, but it's in the history). As you might imagine, these are pretty sketchy sites, and while linking to them on one's userpage doesn't prove anything about the linker, it's also reasonable to wonder what the person is about. (And it's arguably possible that those links on one's userpage are technically instant-ban offenses.)

How cautious the ArbCom wishes to be is up to them, but beyond that, the user (and another, who arrived at about the same time...) is being tendentious (of the fringe+prolix variation) at Rind et al. controversy around this fraught issue and I think that everyone would be happier if he was contributing to those websites instead of this one. Sooner or later (if ArbCom doesn't act, which they might not) some sort of resolution is going to likely be required. Herostratus (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeing. Just opining that, frankly, we shouldn't rush to label someone a pedophile, and report them as such, unless such is clear. Swarm ^X 06:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree we can't hasten to label anyone a pedophile, but I think there's something problematic about this user. Previously his sandbox contained what appeared to me to be a re-write of the Rind et al. controversy article, a very POV rewrite (see diff ). I think he might have an agenda and I think it needs looking into. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 10:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Swarm, my reply was in part to you and in part to the editors suggesting this be reported to arbcom. The part to you was in response to "This diff looks like a good faith effort to seek a third opinion on the disagreement." I'm not advocating for a block of Radvo - I'm saying s/he needs to learn, quickly, that these links are not and will never be acceptable on wikipedia. That requires attention from outside the current page participants, because apparently Johnuniq's wasn't neutral enough (nor was Legitimus' apparently [55]). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

While WLU's concern is understandable, and he has been very careful to avoid the direct statement, discussions about individual editors and WP:CHILDPROTECT should always be had off-wiki, as they will inevitably always come across as accusations. Arbcom are watching the situation, and will certainly take action if deemed appropriate. WLU - or indeed any other editor - is welcome to continue to email their own concerns to Arbcom. I'd be grateful if that part of this discussion that risks directly addressing Radvo's motives could be closed down. The 3O request, and discussion of sources is not problematic at the moment, and I am watching. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Have left a note on Radvo's talkpage. Please don't hesitate to let me know if he continues to add the problematic links. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest posts have not included these links anymore, and several editors have commented on the talk page. The remaining issues are behavioural, and should be addressed elsewhere, so I consider this resolved. Thanks to arbcom and others providing comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mailinator addresses (again)

This problem has been discussed several times on this board, without resolution, including here, here, here and here. I've just received dozens more such abusive emmails; this tame, the Mailinator address was racist abuse of another editor. Since, as far as I understand, an email address must be registered in order to use the send email facility, would it not be possible to put in a filter, such as with abusive usernames, to prevent at least this element of such abuse? RolandR (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't possible—the edit filter has no access to emails sent. Filing a bug report/feature request at bugzilla.wikimedia.org is the only way I can think of to stop it beyond disabling your email. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a content filter for messages sent. Rather, that when an email is registered to allow posting using the Wikipedia email facility, abusive email names, such as the ones used by this vandal (usually themselves containing racist abuse or death threats) not be permitted to register at all. RolandR (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting that feature added would take the same process. Anyway, it would be very easy to circumvent by simply using an innocuously-named address. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think RolandR's basic request is, can we prevent "throw-away" email addresses from being confirmed?--v/r - TP 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And the answer to that is to file a bugzilla feature request, either to block Mailinator addresses from being used, or to create a blacklist we can edit for allowed email addresses. Prodego ^talk 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The above replies are good, but what can the community do that is more helpful than effectively dismissing the OP to a blind alley (since an individual asking for a significant change is unlikely to get results)? Where should a discussion be held to get some solid consensus that technical assistance is required? WP:VPR? Can those with influence seek to engage people familiar with MediaWiki enhancements? Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that this requires a MediaWiki tweak it's probably best if you request it at bugzilla. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but we all know about that there is a close-to-zero chance of significant work being performed when an unknown account makes a random bugzilla suggestion requiring significant work. I am asking that someone clueful make a suggestion about how to proceed because abuse of the mail system is a serious problem. Yes, we can all ignore it because it's only happening to someone else (solution: that person should disable their email, that is, we can each be picked off one-by-one). However, when reports of abusive editing are made, it is standard for people to help—that's what is needed here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually there's already a related bugzilla [56]. There have been some contradictory comments but my understanding is the foundation is already aware of this and looking in to the best solution. I'm not entirely sure whether more community pressure would help, I would have expected the nature of the emails is enough to convince the foundation that this is a serious issue. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact is, there's nothing we can do. This is something that would require a code change, not something the community can deal with. It's not "ignoring" the problem to point them to the bugzilla system. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I know the above is well intentioned, but as it completely misses the point I have to respond. Everyone here knows that a code change is required. We also know that sending an individual to bugzilla about this issue will achieve nothing. For any chance of success, the community would have to conduct a wider discussion and reach a solid consensus requesting an enhancement. People with a clue would need to be involved. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mobile Payments in India

Could an admin review this article, especially as edited by User:Priyabhar? The problem is repeated addition of WP:OR and WP:SOAP, as seen most recently in this edit. Although virtually all of the content appears to be original research or opinion, see in particular text such as "generally, new technology solutions tend to have their own evolutionary paths,so I would rather not make any predictions. Nevertheless there is a tremendous sense of optimism with the prospect of having the ubiquitous mobile phone with the ability to transfer money" and "only banks which are licensed and supervised in india and have a physical presence in india will be permitted to offer mobile payment services to residents of India"; this edit which suggests that the editor is acting on behalf of an organisation to advance a pov ("I have entered the details which was approved by MPFI") and all the pictures the user has uploaded without any license info, such as File:Previously Proposed Architecture.png, File:Evolution of teledensity.png, File:ProposedDesignChanges.png and File:Teledensity.png. I have attempted to engage with the user and encourage them to read the appropriate guidelines both on their talk page and in my edit summaries on the page but they persist in adding the text over and over again. They have now received a level 4 warning, though as this is not vandalism per se I have not taken this to WP:AIV. Note also that they have also edited this article once as Special:Contributions/117.193.177.161. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In its current state it seems to me more of a case of close paraphrasing/verbatim copying without crediting the sources. Observe this huge chunk (which includes the material you quoted above) as well as these two biggish chunks. All that material can and should be deleted as a copyright infringement. – Voceditenore (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've blanked the page with {{Copyviocore}} and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 January 9. I suspect virtually all the rest of the article is composed of copied sentences from multiple sources, which makes it much more complicated. It will probably require a complete rewrite. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch; thank you. Those documents also appear to be where the images the editor uploaded came from. They also explain the weird use of tables that put outlines round some of the text - it appears it was to emulate the breakout boxes in the source. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth keeping the page on watch for the next 7 days. I've just reverted an IP registered to Indian Institute of Technology, Madras who had removed the blanking template [57]. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And again [58] (reverted by another editor). Voceditenore (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fake lawyer offering his services?

In this diff, a lawyer from the fine firm of Piranha Solicitors is offering to help a user sue Wikipedia. Is this account part of a sock farm? I ask because User:NawlinWiki indeffed a user with a similar name today (User:The Rt Hon. L Phillips QC) as a sockpuppet but I don't know if that admin is still online. --NellieBly (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Never mind; User:Favonian blocked editor while I was adding this and before I was able to place a notice. --NellieBly (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"L. Phillips QC" is an AN/I troll whose MO involves Mr. Treason-esque lawsuit threats using the former Queen's Council's name. I wonder if the actual Honourable L. Phillips can sue this clown for libel? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

IPs have been trolling this board using that name for the past few days; it had gone away for awhile, but it started up again shortly after I blocked User:FPGT24. It's not FPGT24, but they quickly began trolling that thread, and I guess they've started branching out. Though I have to admit, the "Notice of intent to sue" section I found in the ANI archives when I searched for L Phillips, QC was one of the funnier things I've read. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Piranha Solicitors"...how appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

the real The Rt. Hon. L.C. Phillips, QC is not a "former QC", though: he's the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and likely has better things to do than to sue a Wikipedia troll. --NellieBly (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The troll appears to be emailing users, judging by a comment just added by a user to their talk page, apparently in response to an email. See User talk:Radvo#Legal advise from UK. I read message. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm dealing with an angry person

In the past he's followed me but now he's not even pretending to have wikipedia's interests in mind he's just reverting my efforts if he doesn't like the facts even if proper citations are being made.

What's more he's started to engage in name calling. --Protostan (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Who, what, when, where, why and how? Phearson (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:AndytheGrump. troll, on the Jared Lee Loughner page, and I don't know what his problem is but he's made it clear he doesn't care how many good citations I have backing my edit he's going to remove them. --Protostan (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the contribs, this seems to be related to Protostan's recent POV edits to the religious views of Jared Lee Loughner and Anders Behring Breivik. I believe the PA that Protostan is referring to is being called a troll in an edit summary reverting him. Protostan has not posted to the talk pages of either of those articles, nor has he posted to the talk pages of editors who reverted him. This AN/I post seems to be in response to a recent NPOV Level-4 warning from Von Restorff. Chillllls (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Protostan has a long history of ignoring consensus (and policy) to insert his POV into articles. He didn't get off to a good start on the Loughner article, when he inserted 'Category:Atheist philosophers' into it soon after it was created, for no apparent reason at all beyond troublemaking. [59] Since then he has repeatedly tried to insert material related to Loughner's supposed atheism - in spite of there being no source for this other than vague statements made by former schoolmates, and in spite of it apparently having nothing whatsoever with Loughner's notability. And by the way, I wasn't angry. Grumpy no doubt, but I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion thread does not present edit differences and therefore should be closed. TFD (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice how he doesn't want to deal with my having proper citations for my latest edit? He'd rather speculate about my motive. --Protostan (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice how Protostan started this thread with speculations about my motive? Notice how Protostan makes no comment on the fact that I wasn't the only one reverting his edits? He'd rather avoid any discussion of his own behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I'd rather talk about my citations and why you refuse to acknowledge them. --Protostan (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you would - but this is AN/I, and we discuss behaviour here, not content disputes. You had the talk page available for that, and chose not to use it. Still, if you wan't to discuss sources, can you show me the one you used for the 'atheist philosopher' category you tried to insert into the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to accept proper citations is an obvious behaviour problem you are having. --Protostan (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It isn't obvious to anyone else here. What is obvious is that you chose to edit-war, rather than engage in discussion on the article talk page. Anyway, this isn't a forum for tit-for-tat namecalling. Unless anyone has any constructive input, I'm done here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your failure to read the citations is not my fault but it is a problem for anyone who has to deal with you. --Protostan (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said on Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Even_more_pov_pushing I think it would be a good idea for Protostan to apologize to AndyTheGrump and try to do some edits that actually improve Wikipedia and are not religion-related. Von Restorff (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

I'm exasperated and at a loss. This article is about a physics theory proposed by Antony Garrett Lisi (note that there are similar problems on that article, too). There are two distinct sides, both of which seem to not understand or care whatsoever about Wikipedia's policies, with only one or two editors (I consider myself to be one) in the middle. One side thinks that Lisi is, well, words that I can't use for fear of breaking WP:BLP. They think that the theory is complete bunk, hype, and a public relations travesty. The other side thinks that Lisi's theory is new, imperfect but promising, no different than any other new physics theory, and deserving of a warm limelight (and that the detractors are basically envious string theorists). The first side wants both articles deleted, or, at least, stubbed and left with no info about the science itself. Deletion is out of the question, of course, because there are dozens upon dozens of sources that discuss both Lisi and the theory (what happened is that the mainstream press got excited that this "surfer-dude" physicist, working outside of the academy, came up with a theory that set the physics world on edge). The other side wants the entire theory explained in great detail, both mathematically and scientifically, at a level that 99.9999% of Wikipedia readers could never understand. This is really also out of the question because there are quite a number of sources that say that, unfortunately, Lisi is simply wrong (the main paper was never even published in a peer reviewed journal).

I'm fed up with the two sides. Most recently, I've "threatened" to just start collapsing every discussion that calls for the article to be deleted, because that's so obviously not what Wikipedia policy says. I'm also sick to death of having to have the same fight over and over again with the ones who don't want anything removed. Furthermore, Lisi himself has been discussing this off site, and it is entirely likely that either Lisi or one of his supporters, as well as some of his direct opponents, are actively editing the article and/or talk page. Just recently, 2 editors have said that they're planning to take me to the Administrator's Notice Board for my threats (see Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything#Does Wikipedia need this article and, if so, what form should it take?). So I'm taking the initiative and doing it myself.

Of course, the question is inevitably, "What Administrative Action is requested here?" First, please review the conduct of all users there, and see if anyone needs to be blocked for BLP violations (of particular concerns there are posts by (User:71.106.167.55), such as [60]), or tendentious editing. See if anyone sees any meat or sockpuppetry. Please also review my own conduct, and trout or sanction me as appropriate--my frustration may well have gotten the better of me, especially in the last few days. Ideally, I'd like a neutral admin or two watching the talk page and stopping tendentious editing before it gets out of hand (as if the article were under discretionary sanctions). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An article written in the tone that is written in which contains the phrase "was not submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal" and "largely but not entirely ignored by the mainstream physics community" should send red flags waving. Honestly I'd support deleting it, we don't need any more pseudoscience here. And that is what that appears to be to me. That article seems to have rushed through AfD last time with ILIKEIT type "look, it is in the news!" support. That doesn't demonstrate a lasting notability (notability isn't temporary). This theory seems to have no lasting support or impact. Send it back to AfD, perhaps. Prodego ^talk 05:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An exceptionally easy decision. Mainstream science ignores it. So should we. Per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if true, that's not how policy works. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm an interested editor who hasn't done much with the article because it was outside of my expertise, but since Lisi's public presentations have focused on the visualizations of his theory which is within my geometric expertise at least.Qwyrxian has been patient and fair, although it was his deletion of a large portion of the mathematical aspects of the article that pulled me in [61]. I appreciated the detailed descriptions of the theory even if there was much I don't understand, and I'm one of the 99.999% too, in terms of judging its failings. There's advanced mathematics in the theory only really taught to math (or physics) grad students, although Wikipedia has a great deal to say about this advanced math, like Lie algebras of E8 and the subgroups. I find Lisi's paper and article represent an excellent inspiration for aspiring math students for a reason to try to learn more about this abstract math. Similarly for me the theory was the first attempt I ever saw that offered me a "map", that the hundreds of subatomic particles had a structure I could understand, and again, there's wide wikipedia articles on subatomic physics articles. So my interest in "explaining" the theory is to connect Lisi's use of weight diagrams to show known and speculated relations between the particle and charges of all these particles. These diagrams seem to do a great deal to help explain the relations between the particles to nonexperts, and are used in many papers, while wikipedia editors who added the physics articles haven't included them. As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question since Lisi still works on it, and his public presentations shows a progression from the standard model to various extensions which are speculative, ending with his E8 proposal. So it seems fair to me, that wikipedia, with its vast math and physics articles gain by Lisi's paper as an article, showing the progression of theories, and I think if there's people on wikipedia who are able to understand and summarize the model and reference their sources properly, it seems inspiring to those who are interested, and actually harmless to those who fear science is being destroyed by a speculative idea they don't like. So I'll keep learning, and if I can help, I will. It would be nice if the harshes critics could think of some constructive on the talk pages. Qwyrxian suggested rants be deleted, and I see his reasoning, but accept suppression can just makes ranters more self-righteous. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question". Possibly. Wikipedia isn't the place to close it. Take it elsewhere - our science articles are based on mainstream consensus. If you want to promote a new and radical theory, find a new place to do it. That isn't what Wikipedia is here for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

His work will exist whether or not we have a Wikipedia article on it. Indeed, we can even export this article somewhere else. But that mainstream theoretical physicists immediately reject it is all I need to know. Wikipedia's science articles need to be about science. Speculative theories that are completely disregarded by the mainstream don't belong, under the same sort of theory that leads us to the WP:OR policy. Prodego ^talk 06:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of our policy (I'm speaking against Prodego and AndytheGrump here) is that even fringe topics should be covered by Wikipedia, so long as there are reliable sources to cover it. And there is no doubt whatsoever that this paper and Lisi have been covered by both mainstream news sources (quite a bit) and scientific articles (a little bit). This is why we have articles on Water-fuelled cars, Hollow Earth, and Tired light. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of science only, it's a general encyclopedia, so even if Lisi's theory is pure bunkum (or just plain wrong), the cultural and historical aspects of it need to be adequately covered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My argument is that there is no historical or cultural significance. I can walk up to anyone on the street and I would venture not 1 in 100, maybe not even 1 in 1000 would have heard of this. It is also not significant in the scientific community, as evidenced by the mainstream scientific community ignoring it. So then who needs to be educated about this topic? Prodego ^talk 07:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That same man in the street will also not have heard of several dozen quite well-established and important scientific theories and likely doesn't know what continent Myanmar is on, so the "man in the street test" isn't terribly relevant. What is relevant are our standards on notability, and this clearly passes, given the coverage in mainstream reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if your average "man on the street" has heard of Immanuel Velikovsky but if you go to any university physics/astronomy department, most there have heard of him. "Woo" can be notable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Those have significance in the scientific community though. Prodego ^talk 07:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think of myself as one of the neutral ones. I know the theory very well, in almost all its intimate details, which is one of the reasons I was able to respond point by point to one of the editors pro-Lisi that is very stubborn when it comes to remove any part of the page and to add any criticism. At the same time I support the existence of the page and some degree of explanation of it and don't agree with all the recurring users and requests to delete the page or to erase each detail about Lisi's theory. Lisi isn't a person with his own theory of the world. His theory has flaws but it was coherent with the general approaches of particle physics and at least he holds a PhD in physics (just to say that it's better than the hollow earth theory). "As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question", this, unfortunately is a false statement. Lisi's theory is currently considered wrong because there are mathematical problems with it (as in how fermions actually are fermions in his theory). Of course, in the future Lisi might solve this, but he could be solving this just changing (at some degree) the theory. But the current version certainly is wrong. There is a published theorem that states it pretty clearly. In the year long discussion (at this point), I have written from some different IP's (they called me 24 or 98), although stating it was the same me, and just recently created this user because lately it was becoming difficult with the presence of many other IPs (so I first started using a name as signature, then I decided to actually create one because editor above Tom Ruen asked me for my talk page as a place where we could talk of some physics details in the attempt of including weight diagrams to explain other article physics articles and models, the official ones). I had to avoid editing other wikipages from the same IP given that this page brings people to harass you. Even Lisi in his offsite comments tried (ironically) to out me (who cares who I am anyways, haha) when he was the first one to be accused to be secretly editing himself the page. But Qwyrxian even if sometimes was at the point of being upset, I think is managing the situation quite well. It is rather hard to keep a neutral attitude when you deal with a page that is highly polarizing and at the same time you can't be weighing the two sides equally because the mainstream physics weighs more than the almost fringe theory side. ~GT~ (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Context note: This came up a week or so ago at WT:PHYS#An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. The discussion there may provide useful background as to how this fits in with the scientific community as a whole. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond my Ken. However, this isn't the place to have a debate about inclusion, but to discuss how to help Qwyrxian.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If Qwyrxian believes that users are acting disruptively and attempts to engage have failed, then it's time to work through the steps at WP:DR to build a case for that. If, on the other hand, everyone is acting in good faith but has widely divergent opinions on the issues being debated, it's time to go through the content-related steps at WP:DR. Both of these have already been pursued to some extent (pinging WT:PHYS for additional opinions on both aspects, and now pinging here for additional opinions/advice (mostly about behaviour)). If I understand correctly, the next steps are probably mediation (to defuse conduct issues) and either polls regarding specific changes or article content RFCs on broader issues (for content). It then gets kicked back up here if tendentious editing continues even with mediation and sufficient discussion to establish what content is and is not encyclopedic/appropriate. That said, it's been a while since I've been involved in anything like this (thankfully), so I may not be up to date on what the next steps are.

With regards to content-related discussion in this thread, a discussion of whether or not the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, or whether or not the article's description of its scientific merit matches reality, is relevant to some extent: who is being tendentious or editing non-neutrally depends on what the facts actually are. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Come on guys - this is what we have policies for.
• If it is notable, then it has passed the basic test for 'should it have an article.' It's been to AfD and been kept - the parties that think the keep decision was wrong have a further avenue at WP:DRV. We have plenty of articles that people don't like - that's not a good reason to delete them.
• If it is notable, purports to be science, but is rejected by the mainstream scientific community, then it can be dealt with under the guidelines for pseudoscience - which do not say that Wikipedia doesn't carry articles on pseudoscience topics.
• you can add all the content you like about what the theory says, but you do in fairness have to point out prominently (and with references) that mainstream science disagrees. And you have to bear in mind that it is not Wikipedia's role to debunk it, that is the role of secondary sources which can then be cited in the article.
• now does anyone need blocking for edit warring, disruption, personal attacks etc .....? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On disruption, Special:Contributions/71.106.167.55 has been the singular ranter, like [62]. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised (and disappointed) that we have experienced editors saying the article should be deleted. It's clearly meets notability guideline. Whether the theory is true or fringe is irrelevent and has absolutely nothing to do with notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with AQFK and with Elen's sensible scheme of action. Issue blocks to anyone being disruptive and edit the article according to our policies for fringe science (or failed theories). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I came to the talk page discussion late in the day [63] with a rather thorough analysis of the impact of Lisi's paper on the mainstream science community based on the science citation databases. I found that the impact of the paper had been very minor and suggested that the interesting features of the story were the sociological rather than scientific ones and the article should reflect this. I was immediately accused by Qwyrxian, falsely and on no basis whatsoever, of off-Wiki collaboration. He threatened to collapse the contributions of editors he disagreed with. Looking back over the debate I find his conduct to have been reprehensible. He acts as if he owns the debate. He has insulted, bullied and threatened to censor editors with whom he disagrees and then, when he still did not get his way, threw a tantrum by bringing the matter here. This behaviour is unacceptable. Qwyrxian self-confessedly has little technical knowledge of the subject, as is clear from the first paragraph of this thread and, more importantly, appears to have little grasp of the social dynamics of the scientific community or Wikipedia' policies on notability. This is a content dispute and should not have been brought to WP:AN/I. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

I brought the issue to ANI because 2 other editors told me they were going to bring my behavior here, so rather than wait in "fear" of that, I did it myself. I should not have accused you of off-wiki collaboration, and my apologies for that. The problem, as I said before, is that we know for a fact that there has been off-wiki promotion/denigration of these articles before, and we keep getting people who as Elen points out above, seem to forget that our notability policies don't in any way care that the theory has been rejected. My "threats to censor" were an attempt to do something to break the perpetual problem that occurs on that talk page of suggestions for deletion or stubbing that are not compliant with our policies. This approach is sometimes used on other talk pages where discussion is tendentious. If it was overbearing (the relevant diffs for my comments are [64] and [65]. However, I as far as I know, I haven't insulted, bullied, or threatened any editors--if I have, please provide diffs. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, I actually have a better grasp of our notability policies than you (and several other editors) do. Finally, while there is a content dispute, there's also a behavioral problem. If there is anyone with a load of time on their hands, I implore you--read through the last month or so of talk page contributions, and consider whether some of the editing is disruptive. Including mine--if I'm a problem there, I'll take whatever trouts, blocks, or topic bans are appropriate. I tried to walk away from this article once before (when it was mainly Scientryst and 76 that were going back and forth), but the terrible behavior there keeps drawing me back in, in some sort of vain attempt to remind people that we do actually have policies that apply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There may be a case for bringing the article to AfD for a second time as much has changed since the last AfD in 2007. The scientific community has now brought down its verdict on the paper, finding it to be of little importance through voting with its feet and not citing it in their literature. An AfD debate would provide a picture of current opinion easier to read than the to and fro rhetoric of the talk page. It would also bring the matter to the attention of the experienced participants on pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science. There is the problem of Lisi encouraging his fanboys to edit Wikipedia [66] so arguments will have to be scrutinised with care. As I said on the article talk page, I think that there is some sociological interest in the matter of how public relations promotion generated so much interest outside the scientific community in a relatively insignificant paper, so I might be persuaded to vote for a Merge or Redirect.

On a tangent: I am concerned by the premature closure of many AfD debates. For example the 2007 AfD of this article was closed after only six hours, giving some people no chance to respond. I think that debates should be open for at least 24 hours to cover the sleep/work cycles in different parts of the world. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Xxanthippe if you bring it to AfD, it will be Snow closed in a day or less because the article obviously meets WP:GNG. Again, I'm trying to say this as nicely and clearly as possible: Wikipedia does not consider the fact the fact that the theory is discredited to have any bearing whatsoever on whether the topic should have an article on it. Again, Water-fuelled cars is a perfect example--it's a completely obvious and ridiculous con, and will never be a valid scientific/engineering theory, but that does not mean that we should even consider it for deletion. You're attempting to apply your own standard of what belongs in Wikipedia, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there would be a snow keep as some contributors to this thread have gone further than me and called for a delete. Of course, there are always the Lisi acolytes to play their part. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Whether "snow" or not, it would undoubtedly be a "keep" as it's clearly notable. Arguing otherwise is really a waste of energy which could be put into balancing the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Teabagger" vandal is back

Я русский (talk · contribs)

Я русский, a vandalism only account that has edited under many user names(the one I remember most recently is Dhajkfljk) and ips seems to be back in action. I don't want to violate the 1rr restrictions on the Tea Party movement article and am heading for bed now. The vandal usually changes all references to the Tea Party to "Teabaggers" and when an editors reverts, he/she vandalizes their page and refs to that user as a teabagger. One diff. Thanks Dave Dial (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He was indef'd a minute before you posted. Sometimes them admins are fast as a bolt of lightning driving a Porsche. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

1RR and 3RR do not apply when reverting blatant vandalism or edits by banned users. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Hamill

why is his page gone? he was very funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.117.29 (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you mean Aaron Hamill, who appeared in a programme called The Man Show, an article on him was deleted in 2009. The discussion which led to the deletion is here.--Kateshortforbob _talk 09:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User Zenanarh

User Zenanarh has used systematically personal attack in the following discussion. [67], despite the discussion was already mediated by an administrator. I have not replied before in order not to influence the decision of the administrator about the matter of the dispute.
This is over now and I need to report this incident. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you provide links to the supposed personal attacks. I do believe that you should bring your objections to the administrator mediating the debate, rather than make a post on ANI. I understand, from my past involvement with the Zadar issue (in 2007, if i recall correctly), that the debate is a contentious one but I urge all parties involved to discuss the issue with civility. Bringing this matter before ANI will only escalate the issue. —Dark 13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances this is what I would do. The thing is that I was very patient during the mediation despite the attacks of user Zenanarh (he was also warned by the mediator to have a calmer attitude). This user has been recently blocked [68] for the following reason: "has expressed and demonstrated a deliberate desire to disrupt Wikipedia", but apparently this sanction has not been very effective on his/her behaviour.

I report hereafter the extracts of some of his/her attacks from the talks [69], [70] and [71] if you want to put them into context.

• This is just another problem of the same kind with literature, since Italian literature is not objective, it usurps any prominent person from Croatia in the past. If you defend such extremism you are an extremist and from now on I will treat you as the one. Zenanarh (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Very nice. But I don't trust Silvio. His comment, now removed, was manipulation of what I wrote. Please, don't trust his citations, check it. Zenanarh (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• I would like to add that claims of extremistic ideologies cannot be a part of multiple perspectives. You can inform people that Mein Kampf treated the Jews as the animals, but you cannot edit Jews as they are the animals and use Mein Kampf as reference. Zenanarh (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• I cannot socialize with an agenda warrior."" Zenanarh (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• It is obvious in our case, that Italian claims about Italianship of Dalmatia were coming from the Italian Irredentists and Fascists in the past and that same claims are sometimes coming from some modern Italians at present. Zenanarh (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I can see we have problem – your poor knowledge about Zadar, Dalmatia and Croatia. Zenanarh (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Silvio, don't make jokes with me. I have no time for craps. Zenanarh (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• It's much more important to explain processes and occasions, as well as complex political situation in the city, than to produce a political pamphlet which is your obvious intention (I would like to believe it's not, but you haven't shown anything else); Zenanarh (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is more available if you need...

--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio, I can't see any of those as personal attacks, although some are a little impolite. Yes, some are calling your editing into question, but you're doing the same to Zenanarh. The first is probably the indicator of the problem, and ought really to be dealt with as part of the mediation if it is still ongoing.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, if this is normal behaviour I guess Wikipedia (at least the English one) is not the right place for me. I am fine with boldness but I did not qualify of extremist, ignorant, forger or manipulator my counterparty. Where can you find such comments from my side?

Well, I think the mediation is finished. This is the reason I am reporting this only now. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not "taking sides". But you must know that bringing this to ANI isn't going to look favorably upon yourself either, and will potentially escalate the dispute. I agree with Elen in that I do not see a personal attack in the comments above, although it may be heated and be misconstrued as such. I suggest that you bring this issue into formal mediation and keep your cool - Zenanarh should do the same. —Dark 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and I do not think nor believe that you are "taling sides". The issue - and you can understand clearly checking it by yourself - it that almost each talk that touch articles like Zadar, Dalmatian history and art gets into lenghty and impolite discussion (to use Elen's wording). Many contributors to these articles do not see with favour contributions or modifications from non Croat users. Almost invariably Italian contributors as potential extremist and all new users (it was also my case) are seen as potential sock puppets (?!).

However I understand what you mean when you write that there is no ground for a claim on ANI (albeit I did not like at all the reference he made to [Mein Kampf]). Someone else will report Zenanarh in the future. This user is genuinely aggressive, no doubt he will be blocked again one day. In the meantime I will avoid any contact with him. It does not matter if he/she will have easier life in imposing his views. I do not want to be insulted again just because my sources are different. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to comment that I responded to a third opinion for this matter and we discussed in length on the talk page here: Talk:Zadar and in my own user namespace where I tried to resolve the issue as a "mediator" position here: User:Whenaxis/Zadar. I kept reminding both of them of 4 steps they should always remember:

1. Consider the other editor's point of view.
2. Do not disruptively edit through edit warring and reversions.
3. Do not use personal attacks to get your point across.
4. Rely on Wikipedia policies to determine a resolution.

[Source: [72] ]

At this time, from a third party "mediator" perspective, I don't think this is needed because I think we've resolved majority, if not all, the issues because Zenanarh has lightened up and is responding in a friendly manner now. Thanks Whenaxis talk Join the Imposter Verification Team! 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

RealCowboys and Walter Görlitz

Note: I've grouped the twothree posts above as they are related post and counter-post. --RA (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:RealCowboys is displaying uncivil behaviour again

User:RealCowboys and User:Suitcivil133 are fans of rival football clubs.

RealCoboys made a mild personal attack, commenting on the editor, against Suitcivil133 in an edit summary on one of the articles that is in contention. RealCoboys then tagged Suitcivil133's talk page with a WP:NPA template after I had already tagged it for the same behaviour.

RealCoboys was blocked on 29 December 2011 for personal attacks and has only been back for five days. The editor's comments, discussion and and general behaviour often digress to trash-talking and name-calling, when edit summaries are left or talk is used to discuss. The editor doesn't seem to understand WP:CIVIL and may need an admin to explain it more clearly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh come off it, that's not a personal attack. He was unwise to characterise the material he was reverting as "vandalism", but apart from that he was right to re-write the title of that section as the previous one was definitely unencyclopaedic. If all you're complaining about here is an edit summary containing the word "bandwagoner" I don't think there's anything actionable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Bandwagoner" was not needed but not uncivil. Civility problems - and I don't see any here to be honest - can be taken to WP:WQA. GiantSnowman 10:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No administrative attention is needed in regards to the civility issues, as of yet. I urge the editors to remain civil in all their interactions, and stop templating each other. In regards to the content dispute, I tend to agree with Cowboys in that labelling Barcelona's reign as "Football Domination" is sensationalist, violating both WP:NPOV and the sub-title naming conventions of WP:MOS. More so, the lack of independent 3rd party sources in reference to this is a violation of our policy on original research and verifiability. But I digress - ANI is the wrong venue to discuss this. I urge the parties to cease edit warring or sanctions will be impossed on the parties involved. —Dark 11:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz

User:Walter Görlitz has repeatedly made false statements and or accusations that I have been uncivil in "tash talking" or "personal attacks". I understand that his job is to be a good editor but he feels the need that if I use as so much mention another editor im simply "attacking" them. Ive already been banned once and I realized personal attacks on wikipedia is not right but he should have no business to look thru my past history to further hurt my status. RealCowboys (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking for here? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RealCowboys, I'm not sure what you're looking for either. You have indeed been blocked twice (no, as far as I can see you have never been banned). Your history is right there, and always will be. In order to distance yourself from those actions, you need to act within policy. The best way to not be accused of future personal attacks is to not make comments that could be seen as personal attacks. One important civility issue is to ensure that you never call an edit vandalism unless it is, indeed, vandalism - some people get overly sensitive at being called a vandal. If you're having trouble having polite conversation to resolve an issue, then WP:WQA is thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is funny. And then the editor tagged my page with WP:NPA, but the action is not clear. I can see that this is going to take a great deal of patience. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Walter has a history of choosing which side he feels is "attacking" without trying to resolve anything. Judging by the way he worded "This is funny." it seems he is taking this as a joke, I'm warning him to be civil. RealCowboys (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That may not be funny, but this edit summary is, especially considering the first part of what you removed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No kid, I can remove any comments on MY talk page, quit trolling on my personal business. RealCowboys (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133

User:Suitcivil133 has repeatedly be accusing me of being "biased", "personally I don't care what the headline will be but this RealCowboys (who have an history of being blocked and not behaving) should not delete information and lable it as false when the subject has been discussed and proven correct, or delete information on a rival football clubs Wikipedia page without any discussion before deleting it as he is biased." He feels that any change I make to his favorite clubs page is automatically vandalism. I recently changed a header title on FC Barcelona that said "Football Domination" because I felt that is a POV remark and to him that is "vadalism" and im "deleting information lable it as false when the subject has been discussed and proven correct". When has this ever been proven correct? I ask for him to stop refering to me as being biased and should be blocked for a short period of time, just as I was. RealCowboys (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Without looking at anything else, "Football Domination" is not an appropriate section title, IMO. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, without looking at anything else, agree that "Football Domination" is not appropriate. (I've also again grouped these threads.) --RA (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cikgu Jasmin Airways

78.101.101.192 (talk · contribs) has added this airline name to about18 airport ages, but it does not appear to exist. Their other edits seem unreferenced, but may be correct. I have asked the editor for an explanation on their talk page. I am unsure what, if anything to do now. --220 of ^Borg 13:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor informed here --220 of ^Borg 13:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have also informed WikiProject Airport here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. --220 of ^Borg 14:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ladies vs Ricky Bahl

Another copyright violation which needs removing. [73] This which I removed is a copy and paste from [74] here. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of block

I've just blocked Arthur Rubin for 24 hours for edit warring and misusing rollback on Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. As blocks of admins are usually controversial, review is welcome. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the block was fine. I had been going to revoke his rollback, but I found he was an admin. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good block, after Arthur Rubin was warned - what an amazingly silly edit-war over a truly trivial disagreement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I did the same thing Reaper. This edit war has been going on over several months and on more than one article, and for the life of me I can't see anything wrong with the link anyway--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hard to say. Clearly war-editing, but also giving a message to dynamic IP users how easy it is to evade being dragged to ANI like those of us with the sense (or balls) to register, without being blocked due to technological reasons it sends out a bad message, and they will continue being disruptive. The article needs semi-protecting, to show that we don't allow anons to take the piss. If IPs are human to, make their gaming less easy. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on the protection of the page, I just warned the IP about edit warring, instead of issuing a block, because he hadn't edited since 11:33 (UTC) today... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point - although in this case the IP has what limited consensus there is with it. But if it didn't, there would be no real point in blocking it, as the person behind it would just reset their router again. Arthur was significantly silly though - if I was adding info in an article about a Statutory Instrument issued by the UK government, I'd probably link to Statutory Instrument (UK) as well, just so folks knew what one of the things was. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article (in the state that I do not personally favour) and left a note on the Talk page - as soon as anyone thinks there is a sufficient consensus to make or not make the change, the article can be unprotected -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• While this particular edit-war seems to be pointless, it has to be said that the IP-user in question, is a long time disruptive user on most of the climate pages. He/She is recognized by the links (mostly unrelated to the edit) used in edit-comments, and usage of the talk-pages as his/her personal news aggregator. Iirc, he/she has been mentioned several times here, and as Rubin says blocks are pretty impossible since its on a dynamic address. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The main "bonus" of these highly dynamic IPs is that they can force impetuous editors into breaching 3RR, and once blocked can use a fresh IP and the "block time" as an opportunistic moment to revert and edit further. In some cases dynamic socks could be used a brilliant cover to knock out a competitive registered editor, then login as an apparently innocent editor, claim the IP was right all along: game, set, and match. The blocked user isn't going to risk another 3RR, and unless SPI determines anything solid and is able to act (in many cases rangeblocks cause too much collateral damage), who is to know? Dynamic IPs are more of an annoyance to long-standing editors, because of their ability to avoid blocks, ANI, policy enforcement and such. Semi-protects help, but the limiting factor is the best of two evils. This is why many editors are pro-Registered access only, I suppose. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 17:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEANS'. Please cease speculation on this kind of behavior. Longtime disruptive IP addresses know the secret knock to get into the treehouse as well. Hasteur (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"This humorous essay contains comments by one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline" ...and that's where I stopped reading... Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to me to be a very (extremely?) tendentious IP. Arthur did not do multiple reverts in any short time period, so I am unsure that anything more than the formal warning was called for, and a symmetrical warning ought to have been appended for each IP address. Then future admins can see that the IP has been used disruptively in the past. And reduce block to "time served" as that is IMO a reasonable act. Collect (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverts don't have to be done in a short time period to qualify as edit-warring - it's a content dispute (and a pretty lame one at that), and both parties have been blatantly edit-warring over it for *months* -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hum...so we've blocked an admkn in otherwise good standing and assumed that the IP that won't register an account is adding trustworthy info?MONGO 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not trustworthy info, merely a wikilink... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked now, with Salvio's agreement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Batshit crazy rants"

No admin action is going to be taken. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Long block log for same, TCO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Warning for similar four days ago on his talk [75] "pussy juice leaking from its nutsack" Nov 30, "motherfuckers" Nov 30, "crufty rule mongers" while tag team edit warring with his mentor Wehwalt Dec 1 warned again on his talk Jan 6 Followed by today: "batshit crazy rants from Sandy" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Will notify now.[76] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Sandy isn't the only target of TCO's incivility. I've just about had my fill with him too. (The one that did it for me was this comment here he suggests that I got the FA director title because it was "cool" rather than the 8 years of work I've put into it) He was put on the "strictest possible probation" last year, with little apparent effect on his current behavior. Given his mile-long block log, and numerous recent warnings that have gone ignored, I think it's time for a substantial (multi-month) block. Raul654 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Also, for full history, this is my alleged batshit crazy rant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I am not a fan of that most recent diff. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC) This is all stuff from WT:FAC spilling over here. If anyone takes this seriously, I will post diffs. Very regrettable that Sandy would start this. Very regrettable.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I find that in spite of its reputation, generally folks at ANI can tell where the discussion came from by clicking on the diffs. I know many admins who actually do that; YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Suggestion I warned this user, just days ago over the "pussy juice" comment, and indicated that he was headed for blocking - so I'm fully supportive of taking action here. However, I think as incivility goes "batshit crazy rants" isn't of itself way over the line. However, given the track record and the inability to heed warnings, action needs to be taken. I suggest community puts the user on "civility parole" the terms of which are "user to avoid all personal attacks, and any and all heightened invective whatsoever. If the parole is broken, any uninvolved administrator may block for 24 hours in the first instance, escalating to a 1 year block". When users are constantly warned and don't heed it, it is time for zero tolerance.--Scott Mac 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, but a topic ban from FAC should also be on the table: I'm out of time for today, so will leave it to others to present that case, which goes back almost a year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Scott, you yourself called Sandy's line of comments ""borderline scurrilous". We all know Sandy. After a considerable time, she has come here and said "oh, he hit me". Fortunately, what led up to it are matters of record.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "We all know Sandy" seems to be an interesting indirect insult; pls clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I did, and I gave clear reasons and not worthless invective. But I'm not seeing the connection.--Scott Mac 18:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC) It is all part of the same conversation. Shall I get diffs of what Sandy has called TCO, or would this needlessly deepen the "hell-swamp"? (I have Cas's page watchlisted, nothing to do with you). I don't know what it is with Sandy, but since she resigned, she has been insufferable. It doesn't bother me, I have a thick skin and Sandy doesn't know what buttons to push, but it's hard on other people.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC) What have I called TCO? If you're referring to me saying his presentation reads like a "Manic manifesto", I'll save you the time of looking for the diffs and acknowledge I said that somewhere. I did notice that he claimed elsewhere later that I was saying *he* was manic, which is untrue. His presentation reads like a randomly thrown together manifesto of bullet points and faulty analysis with a target (namely FA writers). Comment on the content, not the contributor-- I did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC) So you can call his (how many pages was it? A lot) paper a "manic manifesto" but he is somehow off base to call your postings "crazy rant" even with the "batshit"? I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Comment on the content, Wehwalt; many editors (count them please) have indicated here that TCO has in fact been disruptive at FAC, he is calling my feedback on a talk page "batshit crazy", while I commented on his "paper". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The track record of "civility parole" is utterly abysmal. History shows it only serves to prolong the agony. Either act, or don't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Blocking simply for a borderline comment is unusual. The parole is supposed to give fair warning to the user to stay away from the borders.--Scott Mac 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC) This is the sort of thing Sandy has been saying. Very poor assumption of bad faith. If you think that is not bad enough, she blames the entire FAC community for her troubles. Come on. Either do something fair to both sides, or nothing. But do not ignore one side. A lot of this is about fairness. Be fair.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Not to mention [77] referring to this. I do not think someone who by adoption makes reference to monkeys coming out of their a$$ in response to someone civilly responding to them has much call to be coming to AN/I. And given Sandy's comments stating Malleus should not be blocked as his comments were not directed at a specific person, it seems it is one rule for the stranger, another for the native of the land.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, I just can't take anyone seriously when they do stuff like write "A$$"" instead of ass. Are we in kindergarten here, or what? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry Beeb, I was raised gently and rarely use the words, and don't care to write them. Also, there's this (Sandy calls TCO comment "more baloney" (edit summary)) .--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Agree with Beeblebrox; some people speak with direct language, some people give indirects like "We all know Sandy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I'd agree with the rant part anyway, see this and this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC) @Wehwalt and TCO, the problem is that by repeatedly focussing discussion on reform or review of FAC onto the election of a FA director, and (I believe) incorrectly assigned alot of issues to it, you've made the issue unnecessarily ad hominem, and soured the atmosphere and polarised discussion. The unfortunate side-effects of this is that valid points have been lost in the ongoing furore and you've likely alienated quite a few people. The atmosphere is quite charged currently, so more posts that are dismissive of the other side or inflammatory should be taken in that powder-keg context. This is my opinion and I am obviously not impartial here, but my impression is that this qualifies as disruptive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Please do not address "Wehwalt and TCO", we are not associated and he has not yet commented here. Very well, if you are saying that this is a troll-provoked reaction by someone who is the model of civility when she is not in the throes of her resignation, I will accept it on your word as an arbitrator. Is that what you are saying?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC) @Wehwalt, I am speaking as an editor, not as an admin, arb or anything else. I am not calling it that at all, just saying that antagonistic comments using gratuitous words in a powderkeg situation is much worse that the usual run-of-the-mill argy-bargy. And have you actually been or are supposed to be TCO's mentor? I've seen references to this (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "antagonistic comments"? Diffs please. I have taken care to be respectful. Unless you call this thread a powderkeg situation. And even here I have been respectful.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I, too, would like some clarification please. It was you who stated that you were TCO's mentor. Has that changed, or was it never true? I'd like to know so that I can stop referring to you as his mentor if that is no longer true. You said it was, and you were the admin who did all the adminly tasks of giving him rights, reconstructing his various accounts and IPs that he used durinig his RTV, etc. Are you no longer his mentor, or are you denying that you once were? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I too cannot claim to be uninvolved but here are my observations. TCO has merely stated plainly what many people have been thinking: Ever since SandyGeorgia resigned she has been going around the place with a flamethrower. Here is another example: She was called up to WQA for incivility by one of the people involved in the Portuguese diacritics dispute, and by the end of the thread it becomes obvious that she is driving away some of the very sort of people the Foundation is trying to cultivate: those from the Global South. link to WQA discussion Although she states her "IQ" edit summary was not directed at Ed specifically, but at the admin core in general, Ed believed initially that the remark was directed specifically at him. I know I for one take offense at such edit summaries, and have been the victim of her acid tongue on several recent and not-so-recent occasions. Such hostility is unbecoming of a person in her position. Sandy, you need to rein it in. Here is another recent example. Assuming everyone is stupider than you or has fewer assets to bring to the table is demeaning to your fellow editors and interferes with collegiate editing. Now I gotta go do the payroll, so will be offline for a long while. --Dianna (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I can't be responsible for what Ed might have thought until he clarified and realized he was wrong (read the threads, misunderstandings happen, that's why we have something called AGF). You have been the "victim of my acid tongue"? Was that when I opposed you at RFA or elsewhere? Diffs please. I think Moni3's post here (starting from "... participants in this discussion ... " summarized well what's been happening at FAC. On the "ever since SandyGeorgia resigned" meme, since that was a few days ago, that's a rather small sample upon which to be making such claims, and let's consider what Welwalt and Alarbus have made of my resignation. Even with multiple flat out denials that I would stand for FA director or delegate, they are still making statements like this on talk pages (something that should be factored into any proposals for how to address this issue. I believe we still have something called AGF around here, and I believe my multiple statements should be accepted as truth, and I see those comments as furthering a campaign). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I get that Ed misunderstood, but I was offended by your blanket statement, as I too am an administrator on this wiki. When you feel someone has less knowledge than you, and you literally laugh in their face like you did with TCO, that is really rude, SandyGeorgia; it is demeaning to treat people that way. Very unprofessional behaviour on your part. A person in your position should hold themselves to a higher standard of behaviour. I am going to bed now, and will respond no more to this thread. --Dianna (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry you were offended by my rhetorical question: I'll consider your feedback for future interactions and take more care, but just so I can be clear on the standard-- are you offended by "this place has pussyjuice leaking out of its nutsack"? Also, you have provided no diffs for your "acid tongue" comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Cas, it's an ongoing thing. Usually it's tolerable, but she's been after TCO since the report. Obviously as you can tell TCO's pussy juice comment didn't start it; he did not introduce the reproductive organs into the discussion, Sandy did. Here's the "manic" thing she admits to sending TCO's way here, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Dianaa's diff.: I think you have a skewed idea of how analysis is done for learning about business situations, Sandy. Bwaaaaaaahaha .. I almost spewed my coffee on that one. Young man, "you're better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt". Some people reading this discussion know my educational background and employment history, and we thank you for displaying what you don't know. The question is not whether you know what a t-test is: it's whether either of you know the history of FAC well enough to know what samples are valid, or if you understand the principle of "garbage in-- garbage out". There's also a question of common sense on the table. At any rate, my former professors and employers would disagree with your characterization of mfy knowledge of applying analysis, particularly stochastic processes, to business situations. That's Sandy, today, three hours ago, denigrating TCO. And she gasps when he responds, and runs here. How do her comments help to build the encyclopedia?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC) In hindsight, yes, I could have answered that one more directly and simply without the "young man" lesson; it was ironic that he would try to discredit me with a statement that spoke directly to my education and employment history (kind of like telling Casliber he doesn't know anything about psychiatry might feel), but I could have just said that more simply, as in "TCO, my graduate degree and employment history are in statistical analysis, stochastic processes and computer models applied to business decision making". I was wrong to go over the top, because one is tired of being attacked doesn't excuse lashing back, and to the extent it felt like "denigration" of TCO, I'm sorry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I think that my body fluid remark was more harsh than Sandy (or Moni or Malleus). Also, you should punish based on what is right/wrong. Not if "Sandy did it too". I really mean that. Also, I personally don't think the only preventative block concept is right. I honestly (no troll) think punitive blocks are how the rest of the Internet does things and just work better. That said, I have no intention of repeating the misogyny. But I will accept my punishment with grace. You need to think about protecting your website. Not sure if this is an "ANI" thing, but it is on mind and kind of applies. But the sort of thing that bothers me much more than harsh words is holding grudges or being unfair (Soviet Tintin review, Chavez somthing? some thing with Hollaway? donno) I also think it is very wrong to try to look for questionable copyvios and to pervert the real objective of getting good, compliant prose into just another game in the wars of the factions. I really think what matters is being fair. Even when your "enemy is in the right" or your "friend in the wrong". I read something a long time ago by Cla68 about the Geogre thingie where he said he was an "ally" and "fellow content guy" with Geogre. But he had to be fair in judging a wrong by his "side". I hope this makes sense and is helpful. TCO (Reviews needed) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC) It is a little bit incoherent in the third and fourth paragraph. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Surely incoherence is no symptom of mania? :) Anyway, I doubt anyone is going to block TCO over a stale comment, especially when he's agreed to tone it down, and the rest of it is outside AN/I's remit. Suggest we close, or else leave open in case Sandy wants to rebut anything I've said.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "Incoherence is no symptom of mania" with a cute smiley after it? More indirect insults and implications, Wehwalt-- at the same time you call out others for trying to make light of "ass" comments, you joke about a claim that I said TCO was manic? Not on. And therein lies the civlity issue-- some of us speak directly, not in indirects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Cas is right and you should listen to him. This has been personalized beyond all repair quite frankly. Despite his remark, four or five more have been tacked on since, and then a comment to the effect that TCO's very inappropriate remark is basically fine. The atmosphere is charged to the point that I've totally lost my cool more than once in the last month - this has been going one since November and is disruptive - to the point of making a wildly inappropriate remark myself. The upshot of all of this is that writers and delegates are being lost, mostly women. That's worth thinking about. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Wehwalt, of course I AGF here, but you know very well (you posted a response to Ettrig after I responded to him on my talk) that I said an hour ago I was in a hurry and had to get out the door. I'm out of the shower now (TMI), and on my way out. Are we in a hurry here to close something while I'm not around and when very few people have weighed in? No, we don't close an ANI that deals with long-term disruption a few hours after it's been opened and before some consensus has formed about how to handle the TCO issue long term. I'm off now, when I'm back on I'll see if there's anything I need to respond to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) No wonder folks want to avoid FA. — Ched :  ?  21:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC) (removed in error - ec notice did not show up, so it is likely WP glitch - sorry) Collect (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) You all will have to decide if the provocation is sufficient to censure. (We are starting to repeat points.) I have had much less volume of remarks than Sandy has (number of comments on FAC). For instance in the late November kerfuffle. Huge numbers of rants at FAC and all over the site. It seems accepted that she can go on the warpath or fly off the handle to a much greater extent (I think even her friends might admit it). Remarks like pointing out Raul's fundamental absence are just speaking the truth and appropriate in a conversation on governance. But, again, do what you think is fair and best for Wiki. TCO (Reviews needed) 22:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Observations. My impression from what I have seen and the evidence here is that TCO's incivility and disruptiveness has a very self-aware and knowing aspect, perhaps even curiosity. With experience of other sites and internet fora, TCO deliberately uses language, including invective, for effect when he needs it, and pushes at the boundaries of acceptability. Hence on the one hand, he evidently does not buy into Wikipedia's ideals and challenges whether others do, but on the other hand, he readily accepts the right of Wikipedia to enforce those ideals as it thinks best. If/when this results in an indef ban, I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote a paper analysing his experience here. This is not a typical situation, in which the simplistic "the other side was nearly as bad" provides an excuse for taking no action rather than one-sided action. Hence I support the civility parole suggestion: better that TCO push the boundaries of parole rather than the boundaries of disruptiveness. Geometry guy 22:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Per Ched...I don't wonder why people avoid FA, or wiki for that matter, not anymore do I wonder. My Lord. Btwn this and Raul protecting a page in which he's a central figure. PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Raul has the authority to protect the page, but the suggestion to do so came from Wehwalt, after Raul archived discussion. I approve of both actions, as discussion was generating more heat than light: this is an environment in which disruption thrives, because nobody is on their best form, and there were multiple requests by editors to slow down and cool down. Consequently I do not yet support a topic ban for TCO from FAC: although I think a good case can be made, it still needs to be made. However, there is no question in my mind that there is a sufficient history of disruption here to support civility parole or a similar sanction. Geometry guy 23:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) GG, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Can you comment on whether Sandy's comments fall within our civility policy? I'd be grateful for as thorough an analysis as you devoted to TCO.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Disagreements between you and Sandy are a matter for separate discussion. If you read my thoughtful comments carefully (and my comments at the previous ANI discussion about TCO), you should see that I am referring to a pattern of behavior by TCO that this particular incident illustrates, and am specifically cautioning against: (1) Assessing TCO's behavior as part of some wider scheme involving editors such as yourself; (2) Comparing his behavior in this particular incident to the responses by others to this behavior. If you believe there is a pattern of disruption and incivility by Sandy or anyone else, please start a new discussion, present your evidence, and ask me to comment there. Geometry guy 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The thing that gets me is that all this is coming out of "FA"; supposedly our brightest and best editors. People that know how to use words and communicate. You all know the nuances that various words carry - you all know what we're here for. In fact, I even understand that you all want what is best for the project. I suggest that this isn't it!! I don't know how it got started, and to be honest? I really don't give a ... <deep breath>, I really don'I care. I'd think somewhere in the group sanity would have to fall on someone, and there could be meeting of the minds. At this point, it won't be long before our very best writers are before our own little court of law pointing fingers and claiming "... but they started it". How on Earth is that going to look to the outside world? Come on folks; if you're that emotionally involved - step outside and smell a flower or take a picture of the stars. All together now ... deep breath ... good air in ... bad air out. — Ched :  ?  23:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm kinda surprised, too. This is I think the result of the type of disruption that WT:FAC is being subjected to. FAC is usually a thoughtful and heady crew. The disruption has been persistent and deliberate. As to what the outside world thinks, why would anyone start caring now? --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Second proposal. I would suggest, in light of this, obviously quite toxic, situation that, and to allow the FA process to continue without disruption (while not preventing any reform suggestions) the following be agreed, (preferably, but not necessarily, on a voluntary basis.) Comments on the governance of FA process ought to be made only in the course of constructive analysis and proposals for change in an appropriate place (e.g. an RFC - or an appropriate thread on the an appropriate Wikipedia talk page). The users involved are directed to desist from criticising the FA process on pages evidently designed for commenting on articles because, however valid the criticism, the location is inappropriate, off-topic, and disruptive. TCO, SandyGeorgia, and Wehwalt shall not comment on each other at all. All involved users are directed to avoid any heated invective whatsoever. How would that do for allowing FAC to continue without disruption?--Scott Mac 23:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC) No. Sorry. I've done nothing wrong. I will not agree to any such restriction on me or obey it if imposed. I am appalled at the suggestion. I have written of Sandy respectfully. She is a sitting featured article delegate; her performance is obviously a matter to be discussed. Absolutely not.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I've not suggested that her performance cannot be discussed, only that it be done on the correct venue and format. It isn't a matter of attributing blame, or in saying who is in the "wrong", it is a matter of saying "this current interaction isn't helping the project and it has become disruptive" so, for the sake of the project everyone backs off. As I said, it would be better if this was voluntary, but if not....--Scott Mac 23:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Is TCO's incivility and potty mouth only directed at people involved in the FAC process? Although tempers appear to be getting a little short over there, I don't know why it would be considered unreasonable to require TCO or anyone else involved in that debate to keep their comments within certain boundries of decorum. If you were a manager in an office, how would you influence these people to get along? Two ways: (1)You send them to their offices and prohibit them from interacting for a certain amount of time, or (2) you tightly regulate their behavior when they are around each other, with quick and sure punishment if they cross the line. I believe Scott has proposed both. I would support either or both courses of action. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for asking the right question (I see others below thinking that papering this over with a "block 'em all" will solve something). Contrary to what Wehwalt said above, no, most of the diffs and warnings above are not related to FAC (one is edit warring in article space, one is DYK, one is his talk page, and only two I believe are FAC related), and none of his block log is FAC related. Should any admins care to look into the reason for this thread, in fact, the behaviors at FAC are a repeat of behaviors for which he has been blocked as far back as 2008. For example, he was blocked in 2008 for this comment, very much like one of his current comments. Perhaps one should not presume that admins weighing in here are clicking on diffs and reading block logs-- this is NOT an FA matter, making it one casts ill repute on FAC and Raul's leadership, and is ironic for PumpkinSky to be making statements about FAC when both Wehwalt and I had to warn *him* for his conduct at WT:FAC. WRT TCO, this is a continuation of behaviors elsewhere, and mostly not occurring at FAC, but that his disruption at FAC has been sustained has been pointed out by multiple editors here. And the last time this happened at FAC (2009-10), it was a very long time before that editor was indeff'd, and Wehwalt was one of her supporters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) If there is a complaint against me, make a thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC) You disparaged one of the parties involved in this dispute, so you also appear to be contributing to the disagreement. Nothing personal, I respect your writing. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC) What disparagement is that?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Some admin be brave and cap this off. Raul very sensibly shut down the discussion at FAC for 24 hours to give everybody a chance to cool off. That doesn't really work if everybody just jumps to the next available forum and keeps sniping at each other. Yomanganitalk 23:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm getting tempted to block the lot of them.--Scott Mac 23:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Sounds expedient, fast and easy, but first, "the lot of them" aren't even named here yet, and second, ignoring problems usually only escalates them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) As you wish, but I'm going offline. I don't edit while I'm angry, or at least know enough to walk away. Yomangani's advice sounds good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Scott Mac and I do not often agree, but he has the right idea this time. I'd be hard put to say which of the people here is more responsible than the others. Let's hope this does not resume tomorrow. If it does, interaction bans are in order as a first step. If it results in the need for some other people to attend to FAC than the regulars there, so much the better; others need the experience. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC) . I'm minded to pause or close this. Not because I disagree with Sandy and Raul (surprisingly I sympathise with a lot of what they say) but because this discussion taking place here or anywhere else at this moment renders the full protection of WT:FAC pointless. I've resisted the tempation to take action myself; given the extent of my past interactions with TCO, me closing could reasonably be seen as me behaving improperly in an attempt to save his neck. Point of order: if the above is ignored, and as we're discussing topic banning (a/ ) prominent user( /s) at FAC, this should probably be advertised at WT:FAC. —WFC— 02:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC) If that's the consensus, fine, but TCO has a long history of same, it's not only on FAC, and multiple editors have explained here that he is disrupting FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Whether any sanction is needed with regard to Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia is a matter for separate discussion, and considerable care. This thread concerns TCO, where the case is in an entirely different ballpark as yet another example of ongoing disruptive behavior. Geometry guy 01:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC) If someone wants to give TCO an enforced break, judging from this thread, I don't think most people here would disagree with you. I'm not an admin, which is why I haven't done so myself. Cla68 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC) On Scott Mac's proposal above: Comments on the governance of FA process ought to be made only in the course of constructive analysis and proposals for change in an appropriate place (e.g. an RFC - or an appropriate thread on the an appropriate Wikipedia talk page). The users involved are directed to desist from criticising the FA process on pages evidently designed for commenting on articles because, however valid the criticism, the location is inappropriate, off-topic, and disruptive. I'm not sure how that works: Wehwalt has not denied that he is campaigning to be FA director, and if he can't comment at WT:FAC, where can he comment? Even if I disagree with him, he has a right to campaign if he wants, and everyone has a right to criticism, as long as it's not disruptive. The problems there have been TCO and Alarbus; Wehwalt operates more with the kind of indirects I've highlighted above. And, what will you do about the statements on user talk pages such as I linked above, where Wehwalt and Alarbus are discussing that my resignation is not legitimate? I guess I'm not following your wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) TCO, SandyGeorgia, and Wehwalt shall not comment on each other at all. There is a "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign, and asking me not to comment on his qualifications for the job is ... well, go figure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) All involved users are directed to avoid any heated invective whatsoever. Not quite right or fair. And doesn't do anything to address the real issue, which is the destabilization and disruption at FAC from TCO even when he's not commenting on me, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) ENOUGH ... Sandy, TCO, and Wehwalt ... consider yourselves blocked for 48 hours. If you want to take me to AC, then fine ... but enough is enough. — Ched :  ?  06:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC) First, it's remarkable that you can say "stop this shit", while we can't say "ass". Second, amazing that I have no right to response, and my first response after being away all evening (for HOURS) triggered this. Third, don't anyone even THINK about unblocking me if this guy does this without consensus, because there's an arb case up right now where this is going. And fourth, 48 hours for a first block for Wehwalt or me-- read the manual. No consensus, ongoing discussion-- all heat, no light. <tap, tap, tap> I'm waiting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC) At my suggestion, Sandy is going to take a break for the night. Wehwalt, I suggest you do likewise. Meanwhile, I think it would be best to focus the discussion here back to the original topic of this thread, which is reigning in TCO's incivility. Raul654 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I have never meant any disrespect to anyone - I just want the fighting to stop. — Ched :  ?  07:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC) A question What has any of this to do with writing an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Beats me. All I asked for was for Raul, who has been in his post for eight years by virtue of a vote conducted in 2004, to agree to an election or retention vote, conducted in a free and fair manner. I didn't even say I wanted him out of office; it was my view that the effect of facing the community for a review every now and then would improve the tone at FAC, a free sample of which you've received. I did this in the context of a discussion opened by Sandy in her capacity as delegate asking what concerns the community had. Raul was on full notice of the discussion, that was the first thing I checked. I will not characterize the subsequent discussion using my name, except to note that it is false. I do not seek any office. However, if admins do not feel they can do anything about the diffs I posted, I will thank you and take my leave. Ched, I understand your heart was in the right place, but ... would someone close this? This is the third time I've asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Polarman and conflict of interest

User:Polarman, as you can see from his contribution history, has been quite prolific in adding links to a website entitled Playerhistory.com. By his own admission, Polarman is Hakon Winther, the founder of Playerhistory.com, which presents a massive conflict of interests. I would like an admin to intervene here so that Polarman is made properly aware of Wikipedia policy regarding self-published content and self-advertisement (and any other policies that may relate to WP:COI). – PeeJay 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You should report this at WP:COIN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89

Luciferwildcat has been left a final warning on their talkpage. The next unsubstantiated complaint on either side will see me reopped and issuing blocks. This better end today. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He has agreed to a topic ban on articles that I have been directly involved in and consensus is that he should be doing so. I recommend he be blocked for a week for violating this agreement at the AfD for an article I created.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Also he nominated another article that I was involved in for deletion here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Also made direct comments to me[ here clearly violating the communication ban.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC) So? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not seeing how this is in violation. It's a vote at an AfD, and there is no mention of you, or your editing in it. Are we to take that he can't have opinions on an article's merit due to this ban? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC) He was told to back off articles with which I was directly involved in. So yes he cannot have an opinion on article that involve me, he was told not not nominate ones I was involved in either, instead he was told to ask someone else to make such edits for him.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "He was told" doesn't mean a thing. You claim there is agreement on a topic ban, and that PBP agreed to it. We are asking you to prove it so we can look at it. If you can't type in a search term in the box at the top of this case, then we shall be done very quickly here. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Can you link to where this discussion and the agreement to a topic ban took place? Tarc (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I don't know how to find archived discussions, can anyone help?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) [ec with Tarc] Where is that agreement? It's not here. Further comment: sheesh, drop it already. Further further comment: it would be wise for Purplebackpack to stay the hell away from Luciferwildcat's stuff (duh). Drmies (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Gah, let it rest! This is the fifth or sixth ANI Lucifer or Unscintillating have started, all stemming from their dislike of the fact that I nominate articles that fail notability, rather than any expressed policy violation. They need to learn to stop whining. The vote at AfD violates no policy whatsoever; it's 100% boilerplate. The "consensus" mostly consisted of people who voted "keep" in the deletion discussions I started or are Article Rescue Squad members, rather than uninvolved editors who didn't have vested interests. Also, note that if me voting in an AfD I didn't start is a violation of any interaction ban, so is actually starting this thread. Particularly since Lucifer was expressly told not to start ANI threads. Also, while I'm here, what do you make of Lucifer's recent refactoring/removing of my comments in an archived discussion yesterday? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) What I make of that is that they shouldn't be doing that. Luciferwildcat, if you claim that PBP agreed to an interaction ban, then I supposed you are have agreed to the same, in which case you broke it with that edit. But mythical ban or not, do NOT refactor other users' comments! NOT! And PBP, while I have your ear, you may withdraw all you want, but the kind of editorializing you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattuck Avenue, as a "closing comment", is not appropriate either. I'm wonder if both these editors shouldn't be banned from interacting with each other, creating articles, initiating and ending AfDs, and starting threads at ANI. In fact, let's formalize this a little bit, shall we? Drmies (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Article creation or AfD initiation on non-involved articles seems pointless...there's no reason why I should be banned from creating articles Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Rhetorical exaggeration, dear Backpack. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Can someone provide a link to this topic ban for the sake of verification? In other news, Luciferwildcat also left a somewhat short-minded note on Country Squire Diner-Restaurant, an article tagged both for deletion and speedy deletion (it clearly meets criteria A7, so the AfD should probably be procedurally closed), claiming that the nominator for speedy deletion (me) is currently engaged in a topic ban with him. I'm inclined to believe this is simply a case of mistaken identity, but in any case, it's piqued my interest in this matter. Luciferwildcat, you should probably log out for a bit and go drink a coffee or something. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) There's already a denied A7 in the history, if I'm not mistaken. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Propose interaction ban between PBP and LWC, broadly construed. Please, someone, construe this. I'm on break and this is messing with my lunch. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Referring to the AfD which I don't think you started.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC) We already agreed to an interaction ban. Also perhaps I was shortsighted in thinking correcting an editorialize and inaccurate AfD closure rationale was ok. I thought I was just supposed to not contact or respond to PBP. He was the one further admonished to not even edit anything that I was involved in and this discussion took up about half the ANI space for the last week so I don't know how anyone can't find it. MelanieN was the main moderator, let's ask her. Also if there is an interaction ban and a violation of said ban, how am I supposed to report such a violation?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Let's not ask MelanieN. Let's ask Spartaz. Furthermore, any ban that punishes me equally or greater than Lucifer masks the issue that Lucifer is the one who has violated policy and doesn't understand guidelines. He's the one who needs to be restricted from creating articles (I point users to his talk page, which is full of editor's comments related to his lack of understanding of notability guidelines). And you're not supposed to report violations. If it's important, other editors are watching our edits, and they'll pick it up. That's why I didn't start an ANI thread about your refactoring of my comments, which is a much more serious violation that voting in an AfD I didn't start and AfDing an article that was going to be deleted anyway Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Yes and no. The editor has a right to file a grievance; I just wish they wouldn't. As for the refactoring, next time ask a friendly or even an unfriendly admin. Also yes: LCW has difficulties understanding guidelines, true, and they would do well to read up on them. As for violating policy--well, that, to me, seems a stretch to conclude right now. Certainly they have misapplied WP:KEEP at one time or other, but I suppose that was done in blissful ignorance, i.e., good faith. Finally, BPB, "punishment"--why would it be punishment for you to stay away from them and their edits? You should be pleased: this would greatly improve your health. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "Punishment" was a reference to your overly broad guideline that included banning creating articles...which, thank you, you have admitted was hyperbolizing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Note it should be noted that regardless of the claims made by PBP he did in fact start this AfD.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I never said I didn't, I only said that somebody else would've, as someone else has twice CSD tagged it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Every single comment in this thread from Purplebackpack and Luciferwildcat just reiterates how useful an interaction ban would be. We're down to "He started it" and "Nuh-uh" stuff here. I, for one, don't care who started it - you're both keeping it going. Stop. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User JohnC

JohnC (talk · contribs) Re-reporting. Long term inflammatory commentary, including BLP violations and provocative statements regarding ethnicity, continuing despite numerous warnings. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked as a troll [78] and [79] after multiple warnings for a variety of unhelpful edits. This is simply not a useful contributor. No one edit is, in itself, a killer - but taken in balance the project is better off without this. Hapy to have this decision reviewed.--Scott Mac 19:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. Reviewed. Move to close. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all the above, and to Elen of the Roads for helping. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:GoodDay and User:Djsasso - interaction and topic bans

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

---

Resolved

 – Sorted out through the talk page.

Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. Some of you may or may not know, but I am one of the mentors of GoodDay (talk · contribs) (the other being Danbarnesdavies (talk · contribs). Over the past few weeks, I've observed that GoodDay and Djsasso (talk · contribs) run into each other quite often, and normally have very heated, at times uncivil discussions. These generally revolve around the use of diacritics in articles relating to hockey. The general discussion tends to have two viewpoints, GoodDays' being that this is the English Wikipedia so it should not use non-english characters or diacrtitics, and that there was a consensus not to include diacritics in North American hockey articles. Djsasso's is that (if I am correct) these diacritics are used in reliable sources discussing the topic.

Now I didn't come to ANI to sort out a content decision (that would be rather stupid of me now wouldn't it?). From the discussions I've observed (a few examples are here, here, here and here). It's pretty evident to me that the two of them interacting has become an issue.

I therefore propose a two-way interaction ban between Djsasso and GoodDay, broadly interpreted (perhaps an admin who's familiar with these can outline the normal provisions. I also forsee the possibility of a first action advantage, ie, one of the two makes an edit knowing that the other user can't revert the edit nor comment on it, so I am also proposing a topic ban on the two from all articles relating to hockey, broadly defined. This would be until such time as an RFC or a mediation case has been held (which I will help set up) which will determine the best way forward regarding diacritics. I do note that GoodDay has stated his intention to stay away from ice hockey articles, so that needs to be taken into consideration. I still think an interaction ban is necessary, a topic ban also necessary until this issue can be sorted out through dispute resolution. That part I am of course happy to organise. (I think this is the part where people say support or oppose....) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall agree to an interaction ban & a topic ban from ice hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow you took it to ANI instead of trying to work it out as reasonable editors. Well I certainly want no part of any mediation you are involved in. You are clearly far to biased in your support of GoodDay when he is clearly using you to bludgeon me. I have repeatedly stated I would walk away from this situation and any problem with him, all I asked for was for GoodDay to stop disparaging people who disagrees with him. I am not sure why that is unacceptable to you to the point where you had to take this to ANI. Certainly not sure what else you want to gain if me walking away from the situation is not enough, other than to attempt to beat me down more. Not to mention topic banning me from hockey essentially bans me from the wiki since hockey articles account for probably 98% of my edits. -DJSasso (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I said on Djsasso's talk page, a mutual ban from commenting on each other's talk pages would be sufficient. A topic ban from hockey would serve to "protect" your charge from his own mischief by effectively banning his opponent from Wikipedia. Draconian, excessive, and frankly, disturbing. Resolute 20:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: As a writter of nine FAs, I believe I have the right to voice my concern here. I'm having some serious issue with GoodDay due to his unhealthy obsession in maintaining what he regards as an "English spoken Wikipedia". He is an editor who does not contribute to any article at all. He doesn't write a single piece of paragraph. Nothing. All he does is to search for articles where the English language may be in peril (on his view, of course) and start discussions that lead nowhere. In a conversation I had with Jimbo Wales today, Jimbo opted to deliberately ignore GoodDay and supported my views on the matter. See User talk:Jimbo Wales#John VI is Spanish Juan VI not João VI. Worse: some of GoodDay's remarks reveal an absurd foreign culture prejudice which could easily be regarded as xenophobia (see the link above for a few examples). The problem here is GoodDay's obsession, not his interaction with another user. It's just senseless. --Lecen (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

SuggestionI have read the WP:HOCKEY guidelines and Gooddays lack of use of diacritics is the correct one following the guidelines:

• "All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics"

I dont think Goodday has edits any bios of players yet - they may play in North America but their bios are not North American. A topic ban for following guidelines? I am relatively new but that just doesnt sound right. Djasso is going by WP:COMMONNAME, again following guidelines so again I cant see a topic ban for that. There is a clear conflict between these two guidelines that needs addressing as much as these editors do. I would personally edit with the more cat-spec guideline, in this case WP:Hockey, but it understandible why neither editor can see why the other side is right. An interaction ban? How about they have to work together to resovlve the conflict of interest with the relevant MOS projects showing no gaming but an ability to work through good faith?Murry1975 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Since when have wikiprojects had carteblance to overule the MOS? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • They don't, but at the same time, there is no Wikipedia wide accepted view on how diacritics should be treated. Hockey's guideline is an attempt at compromise. The notation that North America specific articles would not use diacritics was agreed to on the basis that North American sources don't use such. In a few cases, that is actually starting to change, which muddies the waters. Resolute 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Diacritics are very polarizing... as in it turns into a black-and-white matter (pretty much either always use, or never use diactrics). While the present solution is not ideal, it has been the status quo for over five years and has kept the peace. Maxim_(talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Djsasso is one of the most active and important hockey editors. It makes no sense to topic ban him over these disputes with GoodDay about diacritics. Nor have I found Djsasso's actions to be inappropriate in any hockey-related (or any other) matter. Rlendog (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose all bans, as pure nonsense. DJSasso is an excellent ice hockey editor and banning him from hockey would be a great loss. I agree with Res and Rlendog. GoodDay's very useful too in the subject area (e.g. always pops up on my watchlst keeping List of current NHL captains and alternate captains accurate), and it would be a loss too if he were to step away from the subject area. It would be however nice if GoodDay wasn't always so riled up over dios; if it's such a bother, then it's better to avoid the debates. Maxim_(talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have always found Djsasso a balanced editor in this eternal dispute over diacritics. On the other hand, GoodDay has shown a certain degree of .. immaturity in his comments. I don't think this needed to go here. Sanctioning both of them would be kind of like when a player in ice hockey knows he's going to get a penalty at the next referee call, he picks a fight with an opponent to fix a penalty for the other team too, in hoping that he won't get 2+2 himself. GoodDay would only be happy if he could bring down a veteran editor like Djsasso with him. Frankly, I don't think either one deserves any sanction, but a reprimand for GoodDay for silly and unnecessary comments about his "opponents" could be motivated. All it takes is for him is stop his silly comments about his perceived opponents. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: - I've proposed here that Djsasso accepts an interaction ban, and to not make changes to diacritics until dispute resolution is pursued to sort this out. If that's accepted I'll close the ANI. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how are you going to close it, if all other editors say "oppose"? HandsomeFella (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's rather easy. If it's sorted out on talk pages, there's no need for ANI. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page I have no issue not changing diacritics as I don't generally do it anyways. The article above was an exception because it was a unique situation I felt should be discussed. As for a interaction ban I can certainly stay away from his talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And I assume this applies to him as well. -DJSasso (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can't believe this dispute has made it to ANI again. Are we seriously proposing to ban an editor as productive as DJSasso from one of his main areas of activity? Over some squiggly bits in article titles? This is the WP:LAMEest thing ever. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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

DJSasso has been one of the main proponents to ban me, a productive editor, from my editing over "some squiggly bits in article titles". What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Why the double standard? Dolovis (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

1. You were under an indef ban on moving pages with diacritics.
2. You gamed the system, edited in bad faith, and badly spun and ANI report.
3. That resulted in a block and an expansion of the existing ban, whether you like it or not. Some discussion is ongoing on AN at your goading to clarify just where you are limited and where you can either try to regain community trust or play with the rope.
4. GoodDay has his own limitations on editing and is under mentorship. His situation is different than yours.
5. DJSasso's situation is also different than yours.
6. This has run its course with those having commented pointing out a good chunk of it was overreaction.
7. Posting well after this discussion was closed to get a shot in does not help your position in any way.
8. Are we done here, or is there more drama you'd like to post?

- J Greb (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

substantial copyright infringement

At Erich von Däniken the following massive copyvio was re-inserted by [80]. As exact quotes were used from Skeptic magazine, the claim that the section 'avoided direct quotes" fails. See also [81] where some is repeated - again sans attribution on WP for the exact copying.

"trouble, at the age of 19, when he was convicted of stealing money from an innkeeper and from a camp where he worked as a youth leader"

(just one small example) appeared in the Nov 9, 2004 issue of Skeptic.

By the age of 19 he got into trouble with the law when he was "convicted of stealing money from an innkeeper and from a camp where he worked as a youth leader"

is the version repeatedly inserted into the BLP. More evidence of copyvio really needed? The violating editor's response is [82] which means to me that he does not understand exactly how seriously Wikipedia takes plagiarism and copyright violations. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bit of work - but Playboy interview is at [83]. The amount of direct copying is enormous. Collect (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to downplay your legitimate copyright concerns, but please educate yourself with regards to verifiability. You have stated that "the Channel 4 ref is not online and can not be confirmed as backing the claims made," that "The "early life" section appears to have a great deal of negative information sourced to a single Playboy interview - which seems unavailable. This should be completely removed until solid evidence that all of it is properly soured to Playboy." Things are not verifiable when you verify them, but rather when a reliable source is provided. If you have evidence of an individual falsifying sources, then you could make a stronger argument, but that a source is not online, or that you don't have access to a source does not make it unsourced. Please be more careful. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I noted I found a copy of rhe Playboy interview - as an image file (pdf) and not through my usual searches. The text in the article is lifted wholesale from that article as far as I can determine. Plagiarism != "unsourced." "Direct copying" = "plagiarism" however. I do not accuse anyone of "falsifying" Playboy here - I make the observatuion that they lifted wholesale from it in violation of copyright law. Do you note the difference? Collect (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's now. In the past, you said that the interview was unavailable, and thus the information sourced to it should be removed. You said that because the Channel 4 ref was not online, it can not be confirmed. This is problematic, and needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio or not, Hipo is correct - sources do not have to be available online. (And the day Wikipeida decides to disallow offline sources is the day I quit editing...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@Collect, just summarize the information from the interview. Replace any direct quotes with briefs summaries of the naked facts, put the direct quotes inside {{cquote|blah blah blah|author}}, or surround the quotes with "Playboy said" or "Von Daniken said". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use "cquote", those curly quote marks are just too damn cute; besides, the template is not meant for use in an article's body, it's meant for pullquotes (as it says in the template doc). Use "bquote", please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Offensive content on user and talk pages

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

---

• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs)

This user appears to have content on their user page which is there for no reason other than to offend. In particular, the image is of "Gallows on Auschwitz" with the caption "In a hung parliament, who do we hang first?" The obvious and disruptive implication here is that Jewish politicians should be hung first. This image is not being used on any pages other than this user page. In my opinion, this definitely violates user page policy.

On their talk page, their "gone fishing" notice contains an image of Cocaine and their signature is "2 lines of K". I don't know if the promotion of a drug which is illegal in most countries is against policy, and I have no idea whether this is intended to offend or not, but I thought it should be brought up as well. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks a lot like WP:FORUMSHOPping to me, given the thread you created hours ago at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#One_Night_In_Hackney. Also, while you did notify ONIH of that thread, you did not mention this thread after its creation, which is required. I would add that the complaint you are making might be a bit nit-picky; because a picture depicts something in Auschwitz does not automatically mean it is anti-Jewish, nor does a picture of cocaine necessarily promote drug use. I am not saying these things are in good taste, and indeed both might be against policy, but neither stands out as an "OMG, let's get immediate admin action" item...at least to me.  Frank  |  talk  21:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not leap to any conclusions about that. Someone came into my office and needed my attention just after I posted this before I had the change to post a notification. I have now done so. As to whether this is "forum shopping" you are welcome to hold whatever opinion about that you like, but this is a different issue and as far as I know this is the correct forum to report the issue. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "leap to any conclusions" - that's how it was at the time. As for forum shopping, well, I think WP:QUACK can be applied here. You failed to get any action on your WQA thread and then opened this one. Note that I'm not making any judgment whatsoever on the user page or user talk page; I'm commenting on the advisability of this request for action in light of the previous one...against the same user. And I use the word against deliberately here, because that's how it appears to me.  Frank  |  talk  22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that having has a separate problem with an editor is a good reason not to report a user page problem that I just discovered. I hadn't really looked at the user page until just now. Again, have whatever opinion you like. It's just not relevant to the issue I brought up. If you have no opinion on that issue, there's not really any pressing need on your part to say any more... or is there? Yworo (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

One's motivation in bringing up an issue at WP:ANI (or indeed any noticeboard requesting punitive action) is directly relevant to the issue. Your protestation regarding my interpretation is a part of the conversation; I find it a little problematic given the timing of the edits. You didn't bother to look at the user's talk page - even though you had posted a notice about the WQA thread - until after you got two answers from two different editors that disagreed with your WQA post? Sure, it's possible, and maybe even exactly how it happened...but, that's not how it looks. As for whether there is a "pressing need" for me to say more, well, the answer is "of course there is no need", but as I chose to initially respond, it's reasonable to continue to engage in the conversation.  Frank  |  talk  22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions again. Of course I looked at the user's talk page. I said I hadn't really looked at the user's user page, there's a difference. And by "really looked", I mean I hadn't looked to see what the image was of until now. I looked to see if there was anything relevant to know about them, there wasn't. I'd just looked deeper into what was there is all. Sheesh. Yworo (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And the cocaine picture, about which you also complained, is on which page?  Frank  |  talk  22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page. I didn't find it sufficiently offensive on its own to report, but thought it should be brought up along with the other more offensive issue, as I said in my initial post, I didn't know if it was against any policy or not. I think I was pretty clear about that. Yworo (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Grow up. "In a hung parliament, who do we hang first?" is a well-used phrase totally unrelated to anti-semitism. If it hadn't been pointed out, I wouldn't have known it was a gallows at Auschwitz, but so what if it is? All gallows are repulsive. This is a joke. It's actually quite a funny one and one which is well-appreciated in the UK where, readers may recall, we were landed with a hung parliament at the last election. Thus, not just funny, but topical and satirical. (FYI, the page in its present form was created on 7 May 2010, the day after the election which produced a "hung parliament".) I notice the complainant is American, so perhaps, to be charitable, it's just that our British humour is not understood there, but I also suspect that this is more to do with a personal vendetta than a genuine affront. It really does smack of WP:FORUMSHOPping to me. Emeraude (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm American and I don't get the joke. While I'm not Jewish myself, I have good reason to be sensitive to such "jokes", most of my in-laws family died at Auschwitz. I don't appreciate the lightness of the attitude here, being told to "grow up" or being told my concern is insincere. You people are admins? Hell, if you can be admins, I'm more than qualified myself. Yworo (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFA is the place to test out that assertion.  Frank  |  talk  22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Now y'all have fun patting yourselves on the back and laughing at crypto-anti-semitism. I won't be watching this page anymore. If any admin who can see the what the issue is here and has something sensible to say about it, ping me on my talk page. Yworo (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cavalierly dropping charges of antisemitism is something that will boomerang on you if you aren't damn sure of what you are claiming. Seriously, go find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And, indeed, three different editors have already said several sensible things to you right here where you raised your concern. It is highly unlikely you'll get any responses to this thread on your talk page; that's not how WP:ANI (or most of Wikipedia) works.  Frank  |  talk  23:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Looking at this case, I'd say that ONIH demonstrated execrable judgement and tremendous insensitivity, but absent any evidence to suggest intent I don't think there's a reason to jump to the conclusion that his user page is antisemitic. It is, however, quite offensive.

Hung parliament is a term often used in UK politics as a synonym for a minority government: a government where no political party holds a majority of the votes (seats) in parliament. (U.S. editors may be unfamiliar with this concept or situation and the associated terminology, as U.S. politics have been dominated for many years by just two parties; the party with the most seats will necessarily also have a majority of the seats.) 'Hung' is used in this context to mean 'stuck' or 'snagged' (like a hung jury), not executed with a noose and gallows—but of course the word's more colorful connotations proved irresistible to the sadly predictable wags who draw editorial cartoons ([84], [85], [86], [87], [88]) and write 'witty' columns. The quote on ONIH's user page almost certainly would have been drawn from the writing of a humor columnist, blogger, or late-night television monologue.

As far as I can tell, ONIH thought that the quote was a clever witticism – and I'm willing to admit that it's mildly chuckle-inducing the first time, though it tires quickly if it's the only joke on the page – and just went out to get the first (or best, or clearest) free image of a gallows he could find on Wikipedia to decorate the text—without regard for the image's source. That said, given that the name Auschwitz is right in the image's title, I'm not willing to assume that he didn't know where the image was taken. Perhaps he's guilty of egregious cultural or historical illiteracy and wasn't aware of the significance, but it seems more likely to me that he was just resoundingly insensitive. It's not appropriate to use Holocaust-related photographs to decorate one's editorial cartoons, and that shouldn't need to be said. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I doubt hugely that the image has anything to do with anti-semitism or the holocaust. From what I undertand, OneNightInHackney is from the UK. The UK currently has a hung parliament (which is unusual in recent UK politics).

Also, if you have concerns about this kind of thing, it is usually best to bring it up on the user's talk page before coming here. --RA (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - 2linesofK - the K is not cocaine , its special K Ketamine. Youreallycan (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably just an unfortunate choice of illustrations. There are several safe ones at Gallows. Regarding the "hung Parliament", the approximate equivalent situation in the USA is called "gridlock". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The images in our article Gallows all seem to have people hanging on them. Or it's not immediately clear what they are - one looks like industrial machinery. If you go to Commons and search for "gallows", you get these four images [89]. Which one are you going to pick to illustrate an acerbic comment on the best option for the miscegenation that is the current UK government? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This one is my personal favorite. It's also tragic, as Lincoln's conspirators had a fatal miscommunication with their attorney. When he told them he would try to get them a suspended sentence, they thought it was good news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Have to disagree. Can't help but feel that this one is a more accurate metaphor for men in suits faffing over the death of a nation. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved idiot Back to the topic. The 2linesofK-thingy is not a problem afaik. It is indirectly related to his/her name (via kektex and Chris Liberator). I think it is about time to simply ask One Night In Hackney if he/she is willing to change to another picture of gallows. If One Night In Hackney just wants a picture of gallows and does not care where it is from picking another picture that has less potential to offend so we can mark this thread as resolved is probably the best solution. If One Night In Hackney is not willing to change the picture this thread can continue. Von Restorff (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked that question to One Night In Hackney here. Von Restorff (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. If I interpret this correctly One Night In Hackney says fascism is a bad thing.

So what exactly is offensive here? The gallows? Picture of cocaine? A username? Mo ainm~Talk 01:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To me? Nothing TBQH. But incorrect accusations of anti-Semitism can be seen as a personal attack. Von Restorff (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What does a dispute at Nicole Kidman, have to do with ONIH's userpage 'image' & talkpage 'image'? GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you guys mind if I close this? If we need to re-open it that is always possible. Von Restorff (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bold nonadmin closure. This was stupid. I will ask Yworo to apologize to One Night In Hackney. Von Restorff (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Carli Lloyd

Some unknown user keeps putting their personal opinions of the player under her biographical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anc07 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it these contributions regarding the penalty kick that you are referring to? (And possibly thse contributions)? --RA (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like 68.45.234.82 is edit warring here (only looked at edits since Jan 1):

• 14:01, 4 January 2012
• 17:13, 3 January 2012
• 03:45, 5 January 2012
• 04:14, 5 January 2012
• 04:16, 5 January 2012
• 04:25, 5 January 2012
• 04:29, 5 January 2012
• 20:25, 5 January 2012

Then similarly before hopping to 71.169.87.36 here:

• 04:25, 5 January 2012
• 12:26, 7 January 2012
• 01:18, 9 January 2012
• 17:18, 9 January 2012
• 17:18, 9 January 2012

--RA (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've warned both accounts. --RA (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

IP harrasment and trolling

An anon editor (whom is/was known as the Gundagai anon/editor) using the IP range of 144.13x.xxx.xx has been harrasing (WP:OUTING) and trolling on the Gundagai talk page. The anon has had an arbitration case and was banned from using Wikipedia for 12 months however this was breached since the anon returned within the ban time frame and the fact the ArbCom case also stated the anon was required to edit under one account. Something needs to be done as this has gotten back out of control like it did back in 2006. Bidgee (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that each count of ban evasion resets the ban, Bidgee. If he's been continuously editing since then or otherwise violating sanctions, he can be blocked under the relevant ArbCom decisions. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the talk page for a few days would stifle it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Any chance at some sort of rangeblock? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not from me; I've never figured out how they work. Idea sounds good, however. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)