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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Personal attacks and incivility by User:Zenanarh

After a series of uncivil personal comments on Talk:Zadar and Talk:Luciano Laurana directed at (the truly incredibly patient) User:Silvio1973, User:Zenanarh has decided to post a few personal attacks at me as well when I tried to offer my opinion in favor of Silvio1973. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia, where he started a WP:CANVASSING thread trying to garner support among other Croats, Zenanarh posted his first personal comment regarding my always having been "superficial" [1]. On Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) he posted a real set of personal attacks [2]. I asked him to strike them, he did not respond.

"Direktor, you should try to stop with any comment about history because you don't understand history. Separate coronation ceremonies do not necessarily indicate the existence of a personal union - really? So if Bela IV for first coronated in Hungary as the king of Hungary, then a few months later in Dalmatia as the king of Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia - 2 separate coronations for 2 separate kingdoms - what is that? A joke? Stick to your communist stuff if that's all you can do. Don't mess with things you don't understand."

Aside from the attacks directed at myself, I think a wider review of this user's recent conduct on Talk:Zadar and Talk:Luciano Laurana is necessary, however arduous that task might be. I went through it briefly and frankly I was amazed at the restraint shown by Silvio1973. At Talk:Luciano Laurana the exchange begins here and pretty much takes-up the entire talkpage. At Talk:Zadar the exchange starts here and again takes-up most of the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when Silvio brought this up we were perhaps not as sympathetic as we might have been. Looking at more of his edits, he is coming across as a "Croatia or Die" type, which is always wearisome. I note also the existence of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silvio1973 and Zenanarh which appears to have been quite improperly filed by the mediator, and which I have just deleted as it's been open nearly 4 days and he was the only editor who certified it (yes, I know he added another editor's name as a certifier, but (a) editors have to certify themselves, and (b) it was apparent from what the person named as the second certifier said that he had played no part whatsoever in any attempt to resolve the issue).Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I was quite surprised when I was named as the second certifier, considering the minimal involvement I have in this issue. However I do believe that Zenanarh needs to be less confrontational regarding this issue, as I had opined in the RfC in question. However this is unquestionably a content dispute (more so than editor conduct) - thus it may be more beneficial to take this issue to formal mediation rather than ANI (I am of firm belief that ANI creates more controversy than solutions in these situations). —Dark 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that, that was the first time I filled out one of those forms, and I wasn't quite sure how the process works. However, I would like to comment that I went through very length discussions with these two users through mediation. They went through lengthy discussions on the talk page. In addition, there are RfCs open for the pages that are in dispute. Wherever one editor goes the other follows and almost immediately changes what the other says about Croatian-based comments. I know that it is more likely a content dispute over whether it should say "Croatian" or something more generic on many disputed articles. I don't like to see things escalate, and I strongly believe that if previous discussions have not ceased this dispute, formal mediation will not either. Even if a decision is made, Silvio1973 will continue his quest to remove "Croatian" from articles and Zenanarh will continue his uncivil comments even after careful reminder over and over. Both of the users seem to make fairly infrequent edits, though. Whenaxis about | talk 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, Silvio1973 will not continue any quest at all. I did some research and found out that the most of the users that get in touch with Zenanarh get blocked sooner or later. And I do not want to end the same way. Zenanarh can do what he wants, I will not try to make any oppostion.
It is true that I found the content of some articles concerning Dalmatia not fully balanced. Indeed in some cases (such as in Zadar) the article is supported by a majority of sources that cannot be verified because not in English, or in other cases (such as in Luciano Laurana) Croatian sources are preferred to international sources. However, there was a mediation on such items hence there is very little to contest now, if any. Still, I remain doubtful about the stability of those articles in the future: there are too many sources supporting facts different than those stated in the articles. With his methods Zenanarh can discourage other users to contribute but cannot destroy the fact that such sources exist.
A side note: I tried to remain very calm during Whenaxis' mediation and it was not easy. Indeed I paid on my personal balance to resist to so many uncivil comments. I have read on some talks that I could be a previously banned user or a kind of "nationalist irredentist". This is extremely sad. It is sad that some users of en:wiki consider the contributors with different views as "enemy of their country" . --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello to everyone! Elen of the Roads, I am not "Croatia or Die" type. Maybe you can get such impression if you read my posts during last month, but you don't see the whole picture. What you people don't see and probably don't know is that around 10 quality Croatian editors left en.wiki for good, in period 2 or 3 yrs ago. Because it became impossible to balance articles continually attacked by the politically led editors and nationalists from the other sides who made use of principles like "votes of the majority". Serbs in the first place, but also Italians concerning Dalmatia related articles. In both cases these struggles were results of unresolved political problems in reality. I was also one of the editors who decided to move away from en.wiki and I didn't edit it for cca 2 yrs. Just accidently, I saw edit warring between IPs and Silvio in Zadar article over the same and already resolved problems and decided to come back, if nothing else, just to balance this old dispute. However it seems it is impossible to contribute here objectively. There are probably only 1 or 2 other Croatian editors who are able to contribute in history article paragraphs at the moment and all bunch of "agenda attackers" who produce total imbalance in the articles. When I see History of Dalmatia article I'm not sure should I laugh or cry. It is so full of wrong definitions, innacuracies, POVs etc that it will be best to erase it completely. At this moment en.wiki is used for spreading false information worldwide concerning this part of Europe, and nothing can be done to stop it. I have no so much time to be some Don Quijote. I'm coming from the family of the scientists, mostly historians and archaeologists, but rich scientific documentation as well as my knowledge of what is objective and what is not, doesn't help too much. I'm simply losing my nerves and that's what you can see in my posts during last month so I will definitely leave en.wiki to save my health, this time for good.

When Silvio reported me it was funny, he was breaking a several wiki policies, but I was the one accused for something. I don't give 2 cents on anything said by him after all. This guy is a liar and I cannot respect such people. He wrote that many wikipedians were banned because of me. Not even one editor was banned because of me ever. Giovanni Giove was banned because of his breaking restrictions and not me. Who are the others banned because of me? None. Zero. Also, I was never banned, except once, 2 yrs ago when it was my own decision. You can check my contributions and see that I asked administrator to "ban me to the end of this century". That was when I decided to leave en.wiki. I was revolted for reasons not related to this particular issue, so I will not explain my motives, my motives are known to the wikipedian who caused my anger and after my reaction he was probably ashamed and then he also left wiki a few days after me or changed his wiki identity.

Direktor and me are old friends from this wikipedia, but I never supported his way of discussing and editing. I told him many times and I'm repeating again, he is superficial but anyway he likes to present himself as well educated and objective. He is probably well educated in some other regions but his knowledge about any older history than 20th century is very poor in the best part. As well as I didn't accuse Silvio for irredentism directly - I've warned him about ideology which arguments are his own in our dispute, I also didn't attack Direktor personally in direct way. He knows very well what I've meant. He builds his image of an objective user in completely wrong way - artificial balance as replecement of his lack of knowledge. None of them two are straight and open.

Concerning Italian view of Dalmatian history. It's special story. Now I will be completely open. Italian historiography presents one completely distorted version of it. Just take a look at Zara article in it.wiki and compare it to Zadar article in en.wiki. They have 2 Zara Veneziana periods! All together from the 11th to the 19th century! Unbelievable! What is reason? Older Italian historians were writing in support to Italian political pretensions, irredentist and fascist in the 19th and 20th century, and modern Italian historians use them as references. In the same time they don't use historical archives in Dalmatian cities, just some selective data in support to their views which is around cca 5-10% of all available data. Modern Italians don't know it. They think that Croatian historiograpgy is based on some Croatian bias. It is stupid. We are small nation in comparison to the Italian and all we can do is to be as more objective as we can, since we can not produce so much literature as they can, we must produce quality to be accepted in the international science. But it's not obvious from the first sight. In English wikipedia there is dictature of majority and not dictature of quality.

That's why I don't see any way to contribute here by quality. You can treat me as "Croatia or Die" type of editor, you can treat me as Croatian nationalist, you can treat me any way you want. I can do nothing to change it. One person can not fight all army of the Italians armed with deep seated prejudice. I hoped that my presentation of quality university material can be helpful to produce any balance but now I see there is no chance. Now I'm definitely one more Croat who doesn't want to touch this shit anymore. I feel sory for a few of Croats who are still fighting against nationalists in other articles, it is lost battle. Probably you don't know it, but in Croatian scientific circles, en.wiki is treated as a platform used by certain anti-Croatian political circles to spread anti-Croatian propaganda. While in some other topics, en.wiki is very good and quality, it is general shit (excuse me but this is proper word) concerning Croatian and Dalmatian history and language. My tip to anyone would be - not to learn anything about Croatia from en.wiki!

Now I'm asking again - ban me to the end of this century, please. I was never sock puppeteer so it is guarantee that I will never come back. Don't mind if my sins are not of that level. Please make that service to me. Bye bye. Zenanarh (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"pro patria mori" is moving on a war memorial, but wearying in a Wikipedia debate. I believe Zenanarh's contribution above illustrates the problem. He may well have good edit's to contribute, and as recent straw poll in another venue pointed out (illustrating it with the difference between the French attitude to Dunkirk and the English version) kids are actually taught different versions of history depending on where they went to school, but viewing himself as a solitary Croat surrounded by legions of Italians really is not helping. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Unglücklich das land das helden nötig hat (Berthold Brecht) - Silvio1973 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Target for Today and category churning

Target for Today (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has created dozens of categories over the past few days, particularly relating to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the battle thereof. Almost all of these are headed to WP:CFD and there are numerous complaints on his talkpage about this, to no apparent avail. A block on page creation at least might be in order. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Mangoe for raising this. While a number of Target for Today's stub articles on Gettsburg have also been merged per discussions here andhere, and he has been the subject of some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_History#Gettysburg_articles, I'm not informed enough to express an opinion on the article side of things. However, his category work as revealed by the growing list of red links on his Talk page speaks for itself, I think. And now, I believe he's taken to essentially recreating deleted categories with slightly altered names, as I stated today at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:People_of_Adams_County.2C_Pennsylvania.2C_in_the_American_Civil_War and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Geography_of_Gettysburg.2C_Pennsylvania. This, I think, is the tipping point. He is clearly a knowledgable editor when it comes to Gettysburg and Gettyburg is an extremely important topic: but his trend of category re-creation tips the scales to where his work becomes more detrimental and WP:POINTy, and I support that he blocked from further category creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note that there are, additionally, two more Target for Today Gettyburg-related WP:OC discussions underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_15, which do not appear on his user talk page. Also, the problem is not limited to Gettysburg: he has created a similar torrent of Cold War related categories and a templates, most or all of which have been deleted or are now nominated. So any topic ban should include Gettysburg and Cold War categories, or categories in general. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • ...and I've just had to nominate another, freshly created. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Which is in fact a duplicate of one he already created. Bizarre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
        • The editor may have believed that the new category was not an exact duplicate, as the battle itself was an event, while the battlefield is a location. Still a little hair-splitting to my mind. --NellieBly (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've now had to nominate another big subtree of these categories, and am looking at another, and there are a bunch of other nominations besides. He's quiet at the moment, but there's no reason to think he won't start up again. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban for Target for Today (talk · contribs) blocking them from the creation of categories/creation of new pages in categoryspace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Dealing with the categories created by this user is becoming a bit of a headache. Recently I came across Category:1995 in the Cold War, which when considered can kind of serve as a symbol of the kind of problems inherent in the categories that are being created. I'm not sure what the answer is here, but at least some sort of temporary topic ban on categories may be in order until the user can get the hang of how categories typically work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would definately support some kind of ban on this user. He seems to be going way overboard with category creation. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

►Splitting hairs? -- not in the least as the places are all very different. It appears you are mistaking Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and Adams County, Pennsylvania, with the Gettysburg Battlefield--all three are different geographical areas and have different categories with names that match. That's why there are three sets of categories for subtopics, e.g.;

Category:Buildings and structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures

Category:Buildings and structures in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

which are clearly not the same category. For the same reason it is not the same to have Category:Geography of… orCategory:People of,,, categories for each of the 3 different parent categories. To claim they are the same category (or are the same category as any other category) is not true in any way. And of course (despite the false rationalization against) both

Category:People of Adams County, Pennsylvania, in the American Civil War

Category:Geography of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

are by-definition valid subcategories of the trees with the parents

Category:People of Pennsylvania in the American Civil War

Category:Geography of Pennsylvania by city

that will have full populations when all the existing and future articles have been categorized to them. Target for Today (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Sorry, but I find all this AN/I "ban him now" behaviour quite intolerable. YES, there is an issue here, but it's not highly disruptive. NO, a topic ban is not the answer, and would be excessive. This "ban now, problem gone" attitude really doesn't do anyone any good, and is pretty immature IMO. I think at most a week or two is needed to restrict this editor from making new categories whilst someone mentors him in the basics. I do accept there is a minor problem, and that something needs to be done soon. I don't accept any form of ban, which is more punitive than anything, as a reasonable solution, without trying other things first and seeing if the editor can adapt. Wiki is supposed to be a community, so where he hell is the community spirit to help educate or advance editors working in good faith, who are apparently knowledgeable about a subject, which has been noted above, instead the typical over-reactive polemic shit that goes on here on AN/I way too much, just to satisfy a few egos but achieves nothing supportive for the editor in question? Who do we place first, the interests of Wiki, or the interests of people making complaints? In this case, I strongly believe this editor was trying work in the interests of Wiki and a topic they are clearly very enthusiastic about. I see no controversy here that poses a threat, I see nothing that can't be tidied up. All he needs is a helping a hand, a couple of weeks tuition, from experienced editors in categorisation methods and on what the standards are. I don't know what they are, sure I know the difference between a trivial and major category, but that's about it. Perhaps he doesn't. Clearly this editor needs similar knowledge to get him on the right track. So perhaps the good people here who are looking for a solution might do better by offering the editor some much needed guidance, before going like a pack of wolves after him. My 2c. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of "typical over-reactive polemic shit," one such good faith effort by admin Mike Selinker was met with a stream of vitriolic responses and personal attacks at XfD. There's a longer history here with Target for Today than one can glean from this discussion section here, Marcus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, now we're getting the full story? It helps to know these things from the tee, some of us don't want to go digging through an editor's entire history looking for background. Can you provide diffs on this? Although it sounds like reference to uncivil comments, which bears no relation to category creation, to me, unless there's material suggesting COI or similar. We need to see it to know, though, please. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Whether or not the behaviour has been highly disruptive is somewhat of a judgment call. For those who work heavily in the categorization system, I can appreciate the view that it has been highly disruptive. I know it has been fairly disruptive at CFD, what with the repeated discussions over the same things over and over again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Tricky to say. Categories are really just a wrapper for articles. Creating them isn't really disruptive. It's the process of discussing whether to keep/delete them that takes time. But then, who to blame, the creator of those categories, or the editor who nominates them for deletion. We can't say that it's highly disruptive, because nothing has been damaged, really. Only the extra work is disruptive, but if the editor really feels they are creating them in good faith, and not anticipating deletion noms, then it is unfair to be dismissive. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I disagree and think that creating categories can indeed be disruptive. Maybe it's not disruptive to you as an editor, but it certainly can be disruptive to WP in general. For instance, User:Pastorwayne was initially banned indefinitely from category creation essentially for disruptive creation of categories. Same story for other editors—it's not a unique phenomenon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Just a thought: Is Target for Today even aware they have a personal talk page? Since November 2010 they don't appear to have ever responded to anything on it. Seems odd, does it not? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, this is one odd character. Marcus, to respond to your request for diffs: you'd be particularly forgiven for not finding them yourself because the comments I'm referring to were made during a brief period when Target stopped editing under his ID and launched a series of personal attacks at XfDs for his creation using an IP. or so I believe. There's a clear pattern of Mike trying to reason with him and being met by personal attacks and incivility here here, here, often embedding personal attacks in the edit summary as well, when all Mike (who I have a lot of respect for) was trying to do was work the issue out. (Mike was so taken aback he opened an SPI that was declined, but a checkuserwould not have matched the IP to Target's account anyway.) I for one believe User:69.46.35.69 was clearly Target, or a meat or sock puppet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I find it kind of difficult to buy that the user would not have figured out his own user talk page yet, especially since the user has participated in CFDs, AFDs, sockpuppet investigations, "Wikipedia talk" space, and another user's talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed. And again, my !vote above was for a block on category creation only, for CfD-related reasons only, just as Good olfactory discusses. I simply don't see this editor as someone open to tutoring in the way Marcus suggests, but if he proves to be, and Marcus or someone might wish to take that on, with positive results, great. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, as I said, I don't work categories myself to know what to teach. Nor would I have the time or patience. Given the lack of SPI matching this IP to TfT, I won't comment on whether I think this is him or his behaviour, that would best be left to an admin. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've checked his contributions, and there are a few, a very talk messages from him, so one has to assume that he knows about doing that. Of course, unless there's some setting that prevents it, he should be getting notifications of the fifty-odd updates to his own talk page each time he views a Wikipedia page while he's logged in. It's hard not to conclude that he has decided not to bother with that. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have no strong opinion as to whether a topic ban is appropriate for such a string of ill-conceived categories. I would very much like to see Target for Today's (and, if any of the other accounts are his sockpuppets, those accounts') personal attacks on me cease. As far as I can tell, they have ceased for the time being. I have found his behavior and those of the other accounts to be chilling on my desire to close the nominations of the Gettysburg categories, because getting a constant stream of vitriol and accusations doesn't make me want to participate. That said, I probably will still do so, since I try not to let personal feelings get in the way of continuing to help out on CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support a ban on all edits in category space. I have thought for some years that some extra sign of competence should be displayed before people are allowed to create categories. I can create a plausible but useless category in a few seconds and the cfd process takes weeks to uproot it. Eg Target created 8 new categories on 16 Jan and 6 are already at cfd. This is just a waste of time. Oculi (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This history is older. There are problems as far back as November at least. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• (ec)Yea, I got a notice on my talk page since I have nominated a few of this users category creations. While some categories that I have looked at appear to be OK, the vast majority seem to be ill conceived. So I would be inclined to support a creation ban of some kind. While the current uproar is over categories, has anyone looked at the article creation record? From my browsing of the history, I suspect that a few of these articles will also be suspect. Category creation is very fast and simple. Category deletion/merging/renaming is time consuming and requires an administrators time. Given the backlogs at CfD and other places, adding more work for admins should be discouraged. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have looked over the articles somewhat. There's been a lot of AfDs for his Gettysburg geo or structure stubs, most of which seem to be getting merged into larger articles. (A merge tag or just boldly going ahead with it would be my preferred course, if possible.) For example, 11th Mississippi Infantry Monument is an article about a block with a plaque, for heaven's sake. Imagine how much more useful it would be for readers if this were integrated into, say, High-water mark of the Confederacy. That's the biggest knock against Target with articles imo: he applies his knowledge to spinning off a myriad of stubs on every ridge, brook, tree, etc. in Gettysburg, it seems, instead of offering readers an integral picture. As with categories, one gets the sense that he is not really considering the best interests of the encyclopaedia or its readers, but rather, some private fascination with his own ordering of things.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I disagree, somewhat. I get the feeling he is using categories more like an "index", expecting readers to view articles in a logical order based on how they are sectioned. The logic makes sense, in a detailed book you would expect to find an index, chapters, sections, headings, but it is not how Wiki works. As I said earlier, the fact that he can create articles quickly but it takes weeks to remove them is not necessarily his fault, but that of the red-tape which Wiki operates behind. I still think you're looking to point fault at the editor here, and it comes across as demeaning rather than AGF. There have been plenty of chances for editors to be WP:BOLD and to merge stubs, request speedy deletion of superfluous categories, etc. A will also note that in some of the CfDs people have voted "keep", so I should caution that the comments made here on AN/I are not entirely supported by everyone. Also, until he responds here, assuming he does (I have left a somewhat frank comment on his talkpage), people should not be speculation too much in his "motivations". Again, AGF, he has done nothing that warrants being shamed, and just because the excess of categories has upset a few editors, we don't make pointy accusations or pre-judgements. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • That's good advice and I'll remember it. So let me just say, less dramatically: no, I don't think any action is required for the stub articles, all of which can and should be dealt with easily via Template:Merge or just boldly doing it; AfD has been overused in this case, imo. His categories -- which are often duplicates, empty or nearly so, recreated against community consensus, and time consuming to repeatedly remove -- are a different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• I think we are starting to exhaust the possibilities of discussion here, absent contribution from the subject of the report. And that's really where I'm coming from. If he's willing to talk to us, to take direction, to at least communicate, we can work with that. He hasn't been on in several days, so it's also possible he has gone off in a huff. The thing is that if he returns, and ignores all this, and starts recreating this stuff, or picks another subject for the same treatment, we are going to go around this all again; I think at this point he has some obligation to explain himself, get direction, something before he resumes editing. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes.. before we accuse someone of "going off in a huff", let's read [3] where he states "I use Waypoint at a coffee shop where I'm at now and I get here once or twice every week or so (I don't have home internet access)". The problem I see is that he does not respond to his talkpage messages, despite a large number of notifications about things, so he could just as easily ignore the AN/I one, not bother to search the archives for it, if he doesn't login for days, and continue as before, ignorant of the concerns raised (whether intentional or not) which he has made clear he is aware of "Shouldn't someone have posted a notice for me? I didn't get informed of this allegation at my talk page", in the SPI comment [4]. That would mean a block is in order, but again, given his random e-café access, we could block him for, say 24–72 hours and he could totally miss it by not visiting the e-café during the block period. Any longer block would be questionable, and I don't think we do a "you're blocked until you read and respond to this AN/I discussion" hostage-style block. Which makes this editor very hard to communicate with. He doesn't appear to have made "email me" available either, so that someone might try to gain his attention. Hard work, this one. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Blocks are meant to do one thing, to prevent disruption. If a block is unlikely to affect an editor then it is of insufficient length. If (for example) an editor seems to edit once a week, then it isn't out of line to block an editor for a week for a first offense after sufficient warnings. We aren't restricted to a rule for a set block length for particular offenses, and administrators are given leave to use their judgement when determining what is an appropriate block length. So I don't think it should be considered out of line to block someone longer than usual because a shorter block won't even be noticed. -- Atama頭 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you seem to have missed the point. I'm not saying we need to block him for disruption, because I don't feel he has been that disruptive. I'm saying, we need him to respond to the concerns and engage with people, here or on his talk page. If he continues to ignore the notifications being left, I see no other way of getting him to respond, except by imposing a block and making his talk page the only place he can discuss this problem. But I also see a problem in blocking an editor simply to gain and hold his attention.. seems a bit dramatic. You get my point? The issue was the category creation, now the issue is getting him to acknowledge it and accept that he is not doing things agreeably, and needs to change his approach. I don't see need to topic ban anyone if they can accept they were at fault and refrain from doing it again. The discussion above requests a topic ban as though this guy has done something wrong. But given his lack of response, we can only assume he isn't aware that he is going over the top. What are we really going to do.. topic ban a guy for being enthusiastic? Seems rather draconian. We need him to speak to us, and see if he's willing to back off from over-categorising. If he persists after that, then we have a problem. Editing is like having a driving licence – you get points for speeding before you get a ban, unless it's severe. This is not that severe, and he has not had his say. So it's really just a 1-sided issue from those after his neck. People need to calm down and play fair, it's just a fricking website and a few extra categories aren't going to kill anyone or fry Wiki's servers. Patience is a virtue, sometimes. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 22:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, Marcus, I've never seen you at CfD, and I don't think you have any idea of how much otherwise productive time and energy is wasted by editors who serially create pointless categorization schemes. The are editors on this page, like me, who have done the clean up work. And I have spent many weeks, even months, working with these other editors to get bad categorization schemes cleared up. So on this one point, I disagree strongly with what you're saying. You haven't done the work; you don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I think you're over-complicating the matter, and I doubt it's that complex. I see no point in claiming that his contribs make your job harder, when the truth is that the CfD process itself is at fault. I think there has been ample room for merges, speedy deletions, and such if someone had been bold enough to do the merges, flag the empty cats, and be done with it, and not bother with all these nominations. No point blaming an editor working in what they believe is good faith for an inhibiting process they didn't develop. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
            • You can't merge categories without the whole time-consuming CfD process. It doesn't work that way. There is no speedy shortcut. I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm not going to continue this exchange, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Facepalm I know exactly what I'm taking about, clearly you don't, or I was unclear. I didn't say "merge categories", did I? I was referring to boldly merging the list of trivial stubs that Wild Wolf listed on AfD into the main articles on Gettysburg's battle/battlefield then redirecting them to those parent articles to make them searchable. That would have effectively rendered the categories on insignificant trees and rivers, etc in those stubs redundant, and probably empty if excluded from the main article. Empty categories can be speedy deleted under C1 Unpopulated categories. That would have left relatively few for CfD to worry about. So say again, who doesn't know what they're talking about? The fact remains, this whole clean up process has been handled quite poorly, with a lack of bold initiative, and now people are looking to point blame out of all proportion. It's contemptible. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Removing articles from categories rendering them empty is not in accordance with due process. There is no quick bold officially sanctioned way of deleting a category. In any case redirects can and should still be categorised: a redirect to a section about a bridge should be categorised as a bridge. Oculi (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages begins, "Most redirects should not be categorized" and stipulates a few exceptions. In the case of these Gettysburg articles those don't apply, as many of the stubs are neither "well known" nor "alternative names", they are simply very trivial mentions of things and redirecting/uncategorising them as such is unlikely to prove as troublesome as CfD. Seems well within the guidelines to me, and any bold editor would have made sense to me if they'd done it that way. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, instituting a block may be the only way to start a discussion with him. I have been watching this unfold and I haven't seen Target for Today replying to any of the messages on his talk page or on any of the deletion discussions. A temporary bloc might get his attention. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• MarcusBritish, this admin certainly does "blocked until you get your ass over to your talkpage" blocks - communication is key to this project. Also, creating duff categories is hugely disruptive, I had enough of it with a certain previous user that ended up indef blocked. It's like putting library books back on the wrong shelves. He hasn't edited since the 16th, and he has one of Marcus's helpful comments on the page as well as the deletion notices etc, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - he may be at his sister's wedding or in bed with the flu. However, if he edits anywhere again without responding to the issue at hand, give me a shout and I will block him.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's fair enough. His categories are not "duff" or "misplaced", by the way, that would be an unfair analysis. These are more like a bunch of flimsy pamphlets being shelved between major volumes. He's not creating hoaxes or forks, just over-doing it somewhat. Perhaps he isn't aware that it's not a welcome method, yet. So let's drop any idle speculation and wait and see.. even I'm not hazarding a guess here, as I think his level of interest could prove valuable to American Civil War topics for Military History, if and when he learns to follow the guidelines more closely. Too many keen editors are driven off for making simple mistakes, and too many simple mistakes are blown out of proportion on AN/I. Topic bans are for belligerent or unashamedly disruptive editors, we'll just have to see if he is one of those when he responds. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I should note that I have been working my way through all of this editor's category creations. While most recommendations to delete or merge are gaining consensus, there are are few exceptions. I'm not bothered if there is consensus to keep something I'm recommending for deletion or merging. But bringing these to a discussion is resulting in some being kept with help from the community to fix the issues that I see. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I recommended keeping one category, but in doing so I actually looked through some of the links in the article and found other buildings of the same ilk. But they weren't in Gettysburg, so apparently it wasn't worth the trouble or some other such reason that he didn't categorize them. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Some of Target's category creations are perfectly OK. A majority are both duff and misplaced, as can be seen from User talk:Target for Today which sparkles with red-linked categories. All but a couple which have been at cfd since Oct 2011 are now red-linked and I expect a lot more will be red when open cfds are closed. (Deleted category creations do not appear in an editor's contributions.) Target has been creating categories since 2010 - this is not a novice making naive blunders but an editor paying no attention over a long period to consensus and policy (not to mention a failure to review existing categories, eg creating Category:Armories on 24/01/2001 when there was already Category:Armouries created Dec 09). Moreover it looks to me as if their first ever edit was the creation of Category:World War II air force films (misplaced as there is no Category:Air force films as opposed to Category:Aviation films) promptly renamed at cfd in Nov 2011. A new editor does not begin with a category creation, so Target is quite a veteran. Oculi (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

►Wait a minute--I couldn't create articles prior to creating my Target for Today account, and all my prior edits were without an account! Two years ago I simply saw that the WWII film categories were overpopulated with air force films and saw that there was a category Category:World War II navy films--which still exists! So to create Category:World War II air force films which was a valid sibling, I thought it would be a good opportunity to try my hand at finally creating a page using the navy code. But when I copied the code from Category:World War II navy films and adjusted it for "air force", I couldn't then paste it to a new page until I created an account. So of course it was my first edit as I didn't have any experience creating pages -- I couldn't because I didn't have an account to use!!! Target for Today (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• He's back editing, including category creation. On a related note, he's reverted my edit here, with Target insisting that his administration category Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting/Gettysburg be categorized as part of the content tree. Contrary to WP:PROJCATS, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Yes, someone has nominated the article about me for deletion. Again.

Whether or not it's the same person (it's a new editor name, but...), could someone either kill the AfD or point it to the new reason (if any). This doesn't technically require admin action, but I cannot act on it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Fortheloveofbacon who nominated it: inactive since May 2010, then suddenly appears to start an AfD. Two previous nominations started by socks, another by an account currently blocked as it may be compromised. Any chance this new nominee's account is hijacked also? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know, man. Maybe an article with an image like that should be squashed... Come on Rubin, surely there is a more glamorous photo of you. Where's Shankbone when you need him? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm, maybe that account is compromised--it's odd. Maybe someone else can have a look; I've never dealt with such a thing before. Oh, Rubin, you're kept. I expect some currency in my secret Swiss account soon, since you math people are notoriously rolling in money. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• I suppose that if I had an article under my real name it would be annoying for it to go to AFD, but is there some inherent notability for this editor? Standards change over time, and letting the next AFD run for the standard period seems appropriate. If it gets kept, it gets kept. Why the urgency of halting the AFD? Edison (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Because number one and number two were thorough and long enough, and they established a clear consensus--I don't see any reason to suppose that Rubin's notability has lessened since then. Sometimes you run into old AfDs (often pre-2008 or so) that do not offer much in the way of discussion and investigation, with just a couple of votes, but that's not so in this case. BTW, Edison, maybe you're up next? Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• AfDs should only be started by legit editors, with legit reasons. If the nominee is questionable, the nomination is equally questionable. Time should not be wasted on trolls, socks or petty disputes, just to see how the result turns out. In this case the nominee is suspicious. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 05:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Next nomination is salted for 1 year. —Dark 07:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)_

I don't even need to question the legitimacy of the account after looking at the first two AfDs--this is a clear keep (see links to AfDs above). I note here also that nominator asked me on my talk page to reopen the discussion, a request I declined. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nominator here. This is not a compromised account, and I think my logic is sound. I looked for some more information/sources to expand this, but I couldn't find any, so that's why I nominated it. I would appreciate it if the discussion was re-opened and let run for the proper amount of time as was suggested earlier. All of the previous noms have been closed pretty quickly, so I don't think a full length discussion is out of order. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd say being the youngest ever Putnam Fellow establishes notability quite nicely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to add that most of my edits have been IP edits, as I rarely consider them earth shattering. However, in this case I decided to dust off the account I made in undergrad as I felt it was important to take accountability. So it's a different editor "name" and a different editor "person." Not a sock, and not a troll. I don't begrudge you an article, either, so I just want to be sure that the discussion isn't tainted by the unfortunate recurrence of jerks that seem to have been participating previously. That said, I'm not sure it satisfies WP:N either. Find me on my talk page if you want to verify that I'm not compromised. The Bushranger I assume you'll contribute that to the discussion, when it is hopefully re-opened. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fortheloveofbacon - creation date 11:55, 29 April 2010
• Electroshoxcure - creation date 17:56, 26 April 2010

• Bacon-lovin, indeed. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm shocked. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I note, though, that their message on my talk page is almost perfectly punctuated (except for one missing hyphen). Then again, perhaps the copy of Strunk and White that I sent for Hanukkah did in fact arrive. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

CoM's ban expired but he has not returned to use the original account. It does look odd to me, but if CoM is not currently banned or blocked and if Fortheloveofbacon is an alternate account, does this constitute abusive sockpuppetry? That's the question, I guess. Maybe someone wants to run CU. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I initiated a sockpuppet investigation on Fortheloveofbacon: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Let's see how that turns out. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If one account is stale and another account is current, would hard-blocking the stale account have the effect of also blocking the current account? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if they're using the same IP address and the stale account logs in. 12.165.222.214 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So it won't block the current account. Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the sock accusations regarding loveofbacon are apparently unfounded, as determined by ArbCom, is it reasonable to speedy keep an Afd that ran for less than two hours? Nobody Ent 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) That speedy keep did not meet any of criteria at WP:SK, even at the time it was made, because an independent, good-faith editor !voted delete. The fact that an article has been discussed before several times does not make it immune to further discussion, especially if the discussion takes place over a year since the last AfD. I have no opinion about whether the article should be kept or not, but let it run its course. Quasihuman | Talk 12:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Serial spammer, copyvio

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

---

Please block Charukishnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Only edits are spam from site http://www.cardekho.com/, and copy-pastes of copyrighted, POV text from same website. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've given them a final warning, but I'm in a good mood. If another admin feels I'm being too nice, I won't oppose an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Spamming after final warning, blocked indefinitely. WilliamH (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Crank

Anyone interested in sifting through a few years worth of edits from an editor who appears to be almost exclusively a crank? The end goal would be a community ban for wasting our time. I've reviewed his last thirty edits and most or all of them have been cranky. The complicating factor as that this editor has been editing since 2005 and has over 2,500 edits. I'll post the user name only if there's interest in pursuing the matter as I don't wish to create unnecessary drama. Rklawton (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not put it on hold until we have better guidance from Arbcom in the civility enforcement case?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe Rklawton means cranky, not cranky. 28bytes (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Both, actually. But yeah, if it was urgent, I would have posted an account and diffs. In this particular case, there's a lot of diffs to read through, though they aren't hard to find. Rklawton (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you use help from a non-admin? --NellieBly (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a long and thankless task, but it's my kind of long and thankless task. What general subject area is it? I'd be grateful if you could email me so I can run through a few contribs (I promise not to create drama). bobrayner (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll do any thankless job as long as it is agreed upon that it needs to be done. Let me know. — Moe ε 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I sent the username to Bobrayner who can work on it over the weekend. Unless I don't hear back from him, I don't wish to use up anyone else's time. Rklawton (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempted outing

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

---

RESOLVED AS:

• Pieter Kuiper was blocked for 48hrs for breach of WP:OUTING.
• SergeWoodzing is under a voluntary six-month "no fault" interaction ban beginning immediately. During that time, SergeWoodzing voluntarily agrees not to:

1. edit Pieter Kuiper's user and user talk space;
2. reply to Pieter Kuiper in discussions;
3. make reference to or comment on Pieter Kuiper anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or
4. undo Pieter Kuiper's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

An exception to (3) is that SergeWoodzing may raise concerns about Pieter Kuiper's behavior either at AN/I, or another suitable venue, or directly with an admin (specifically, he/she may contact Rannpháirtí anaithnid). If SergeWoodzing breaches this voluntary interaction ban, he/she may be blocked. However, merely agreeing to this voluntary interaction ban is not to be seen as a "black mark" against him/her or as an indication of poor conduct on his/her part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk • contribs)

Feelings his oats due to recent support from some users, timed exquisitely (he thinks) and knowing full well that I'll probably get more scoldings for complaining about him - OH, NO, NOT THAT AWFUL SERGE WHINING AGAIN (SIGH!!!)" - than help, User:Pieter Kuiper's latest caper in his 4-year harassment campaign is this attempt to out me. Once again: help, please!. Interaction ban, as recently discussed again (SIGH!!!), would be a good idea for us all, including him. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify people of ANI threads relating to them. (And please no caps or bold text.)

This would appear indeed to be a possible outing. Per WP:OUTING:

Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

I'm going to block for 48hrs. --RA (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Eomund asked me what I thought. This was relevant, possible hoax. And SergeWoodzing is acting for Ristesson on Commons, no secret at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to say that the book was self-published, or unreliable, without attempting to identify an editor as the author. --RA (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for using capitals (meant as entertainment, even if admittedly way too loud) and for not notifying PK myself. I can't bring myself to post anything on PK's talk page and had immediately asked another very active editor, who has acted as a go-bewteen before, to notify him. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban: SergeWoodzing be banned from interacting with Pieter Kuiper (but not vice versa)

I would suggest, SergeWoodzing, that if you want an interaction ban so badly that you stop interacting with him/her yourself. Why are you reverting edits and opening threads about the edits of a user you want to be banned from interacting with?

You would appear to be hounding this editor. So, I support your request to be banned from interacting with Pieter Kuiper (per your previous requests also). However, at this time, I don't propose that Pieter Kuiper be banned from interacting with SergeWoodzing. --RA (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What you are claiming about me cannot be substantiated. I have never once, not on any of three projects, sought out, stalked or in any other way impacted any of his work unless he in each and every case has impacted work of mine to start the unpleasantries. Nothing else can be shown in fact, simply because it has never ever happened. Kuiper has stalked me for 4 years. If that's unclear to you, you might want to check the facts and figures a bit more carefully. The one and only link you are basing this on is all about PK removing info that he knows I have been heavily involved in providing. He knows everything about me and all of my work because he has policed my watchlists and contributor pages for years. What he's up to isn't always obvious. He's talented at what he does.

Why not also read up a bit on all the support I've had for the mutual ban before, rather than jumping on me at once like this? 6 against 1 (PK) last time, with him categorically refusing to cooperate. Respectfully, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

PS one of the few thing PK does not know about me is who I am. I'd like to keep it that way. I am truly frightened of him, especially when he wins good people like you over with his innocent act. His behavior is well known, here and at Commons, so is mine. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered why you were initiating interactions with someone that you have asked three times on this board to be banned from interacting with. I am supporting your request to be banned from interacting with him/her.

If Pieter Kuiper continues to follow you, despite you no longer interacting with him, it will be clear that he is stalking you and so he/she can be banned from interacting with you also if that time comes. But, in the mean time, you will have had your request to be banned from interacting with this person. --RA (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I must have written something unclear above, even though I took the rather drastic step of bolding. Here's the answer to your question as clearly as I am able to answer it.

• I have never once initiated interactions with Pieter Kuiper and have never had any interest in doing so, nor will I ever have any interest in doing so in the future. Anything that looks like I have done so is misleading because it at first glance does not show how it was my work, not his, that was interacted upon, thus creating the illusion of an intitated interaction by me, not by him. Any such case, if investigated just a bit into the details, will reveal the truth of what I'm stating here.
• Pieter Kuiper has initiated interactions with me hundreds of times on Swedish and English Wikipedia and on Commons. There is ample evidence of this on all three of his contributor lists, especially on English WP where an substantial amount of his visits are devoted to argumentative, sarcastic, ridiculing attacks on my work, intercations always initiated by him, never by me.

I hope my reply is clearer this time and that, upon a bit of investigation, should you care to perform such, you find me totally vindicated. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking me to agree to a ban w/o him agreeing to anything? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am exhausted tonight (our time) and will need to think about that. Right now, I can't see any advantage or disadvantage. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You are interacting with him/her while at the same time asking to be banned from interacting with him/her. Do you not see the irony in that?

Am I asking you to agree to a ban without him/her agreeing to anything? Yes. Will you accept a six-month voluntary interaction ban? During that time, you voluntarily agree not to:

1. edit Pieter Kuiper's user and user talk space;
2. reply to Pieter Kuiper in discussions;
3. make reference to or comment on Pieter Kuiper anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or
4. undo Pieter Kuiper's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

An exception to (3) is that you may raise concerns about Pieter Kuiper's behavior either here, or another suitable venue, or directly with an admin. You can come directly to me, if you want. If you breach this voluntary interaction ban, you may be blocked. However, merely agreeing to this voluntary interaction ban is not to be seen as a "black mark" against you or as an indication of poor conduct on your part.

In parallel, Pieter Kuiper's behavior will be observed. If he/she is seen to be genuinely stalking or harassing you (or otherwise in breach of policy towards you), that will be obvious and action will be taken as appropriate. I will warn Pieter Kuiper about this on his talk page, if you agree to the above. --RA (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree to that as now detailed (as long as it's copacetic with WP guidelines and consensus), and thank you very much! I will write to you if any further problems arise and sincerely hope I very rarely will feel the need to do so. This does not make me feel like a "bigger" person but I am always interested in constructive cooperation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• RA, thank you for getting on this. I am getting sick of seeing these two names (which, individually, are really cool) come up together at ANI time after time after time after time. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not gone through the details of this. An interaction ban must be mutual though - interactions are always between (at least) two people. For it to be one ("not vice versa") way makes no sense. LadyofShalott

That's not true. Indeed the boilerplate interaction ban (which the points above are copied from) is one directional. In my experience, conflicts like this can be resolved by even one editor involved "being the bigger person" and just stepping away. SergeWoodzing has asked several times for an interaction ban (whereas Pieter Kuiper has refused to agree to one), so SergeWoodzing is the natural choice. Edits in their usual zones of interest can continue but SergeWoodzing would merely stop all interaction with Pieter Kuiper.

In the warning to Pieter Kuiper that I suggest above, I would foresee strongly urging him/her to adopt a similar (even informal) interaction ban. Certainly, it should be emphasised that to him/her that by SergeWoodzing agreeing to an interaction ban, Pieter Kuiper's behavior towards SergeWoodzing would now come under a microscope and if Pieter Kuiper is harassing SergeWoodzing that will be seen immediately.

I do want to emphasise that the terms are that merely agreeing to this voluntary interaction ban is not to be seen as a "black mark" against SergeWoodzing or as an indication of poor conduct on his/her part. Only if he/she breaches it, after agreeing to it, should there be seen to be a pattern of poor behavior on his/her part. Until then, certainly in my opinion, he/she would be seen to be "the bigger person". --RA (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather see them just get along. I don't understand why interaction as innocuous as what's going on at Talk:Oscar II of Sweden, should lead to an interaction ban.--Atlan (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Beyond My Ken

• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)

User:Beyond My Ken seems to have become so annoyed at what he sees as pointless formatting changes made by me that he has started mass reverting my edits, apparently with no regard whatever for what they are or for whether they violate Wikipedia style guidelines or not. I really couldn't care less about most of his reverts; many of them may actually be perfectly justified. Unfortunately, because he is now reverting me without regard for the content of my edits, he has violated a number of guidelines (including WP:MOSFILM. He has among other things restored trivia sections and 'year in film' piped links, which WP:MOSFILM prohbits. Could someone please tell him to stop this crap? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll repost here what I just posted at WT:FILM, since PoC didn't wait to receive a response there:

Please see this I was invited by PoC to revert edits he made which made no difference in the redering of a page, but which made editing the page a little more difficult. It was my intention to only delete those edits, but perhaps I made mistakes -- without any assitance from PoC, such things will happen. I've now been warned twice by PoC about those edits, when the timestamps on the edits will show that they were all made at one time, and all before his first warning.

In short, this is a tempest in a teapot. PoC should stop making edits which make no different in rendering a page, and I won't have to delete such edits. Thanks.

That's about the size of it, I got a few edits wrong in trying to correct PoC's unnecessary edits, and apparently a Federal case is being made out of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a rather silly dispute to me, and BMK's edits seem ok to me. I think this is best solved by continuing discussion at WT:FILM, rather than forum-shopping it here. --John (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Incidentally, the "mass reverting" referred to was 20 edits, all (except one) which were slugged as "formatting". I checked a handful of them first, and they were all the unnecessary edits, so I assumed (my error) that all edits marked "formatting" were of that type. I skipped over edits that said "formatting, etc." or mentioned MOS in an efort to keep the reverting focused -- apparently that wasn't suifficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit is a bit problematic, on reflection. --John (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

John, respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. WP:MOSFILM prohbits year in film piped links. Beyond My Ken went ahead and restored them anyway. Hence, ignorant and disruptive editing. What more need be said? I've no idea what kind of "assistance" he expects me to give him; it's his responsibility to learn how to format properly. Please see his behavior at A Fish in the Bathtub, edit warring with me over formatting even after I explained that he'd done it wrongly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit is a specific example of Beyond My Ken violating style guidelines in the process of mindlessly mass reverting me. Same story with this edit, re-linking dates and restoring trivia as well. Please explain how violating the guidelines is OK - and note that he reverted me despite explaining in my edit summary that dates should usually be delinked in film articles. Totally clueless behavior. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverting edits simply because the have no effect on the rendering of a page is a nonsense argument. There are innumerable improvements that can be made to an article's wikitext that can greatly improve things without any change to the appearance of the page; Some examples: Diff of 1907 Tiflis bank robbery, Diff of Neville Chamberlain. Alarbus (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Alarbus, I don't disagree with you, but the edits I complained to PoC about were the ones where he deleted a blank line between the end of the infobox and the beginning of the article text. Such a blank line does not effect the rendered text, but it does make it much easier to pick up where the lede starts when scrolling quickly down the top of an article. His deletion of those links was therefore not only unnecessary, but, in a very small way, made editing just a little harder. I let a few of these go by before I contacted him about it in what I thought was a neutral tone, one experienced editor to another [5], and got a response that accused me of patronizing him, and invited me to undo the edits. [6] That's what I attempted to do, and did so in a less than clean manner. That part is my fault – I should have taken more care in my reverts – but the escalation of an extremely minor dispute to an AN/I report, that's not on my head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Having edited thousands of articles, I can safely say that the formatting issue BMK mentions makes no difference whatsoever to how difficult editing an article is. At least it makes no difference at all to me - I am interested to learn that others might find it makes a difference. Whether anyone else agrees with BMK on this issue, or whether it's just his personal idiosyncrasy, I'd be interested to find out - it would effect how I went about editing. The stupid mistakes BMK made in mass reverting me just go to show why mass reverting someone is generally a bad idea. His creating the appearance that he was reverting me vindictively makes editing much more difficult than minor formatting details could ever do. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, I prefer a blank line after infoboxes... but it's not the sort of thing that need "warnings" and reversions. Outta here. Alarbus (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm siding with BMK on this, though I'd like to see him take care and view each edit prior to reverting. It's time consuming, but the results of failing to do so are predictable. Rklawton (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. If I have taken the time and effort to insure that every edit I made was reverting only the thing I wanted to undo, I would have spent a little more than then but saved the larger amount of time I'm wasting now. That's my lesson for the day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking about BMK adding whitespace or other style to articles, despite all MOS guides against it, and then edit warring to replace it when removed.... this has been going on for years. BMK has his own style guide that only he follows. Whitespace, image sizes, how to place footnotes and unreferenced headers, etc. He's been asked to knock it off countless times by numerous users. The only excuse ever given is that he likes it better that way and he's following WP:IAR. Really, it should stop. It's ridiculous and fairly minor, but his stubbornness on this has driven away good editors. He's been invited to discuss it at MOS pages relevant to what he's doing, but he's never done so. That's totally not the way a collegial project works. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(edit conflict) Both PoC and BMK make some valid points about different edits/reverts, but (1) this whole topic is trivial and (2) PoC has a bad attitude and should lose it. The stuff about "mass reverting", "vindictively", "stupid mistakes", etc., are unsupported and uncalled for. As an aside on the trivial aspect, I agree with BMK that the blank line makes it easier to edit, but I wouldn't have bothered reverting it. Can't we close this as much ado about nothing?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

With a recommendation that BMK take up his style choices at relevant MOS guidelines and not continue on his own lone crusade? His behavior is correctable and belongs at ANI even if the underlying issue is trivial. If the underlying issue about style is indeed trivial, then close it with a demand he take it up on MOS talk pages and not stubbornly cling to his own preferences. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• I looked at MOSFILM twice now, but cannot find where "year in film" piped links are forbidden. Enlighten me, please. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Near the bottom of the page in the Clean-up section is the line: "Following WP:EGG, dates should be linked only to articles about the linked date, and they should be linked only when the date's article provides important information or context specifically related to the film." I also found this discussion from March 2010 that touches on the subject. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 03:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I never understood the idea that linking, say "1954" in a film article to the article "1954 in film" was an "Easter Egg", and unwanted "surprise" to the reader. To me, it seemed like precisely the thing we would work towards having, which is context-sensitive links -- but that discussion is over and done, and I routinely unlink dates in film articles, per consensus. If I did that in one of PoC's edits, it was purely by accident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I saw that--I guess I didn't realize that its intent was so restrictive as to make the link completely dependent on the content of the thus-linked article. I've linked that way (maybe never in film, which I rarely edit, but in poetry) thinking that it would lead to broader context, which may (or not, of course) add to the reading of the original article. I find this overly restrictive. What if the linked article happens to be vandalized, or a work in progress? What if a movie is, say, a decent success--then the linked article may give an overview of the most successful films, which would contextualize without even naming the movie one started with? Or, am I to believe that the editor who's duking it out with BMK clicked on every single one of those to make sure that there is no "important information or context specifically related to the film"? I didn't see them making any such claim. I'll look at that discussion link, but this strikes me as a bad guideline for style since "important information or context" is a very malleable concept. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I read it and I'm none the wiser. Let me say this, germane (defined in the 2010 discussion linked above) to the topic: I do not see know, prima facie, BMK's addition of "year in film" links is contrary to MOSFILM and other conventions unless it be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the linked article ("year x in film") contains no content at all that is "provides important information or context specifically related to the film". Rationale: 1. such was never proven here in the first place for each of BMK's edits; and 2. "important information or context" is a malleable concept, and the linked article need not even mention the film to give "provides important information or context specifically related to the film" on it. Now, when it comes to blank lines between the infobox and the text, I don't believe the MOS forbids it, and I don't see how that can count as disruption. Is there anything else to the complaint? Now, can someone who cares about film (which is probably all y'all) consider rephrasing the all-too vague guidelines, preferably (IMHO) by scrapping it altogether? Drmies (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it poorly written? It seems fairly straightforward to me. Basically the guideline is saying that as per WP:EGG you shouldn't be linking 2010 to 2010 in film, because readers would expect to be taken to an article about the year i.e. [2010]. 2010 in film should only be linked to when it is specifically clear from the context of the link that by clicking the link, you will be taken to the article that covers film related topics of that year. Linking "Toy Story is a 2010 American film" is an EGG link, however "Toy Story is the highest-grossing film of 2010" is not, because you expect to be taken to an article that covers the highest grossing films of 2010. Technically we don't even need the MOS guideline because WP:EGG covers it, but if people are editing film articles and check the Film MOS then it is useful to re-iterate the guideline on what is a common MOS problem. Betty Logan (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

To Bbb23: the topic isn't trivial if BMK is reverting edits for no reason other than that I've made them, and intends to go on doing so - that's a serious behavior issue (though I grant that his giving the appearance of behaving that way may well be just ineptness or incompetence on his part, not malice). I've no apology whatever for calling BMK's relinking dates and restoring trivia to articles stupid - that's exactly what it was.

To Drmies, whose comments I don't quite grasp, I think the safest response is that delinking dates in film articles is, in general, uncontroversial. I haven't delinked absolutely all dates I've found in film articles - I'm not a robot, and a few of the linked dates could seem appropriate. I have done it in the large majority of cases, however. BMK is perhaps one of a handful of holdouts on the issue, and his reverting me to relink dates was quite inappropriate. Many of BMK's other reverts appear to conflict with WP:LAYOUT, at least as I read it. Drmies misunderstands me if he thinks I was suggesting that adding lines between the infobox and text is disruption, however; I didn't say that. My point was that reverting me just for the sake of reverting me is disruption. BMK has just made a weird post on my talk page, telling me that he doesn't wish to interact with me in future - in principle, that would be just fine, but if he does plan to go on reverting me because he doesn't like my formatting....well, it's clear what will happen. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

PoC, I don't believe you've presented good evidence of calling BMK malicious or incompetent, whereas I think there's evidence here in this topic (as well as in some diffs) of your misbehavior. And, although it may be mildly interesting, I think the discussion of WP:MOSFILM belongs on that guideline's Talk page, not at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What's not to grasp? Sorry, but if one cannot see that "important information or context specifically related to the film" is not simple at all and open to widely divergent interpretations, then one needs to start reading beyond the level of a manual that tells you how to install an electrical outlet. But I'll stop--it's clear that I'm in the minority here. Good thing I don't work on film articles; this EGG business is a bit silly. Bbb: it is directly relevant: BMK here is indicted for not following MOSFILM. I'm saying that MOSFILM is vague enough, and I am saying that the complaint does not provide specific evidence that the EGG guideline was broken, since MOSFILM does not say "do not link." Simple.

One other thing is clear: this is not gaining any traction. Move to close. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, the MOSFILM issue is a subissue of why PoC opened up this topic. PoC goes much further in his statements about BMK's edits and his motives. It's not that MOSFILM isn't relevant per se, but it's of marginal relevance to ANI. Actually, I happen to agree with you about the vagueness of the guideline, and I actually do watch and edit quite a few film and film-related articles (it ain't easy). Obviously, I agree with you about closing this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23: see the revision history of A Fish in the Bathtub. I made a perfectly correct, uncontroversial formatting change. BMK comes along and reverts me. I revert back, explaining that he was wrong. BMK reverts me...again. Is that malicious and/or incompetent behavior on his part? Yes. I'm quite prepared to believe that it could be incompetence rather than simply malice, but it does look exactly like the kind of thing someone might do to make a point of some kind. Chances are, BMK didn't like the "attitude" with which I explained that he was wrong. He can dislike the attitude if he wishes, but that doesn't give him an excuse for restoring formatting errors deliberately; that's vandalism.

To Drmies: The only dates BMK relinked were "year in film" piped links. It's completely uncontroversial on the film project to delink these, and also quite uncontroversial to delink other dates in most cases. Now, I have listened to what other editors have to say about formatting changes in general, and the feedback is helpful, thank you. But I'm only persuaded to make some quite minor changes about how I go about things. I plan to continue making most of the same kinds of edits to film articles, and if BMK intends to continue reverting them, then there will be a continuing problem. His desire to avoid interaction with me is not a problem in itself, but he cannot have things both ways - systematically reverting me guarantees that we will interact, in one way and another. I am not calling for BMK to be sanctioned or blocked or anything of that kind, but some kind of statement from him about his future intentions is required here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

PoC, I gotta admit that the example you give makes BMK's reversions (twice) look pretty silly. BTW, the guideline you were referring to in your edit summary is WP:CITEFOOT. I still wouldn't call it vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In the end, people have to use their judgment about what is vandalism and what isn't. BMK's first revert at A Fish in the Bathtub is certainly not something I'd call vandalism - it could be just laziness or unfamiliarity with formatting guidelines. But reverting me twice, after the explanation? BMK has been active on Wikipedia for several years, so this kind of formatting detail is something he should be familiar with; that's why restoring the error the second time looks like vandalism. Even if it's not blatant vandalism, it's borderline behavior that amounts to arguable vandalism. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Help on BLP issue

Resolved

 – Dreadstar has removed the BLP-offending content from the article and talk page following my taking up his offer to assist. EdChem (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi... over 18 hours ago I posted to the BLP noticeboard requesting advice, but have yet to receive a response. I have come across a living person's biography article that has in its history revisions claiming (without evidence) that this TV star has previously performed in pornography. Without investigating, I am 99+ % sure that the claim is untrue. The article's talk page still refers to these claims. I am unsure if this calls for rev-del or oversight or what. I am not indicating the article here because I am seeking advice; if emailing oversight or similar is appropriate then I will. Or, am I over-reacting given the claims were removed long ago? Even though mentioning them on the talk page means allegations are still visible? Please, someone give me some advice. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As you apparently don't want to name the subject, your best bet might be to send an email to your most trusted admin, and spell out the details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I responded on BLP/N to offer help. Dreadstar ☥ 04:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it is appreciated. EdChem (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Right to exist

I invite neutral intervention, particularly this section on "Pakistan", which, I believe, has been deliberately skewed by Pakistani nationalist editors, User:TopGun [7],USer:Mar4d[8],and the sock of indefbanned user USer:Nangparbat ([9]) into promoting non-neutral anti-Indian sentiments. In particular these statements are reproduced from partisan Pakistani blogs and presented as fact:

"It is essential that Indians deeply and meaningfully recognize Pakistan’s right to exist as a nation independent from India. Indians cannot let their nostalgia for the past–which is, in fact, the national pain over the Partition in 1947 which led to the creation of Pakistan – blind them to the reality of Pakistan as a sovereign state." [10]

In addition, the remark "By refusing to accept the 1947 partition of the British Indian empire, India even challenged Pakistan's right to exist." is Original Research, since India officially only rejects the Two Nation Theory, not Pakistan's sovereignity as such. Furthermore, the cited source here indicates the opposite of what this article claims i.e. it is Pakistan that denies India's right to exist[11].

Furthermore, I was compelled to come to this and the RFC board rather than use the rfc template because the Pakistani militant editors kept removing it from the article talk page[12].Underhumor (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not deal with content disputes here ... have you tried opening an WP:RFC or third opinion request on the article talkpage? We go by WP:CONSENSUS, and consensus is reached on article talkpages, or follow dispute resolution (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

He tried an RFC, it was removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The opening user (I assume is the IP editor) who repeatedly removing sourced content without any edit summaries and was non responsive to warnings until recently. His RFC was not neutrally written and was full of personal comments instead of content related comments so I refactored it per WP:RFC I have no objection of he starts it again given that a neutral editor phrases the summary. Check out his IP contributions btw, vandalizing a range of articles and then socking allegations with some unknown editor. Also there was zero discussion on talk page before he started his attack RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: his IP just got a block by Materialscientist [13]... the account should get the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It really is offensive that you continually ask for blocks everywhere. Indeed, as has already been noted, your personal combative nature is causing you needless trips to ANI, AN3 and elsewhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? I asked to block a blocked editor... I would really need an explanation for how that is combative? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It was statement on your overall behaviour on the project that has been brought up with you again, and again (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've made that on those occasions... there's no point in repeating that on unrelated matters where actually a vandal (now blocked) is bringing the matter here. And no, you specifically mentioned me asking for blocks. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, you're always asking for blocks. Barely a day goes by without you showing up here like a footballer waving an imaginary card in the air. Also, it's a bad idea to go around calling people vandals simply because they disagree with your point of view. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Read my reply to Bwilkins above... if you don't want to assume good faith I do atleast deserve the benefit of doubt even though it is very clear that I asked for the block after his IP was blocked for vandalism (not my disagreement). It is just as bad an idea commenting on something that did not happen in this case. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• On a related note, what does one do when an IP reverts WP:OR and unreliable sources into an article?[14] Darkness Shines (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We follow WP:DR, possibly request page protection ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have requested page protection, however the unreliable sources are already back in. C'est la vie Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why it's WP:BRD not WP:BRRRRRRRR ... whether IP's or not. The editor then created an account that was not evading a block (based on timing) - possibly intended to give more credence to their edits. These aren't WP:BLP's and it's not vandalism - it's up to consensus to determine the appropriateness of the sources, or the WP:RSN. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Arrogant User

User:137.120.238.48 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/137.120.238.48 I know this is probably in the wrong place, but I don't have the faintest idea where to report this guy or get administrator intervention. A quick look at his history [15], especially in the editing of Street Fighter X Tekken, reveals he simply doesn't understand the idea of WP:NOR or WP:V. He also comes across as extremely arrogant whenever I try to explain to him why what he is doing is wrong [16] [17] and he simply refuses to listen to advice from me. [18]. He only seems to post once a month, which I can understand would prevent him from getting banned, but if he's simply refusing to listen to me, then could I at least request that an admin speak to him, and try to get him down a peg or two? Or at the very least tell me which page I SHOULD be reporting this to? 88.109.28.100 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing you should have done, as the instructions say, is to notify the user of this topic. I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as I said, I've not had the slightest idea where to go in an attempt to get it through to him that he can't make claims like that. He just won't listen to me. 85.210.188.66 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs to be done unless the situation escalates. So far, 137 has made only three edits to one article, the last of which was a month ago. The remainder of their edits are to Talk pages. It's true they shouldn't call editors "clueless", but it sounds like they just don't like the way Wikipedia operates. If 137's comments get bad enough, it might be reportable, depending on the nature of their comments. Similarly, if their article editing becomes persistent and in violation of policy, it might be reportable. Seems too low-level and premature at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really asking you to ban him per-say, it's more a case of trying to explain to him the rules of Wikipedia. Since he's not listening to me, I thought an admin talking to them might help get the message through. 84.12.137.145 (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just that experience has taught us that intervention after such a period of time has very little effect and can lead to side arguments about why now. If it happens again, please let us know. It is true that some people around here say such things and worse but that should not be license for all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

86.174.145.151

The IP address 86.174.145.151 posted on my talk page "Fuck off you nasty vandal" for no reason whatsoever. I would appreciate it if this user could be taken care of. Nicholas (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a drive-by. If he reverts again, you could take him to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I did leave a warning on the talk page, possibly poking him a little, but hey. AIV will do for any re-offences, unless this is block evasion/socking of someone you recognise? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Heheh, I just got piss off from him reverting my warning. What a pleasant mother's little darling he must be! Oh wells, I see no point prodding him any more they don't seem worth the effort. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This user is a banned editor (User:CharlieJS13), just block him for a few days. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For those editors (me at least) who need more information, how do you know?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've take a look at previous edits by a host of the user's socky IPs and they do seem to copy similar areas. Changing genres and info on music pages, song pages, chart pages, and leaving offensive talk page messages on every editor who reverts ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.141.44.187 a good example). Tbhotch seems to have involvement with the user since at least July last year. I've put a 72h block on there but happy for it to be reviewed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For further information about this user (because he'll return) and you can detected as soon as I can, is that all of his IPs start with the number 86.xxx. Charlie lives in London, thus his IPs are given by IP Pools or BT public. The second thing that he does is to change genres with no sources or consensus to suit his POVs. The third thing he does is to attack users on either, user pages or edit summaries, death/block/ban threats, racist comments, etc. I'm watching "Flashdance" and "Scheiße", two pages he edited in the past. And this is how I knew the IP belongs to him. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for the explanation - very helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of primary and questionable sources

I find myself engaged in somewhat of an slow-motion edit war with user Wee Curry Monster talk at Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. There are severe problems with the edit he tries to impose, which is:

"The American consul protested violently against the seizure of American ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Luis Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo, where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers."

While it adds more detail to the article, compared to current version, it presents the disagreement based on WP:PRIMARY sources, as rightly noted by Senra (Talk) (and agreed by Nev1 (talk)) in this talk page section.

I take a pause here to state that I've learned a while ago to not to respond to WCM's personal attacks. He calls me "a disruptive editor", so he usually focus on me instead of the issue. And I've learned that going that way (commenting about editors) is fruitless and poisoning.

As a result from Senra's advice, we started gathering secondary sources at the end of that section. While it was easy to find secondary sources stating that looting and destruction of private buildings occurred (one of them even explicitly saying "There seems to be no substantial controversy over the basic facts of the intervention, although President Jackson transformed them substantially in his Annual Message to Congress"), sources presented by WCM are questionable because:

[I'm not going into this discussion because it's not relevant at this point]

Even if he would have succeed in providing secondary, reliable sources explicitly stating that the civilians were not affected by the incursion, he is still pushing for his original text, which presents the primary sources' versions. I've reverted him three times now, in the last 30 days, and he seems to neglect the concerns raised about the use of WP:PRIMARY sources. What I'd wish from this petition here is that WCM acknowledges that article content cannot be based on primary sources (specially in contentious matters), and desists from introducing the text above. I apologize beforehand if this is not the place to seek for help, as I'm (relatively speaking) new to Wikipedia and this kind of conflicts. --Langus (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty basic: between a primary source and a secondary source covering that primary, always prefer the secondary. Contrasting a primary against a secondary is essentially OR, unless there's a secondary detailing the differences between the primary and other secondaries. Otherwise, the contrast has to be made and argued by the editor. We can't do that. It's like the police report says one thing, and we see something else in the evidence. Unfortunately, we're not the detectives, so nothing we can say is admissible to the court. To stretch a metaphor. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Several years ago, I noticed this was a serious problem with many GA and even FA-class articles. If someone wants to put together an investigative committee to look into this problem, I might be interested in helping out. Although I can't remember the name of it at this time, there was a FA-class anime-related article that was written from primary sources with little guidance from the secondary. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

As stated by the OP, around two months ago I did indeed attempt to mediate this long running content dispute by pointing out to the primary editors the difficulties of using primary sources. I thought the issues had settled down. It seems they are continuing. I note that Tatham's dictionary of Falklands Biography has come up again; I recommend that this source should be taken to the WP:RSN to obtain a consensus on its reliability. I also note that Mabuska (talk · contribs) is a recent editor of the article who has not been informed of this incident post; I have taken the liberty of doing so --Senra (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Tatham's dictionary of Falklands Biography has been at WP:RSN in this thread. Reading that thread now, the RS nature of that source does seem to have been obfuscated and it was not the primary reason for that RSN post. I recommend it is taken there again --Senra (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know why i am mentioned at all in regards to this. I've only made one edit to the article (and none in the talk) and that was a good faith edit in regards to the use of a non-English language name in brackets in an article where it seems totally out of place considering this is the English Wikipedia and the place name in use is officially in English. Please don't drag uninvolved editors into this source discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Mabuska: I only included you for completeness as you have edited recently and thought you might be interested. No matter and sorry to bother you --Senra (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not so much a content dispute as Langus trying to game the system to remove some content he doesn't like. As part of Argentina's claim to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, it claims that in 1831, the USS Lexington destroyed the settlement formed by Luis Vernet at Port Louis. The sources actually conflict on this, Vernet claims the entire settlement was destroyed, the US record from the log of the Lexington states that guns were spiked and a powder store destroyed. Langus wishes to remove the latter from the article substituting it with additional content from sources backing up the Argentine version of events. WP:NPOV requires we represent all significant viewpoints in the article. I'm sorry to bring content to ANI but its only by explaining the facts around content does it become clear that there is a POV agenda here. The material is sourced, the sources are not questionable, the sources used are not being used to source controversial or disputed material. These are red herrings to cover up a POV agenda. The source he is disputing was written by Professor John B Hattendof D Phil FRHist S., at the time of publication the Ernest J King Professor of Maritime history, US Naval War College. He is claiming this is unreliable and questionable. Tatham is not being used to cite a controversial or dispited fact. The text is in fact lifted from another wikipedia article - Falkland Islands.

Langus is disruptive, this is the second time he has dragged me to WP:ANI over a content dispute [19], he see WP:DR as a means to filibuster discussions till he gets the exact content he desires and his content proposals favour Argentina's sovereignty claim over the islands. [20] you'll note that he has changed the article to his favoured version and the information from the log of the Lexington removed, the article totally favouring the Argentine version of events. So he reverts then comes to ANI trying to game the system into keeping his preferred text. You'll also note my last edit was nearly two weeks ago, this was a stale issue. Langus has not commented in talk since 26 November 2011.

Its not as if this is the only article he has behaved disruptively on Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands,Luis Vernet,Falklands War,ARA General Belgrano,Falkland Islands and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute . As I note here [21] the contribution history is odd, with an account registered in 2007 making no substantive contribution till 2011. I think this is a sleeper account for the blocked disruptive editor User:Alex79818, who co-incidentally decided to restart his disruptive IP edits on Falklands topics this weekend. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus blocked

I've blocked Dream Focus for one week for WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct, specifically [22] and [23]. My detailed message to him is here. I am submitting my block for the community's review, and will not object if a consensus is reached to shorten or overturn the block. Jclemens (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Good block, though I wouldn't be adverse to it be shortened to a couple or few days as I think it would serve the same purpose. Wikipedia is supposed to a collegial editing environment; throwing tantrums and separating editors into collectives such as "inclusionist" and "deletionist" does nothing to further this goal. The emotional tone in DF's posts demonstrate that they are attached to the issue to the extent that they are unable to edit objectively. There is no excuse to resort to personal attacks, even if they are not directed to a specific editor. Sometimes things don't go the way you think is ideal on WP - when that happens you move on and dedicate your energy elsewhere rather than make passive aggressive talk posts. N^oformation ^Talk 10:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dream clearly seems to be harbouring resentment at the template's deletion; the block is a preventative measure in order to stop further disruption. Hopefully, the block is adequate time for him to reevaluate his role within the project. —Dark 10:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit much just to block him for the "evil hordes of deletionists" rhetoric. Given the whole debate over the ARS template one would kind of have to expect some post-deletion ranting. 28bytes (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sure the block is for long-term battlefield conduct, rather than just the one comment. —Dark 10:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, doing back through their talk page history I'd be willing to advocate an indef until they agreed to stop labeling "deletionists" as evil. Seriously, it's ridiculous. WP:AGF is supposed to be one of our pillars, not a negotiable guideline, but this user has essentially been working under the assumption that those who think WP should exclude poorly sourced content are evil. It comes down to a difference in how people view the wiki, but in no way does evil ever enter into the equation. 28bytes, if this was isolated to after the template debate it would be one thing, but this user has used the evil terminology well before that. It's totally unacceptable and honestly a little obsessive and creepy. N^oformation ^Talk 10:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, with edit summaries like this it just seems too cartoonish and over-the-top for me to take it too seriously. 28bytes (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF isn't a WP:5P, never was, hopefully never will be. You can't demand how people think, that's akin to brain-washing. It's an abstract guideline, and only bears minor relevance to civility. But AGF isn't being civil, in itself, and doesn't represent how the world truly operates. Interesting that {{rescue}} is gone, however. Sounds to me that whilst SOPA fails in the real world, and Wiki are happy to let a measly 1,800 votes count as a consensus for 10-million members, it remains a law unto itself and allows personal distaste to override a WikiProject operating under the same "AGF" being quoted here. I fail to see the NPOV when AfD allows for someone to nominate "delete" but nothing is retained to attempt to "keep". ARS have done good work in the past; I'm not entirely on their side, I will note, they often pick up some obviously trivial crap, that even a basic Google search can discredit, and the AfD becomes more like everyone involved being dragged through glass.. naked.. no one comes out unscathed. Dream does need to chill a little, I can understand their concern, though the block seems combative per se, almost counter-pointy. Nothing here that couldn't have been actioned through discussion, and comes across more like a show of power against strong words, to oppress Dream's discontent. Not a good block, really, though possibly a necessary one to prevent widespread disruption, so the better of two evils, but an example of how power corrupts, none the less. In short, shit happens. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 11:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Too strong a remedy for a bit of venting on the user's own talk and ARS talk pages. Did anyone attempt something simpler like "Please stop calling deletionists evil"? Nobody Ent 11:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Was there a warning that I have not yet seen? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not something that just popped up after after the rescue template deletion. This comment referring to participants in an AFD as "mindless deletionist drones" was made on my talk page before the template in question was nominated for deletion. This is not a short term rant but a long term attitude. The irony here is that I agree with many of the things he says in principle but I do not support the broad villianization of those with an opposing position. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a week? If we'd made it a two week block we could have had time to MfD his user page and AfD all his articles, like evil, scheming deletionists should. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Good block. I do like some of the work Dream Focus does, but he needs to realize that while Us and Them makes for a great song, it's an extremely divisive and unhelpful way to edit here. He's entitled to his view of what Wikipedia should be, but really has to express it in a manner more suitable for collaboration. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this was a really necessary block. I've seen much worse venting recently, including legal threats that didn't result in a block. Reduce to 24hrs. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• As a card-carrying member of the "evil deletionist horde" (we prefer "Legion of Doom" BTW), I have to say I agree with 28bytes. Edit summaries like "civilization is doomed" are way too silly and over-the-top, even for Dream Focus. He seems to have gradually devolved into a Poe's law parody of himself. Reyk _YO! 12:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• • When I occasionally get sarcastic about the whole deletionist/inclusionist thing, I use the term heel for the "deletionists". (and of course face for the "inclusionists"). Example, a withdrawn AFD nomination or a struck delete !vote is a "heel-face turn" :). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'd have indefed him years ago if it weren't that by virtue of WP:INVOLVED I'm essentially forbidden to take action. This isn't an isolated incident. Dream Focus views this as a war, and strongly contributes to the truly unpleasant mess that AFD has become.—Kww(talk) 12:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

per 28bytes, Nobody Ent, and several others above. Seems rather harsh considering they don't even have some huge massive block history (2 previous way back in 2009). I'm not real keen on the whole concept of "group think" or "hive mind" types of things, and feel that opposing views should be given equal footing. — Ched :  ?  12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As to the issue of warnings, I agree that formal block warnings haven't been made. However, Dream Focus does have one relatively unique characteristic: his user page has been nominated for deletion as an attack page twice (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus (2nd nomination)). It was kept, unfortunately, primarily due to !voting by people that view "deletionist" as a word equivalent to "bogeyman". Regardless, any sentient being should have taken that as a warning that his behaviour was unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying DreamFocus is not sentient? Nobody Ent 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Kww implied DreamFocus's sentience; however Kww is not able to account for the fact that despite DreamFocus's status in that regard, he has not removed the contentious material from his userpage.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So should we just go mark Wikipedia:Rfc/u as historical and add a note?

Contributors who who persistently engage in low level incivil or disruptive behavior may be brought to ANI, where they'll either get block/banned in a big pile on, or the thread will be slapped with a close tag as "their is no incident requiring administrator attention," (depends on the luck of the draw).

because, honestly, that how this place looks from where I'm sitting. Nobody Ent 13:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Touché! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would add "and how many friends they have" at the end of the parenthetical comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

delThis editor is a deletionist.

inclThis user is an inclusionist.

I get the feeling that if the community really resented the terms "deletionist" and "inclusionist", amongst other things, it wouldn't have permitted these userboxes, of which there are many at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Editing philosophy in fairly large use. They should only be used to describe ideals though, not to label or ostracise editors, or to use as leverage in AfDs. AfDs are designed to allow everyone an opinion, and labelling in any form of "shaming" is little more than uncivil behaviour and a COI, probably intended to oust an opposing POV, or dissuade other editors from commenting because they don't want to come under attack from groups who aim to keep everything, no matter how worthless. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Marcus about the userboxes of inclusionist and deletionist - I would delete them also. All wikipedia users want to keep notable articles and to improve low quality articles. Clearly Dream is a bit upset about the template deletion and was venting a little. A week block seems a bit harsh, especially considering his recent clean block history. If he requests a good faith unblocking I would support that. Youreallycan 13:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He has, and I've brought it to Jclemens attention. — Ched :  ?  13:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

comment by DreamFocus

I find I can not post on the talk page of the administrator blocking me. I also can't post a reply in the discussion about me at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dream_Focus_blocked. Lets see. Some agree my wording was obviously more humorous than emotional. Not sure how anyone could not see that. Some mention I received absolutely no warning ever for this. There was the time I commented "mindless deletionist drones" on someone's talk page [24] asking them to reopen an AFD so people who would actually do a decent job looking for sources could participate. I listed specifically why the guy was obviously notable. His work was clearly notable, thus he met WP:COMPOSER as the links I showed clearly demonstrated. Anyway, that perhaps was a bit emotional. No complaints at the time though. And no, having someone who argues with me in AFD constantly nominate my user page as well as others for deletion, a year or two ago, doesn't send me a message of any sort, since consensus was there was nothing wrong with my page. Dream Focus 13:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC) (reposted by — Ched :  ?  13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

I'll just point out that "And no, having someone who argues with me in AFD constantly nominate my user page as well as others for deletion, a year or two ago, doesn't send me a message of any sort, since consensus was there was nothing wrong with my page" directly contradicts "There is a widely held view - approaching a consensus - that there are numerous elements of the page that are problematic, because of their divisiveness or potential construction as attacks on other editors." I personally lean towards upgrading this block to indefinite until Dream Focus agrees to stop demonizing people that favor deletion of articles.—Kww(talk) 14:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, and favor an unblock personally - but talk amongst yourselves, and we'll see if we can find a place to reach an agreement. — Ched :  ?  14:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So, somewhere between an immediate unblock and infinity then ... As per this comment a week seems precarious. Youreallycan 14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn block. If an editor has a strong POV, I prefer to know what it is, and DreamFocus's language makes his/her's crystal clear. And as a blood-soaked member of the deletionist horde, I like to think that I'm tough enough to brush off an occasional "mindless" thrown in my general direction, especially if it makes me stop and think twice, as it does from time to time. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Kww failed to note that Dream Focus feels that ARS are demonised for being in favour of inclusion, if "They insult the ARS constantly, and take subtle swipes at specific editors every chance they get" is anything to go by. So really, Kww, that is a biased block motion, because only Dream Focus' actions are under scrutiny here. Are the ones he means to be granted impunity whilst he gets flailed for having alternative views? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 14:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I noted that I cannot act due to WP:INVOLVED, and won't deny that I have already formed my conclusion. The ARS has the bad reputation it has because of a handful of extremely bad editors that attempt to disrupt the AFD process more than they actually attempt to improve articles. Ban that handful, and the ARS would be a useful tool for article improvement. As a class, inclusionists can be quite reasonable people that are helpful to the project. Dream Focus isn't, and making it clear to him that this "deletionist horde" schtick is unacceptable would go a long way towards making him be helpful.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Could go either way. Clemens has generally sound judgement (when he isn't trying to undercut BLP1E anyways ;)), but Dream Focus' violent rhetoric is so over the top it is hard to take seriously; it's more Bugs Bunny than Reservoir Dogs. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, so we block a week for generalized statements statements about "evil deletionists", but we do nothing but waffle around people who insult other users and use curse words at them? (Do I even need to point out the people that i'm talking about?) Way to be one-sided guys. Silverseren^C 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Australian inventions and user:112.213.151.85

112.213.151.85 (talk · contribs) I've seen runs like this before, often from Australia too (when it's not Hungary or Romania). A new IP editor categorizing widely into Category:Australian inventions. No citations are added, and some of these (within my own domain of knowledge) are just plain wrong. Owing to the volume, this may need admin action. Tank [25] was odd, as they didn't cat as an Australian invention, but did link a valid see also to someone who almost invented the tank - so there is some knowledge behind this, not just chauvinist vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This editor needs slowing down; I've reverted a few of these because there doesn't seem to be any substantiation to several of the claims. Further, he hasn't responded to other editors and is currently editing which is a problem.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

is also adding to cat Sports originating in Australia, without evidence or mention in article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

IP user(s) at the Illustration Workshop

Several IPs - who, I feel it safe to assume, are the same user, given the similarity in the content of their requests and the way in which they all make the same bizarre mistake when posting them - have made posts that are broken, unsourced and often out-of-scope and of a nationalistic or separatist nature. Our proviso at the lab is that we will happily create illustrations if they are to be used in a Wikipedia article, but few of their requests fall into this category. Here are some of the more recent ones (I can find more if necessary, although almost all of the IP edits in recent weeks are of this nature): [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Attempts have been made by me ([31], [32]), and others at the lab ([33] [34] [35]) to provide sources or desist from posting out-of-scope and broken requests at the lab, but for whatever reason, the user(s) refuses to acknowledge or take on board any of the advice or our concerns. I am not sure how to proceed, so am raising the matter here. Any help would be appreciated, as this is causing a headache for us, and is souring the experience for me, if not for others, too.

Also, on a bureaucratic note, am I right to assume I should post the AN/I template on each of the IP pages individually? NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 13:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment, because I've seen a few of these now. This last one [36] was particularly lovely as it was unceremoniously "plonked" directly under the previous one which I'd just spent over 10 minutes fixing, formatting, and researching, so that I could reply. It's not unreasonable, after efforts have been made to explain, to expect a modicum of effort with requests, in my opinion. There seem to be very, very few people who find the simple posting requirements there difficult - certainly not when they have made multiple requests and been helped with the procedure if necessary. Begoon ^talk 13:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• What I would do is add a note to the top of the page, under "this specific page is..." clarifying that requests that aren't linked to an article will be/are likely to be turned down. You can then just decline any requests that don't link to an article somewhere. I presume it isn't also an issue that he's asking for maps in the illustrations section...?Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• The 'venue' is not a problem - sometimes a simple map change is easy enough and just gets done, or sometimes a request might get moved - and the requests aren't always maps anyway. The problem is three things really: a seeming unwillingness to put any effort at all into formatting requests, a lack of detail about the purpose, and a vagueness in answering questions, if any response at all. The idea about the note on the page is good, although I doubt many people read them - there are rather a lot... It would serve as something to "point at" though, if a request needed to be declined.Begoon ^talk 15:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Question: I didn't know about this project, so I apologise if I'm asking a stupid question, but, in general, do you have to deal with newbies often? I mean, if this guy is causing much disruption, it's also possible to semi-protect the page, but this would prevent all non-autoconfirmed users from posting their requests there; so, basically, I'm wondering about how serious the collateral damage would be... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This user seems motivated by some kind of nationalist agenda, claiming Yorkshire has an Independence movement (Does it? I'm pretty sure there a lot like Texans, there's hardly any Celtic Nationalism like in Cornwall in Yorkshire) - but then refuting places like Wessex (Because it's not Celtic it seems) do not (!) - clearly reeks of POV. The IP's range has a long history of randomly blanking and removing things based on WP:DONTLIKEIT and being incredibly vague in Edit summaries and so forth. Really, really annoying. --Nutthida (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yorkshire doesn't have a separatist movement, but it does have a strong identity and has campaigned to retain that in the face of various boundary changes over the years. That's the nearest it gets. We stopped raiding Lancashire for cattle some time ago. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame BSE put a stop to that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The lack of real source for that request do highlight the issue, but the main problem is with the lab. I would be wary of a semi-protect without more voice from other editors, but generally, these IPs have been the only non-established users to come to the page for some time; we normally deal with the same group of regular requesters and rarely have newbies, but I would be happy if there were a system to contact one of us at the workshop directly if they can't post it there. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 15:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would think just reverting/closing any malformed or otherwise hinky requests of this kind would be fine. At the end of the day you guys are volunteers, you don't have to fulfil his really rather rude demands. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

But that's what we're already doing. I, and I believe others are, too, am personally tired of having to constantly delete or rewrite requests three or four times daily. It eats into our time a great deal, and means the workshop is slower as a result. We need something more automated or block-based, which semi-protecting would provide. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Invading his own fixed request [37] with another vague one with no reasoning behind it whatsoever. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 16:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It pops up in a few ways, there. There are other users with a long history of refusing to do anything to help themselves, and making exactly what you describe there: demands. One complication is that some people get annoyed by it, and won't help them - others seem able to ignore or get past the rude "attitude of expectation" and help them anyway, so they never make the effort to change their behaviour, since they don't really need to, they just want the stuff done, so what if some people think they are rude. Because requests are handled ad-hoc by many people on and off, it's hard to get any consistency in response to this kind of thing. This particular character is double-kind of rude and difficult, though. Begoon ^talk 16:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange CSD clogging up the system

There is at time of writing a whole bunch of user pages at C:SD which apparently stems from their having the motto of the day on them. But I searched both Template:Motd and Template:Motd banner and can't find a {{db}}. I suppose it must be buried deep somewhere – but it's being transcluded onto a lot of pages and messing up the look of a lot of stuff. Can anyone have a look for me? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I could see a CSD red tag on Template:Motd, but nothing in the code, so I purged the page and it went away. Does that help, or is it unrelated? Begoon ^talk 14:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It was from Wikipedia:Motto of the day/January 22, 2012, User:Happy-melon found it and fixed it so the speedy tag isn't transcluded with the rest of it--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I half guessed it was someone fixing it at the same time, rather than the purge :-) Begoon ^talk 14:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)