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

Concern on recent high-speed deletions by Fastily

There is nothing more that AN/I can do. Fastily is not currently editing. There are two options at this point for anyone who believes there remain unresolved issues with Fastily's editing or adminning: WP:Requests for comment/Fastily or ArbCom, and ArbCom will almost certainly point you back to WP:Requests for comment/Fastily. Keeping an AN/I thread indefinitely is not a viable option. 28bytes (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quickly, before I get blocked, Fastily has to be one of the worst admins I've ever seen. He'[s going around tagging images that were uploaded by the copyright holder (or files sourced to the US Govemrnent) and released either into public domain or under multilicense GFDL and creative commons as "missing permission". [1], [2], [3], and according to his deletion log, he's deleted as many as 88 pages/images in a span of about 5 minutes [4]. There's no way in hell any human being reviewed all of these appropriately. Fastily should be desysopped and blocked. Night Ranger (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC) I'm not going to comment too much here, since I was a dick to Fastily the only time we've spoken, but - an edit summary of "p" is not acceptable, everything else aside. And holy cats, that's a lot of very fast deletions. Can someone who's not pissed in Fastily's wheaties like I have ask him if he's using a script? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC) That's clearly not me then, because I keep seeing instances of clearly inappropriate deletions by him. Snowolf How can I help? 03:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC) As can be seen at Night Ranger's talk page, Fastily recently made two pretty bad deletions of cat pages NR created, so yes, NR has a personal gripe here. But more to the point, it seems like Fastily's consistently brought to ANI in regards to bad/questionable deletions and/or overall deletion practices. The biggest concern is simply that he doesn't seem to respond to them at all—his response usually amounts to a one-liner and nothing more. Swarm X 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Working too fast, making too many errors, and not communicating well with others is exactly what got Betacommand/Delta blocked by ArbCom after many years of that exact behavior. I would hate to see Fastily go down that road, but this pattern of behavior is sadly close to what Betacommand used to do right up until the most recent ArbCom case. It would be nice if Fastily instead modified his own behavior and worked better on improving his accuracy in deleting files and on his ability to communicate with other editors regarding his deletions, as well as his ability to admit and correct for his own mistakes in this area. If that doesn't happen, this will not end well. --Jayron32 04:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC) In response to the above: I check my all the pages I ultimately delete, compile a list of pages to delete, and use a script to run through them. I have restored the two categories in question as a result of [5]. I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia than engage in drama. The tags on File:History of New England.pdf and File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg were indeed mistakes. I do, however, stand by the tag on File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg (it is a derivative work with no obvious copyright information on it's sources). I would also like to note that I transferred over 500 files to commons over the last two days while screening them all for potential copyright problems. Being human, I do, and will make mistakes regardless of how careful I am. However, I'm sad that NightRanger didn't first mention these tagging errors on my talk page (in which case they would have been promptly corrected and we wouldn't be having this discussion), choosing instead, to come to ANI seeking vengeance. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Not this again. I raised a similar issue with him here and it even caused me to seek clarification of the CSD criteria and so indirectly led to change in the CSD criteria (after discussion). After all the whole point of the source tag is to help prove that the file is usable here. If this can be done another way then it is not necessary to have a source but I'm not sure Fastily agrees with / gets that idea. I've reverted the tagging of the PDF as it clearly has an appropriate release on the last page so what it's source was is irrelevant for determining copyright status. What I found more disturbing however is their seeming lack of willingness to discuss people's concerns. Most queries are responded to with a very short link to a sub page. I was lucky enough to get a whole sentence in reply, but that was it, which is hardly in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopaedia. Disturbingly I've not seen any replies or changes in edit habits despite a multitude of recent ANI threads. I'm sure they do lots of good work, and they may even be correct in most cases but this lack of discussion is very worrying. It suggests rightly or wrongly that they are unwilling to listen to others or to change their ways if that is what consensus suggests they should do. I really do think this is at the point where an RfC/U may be appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC) In reply to Fastily's post which I edit conflicted with. If this was a one of then it may be wikidrama but it's not. Concerns have been raised several times both here and on your talk page. I'm unsure what better things you have to be doing than discussing your edits with editors that have genuine concerns and certainly aren't trolling - discussion is an essential part of a collaborative encyclopaedia and failure to discuss is a serious problem. Your reply also suggests that you didn't even bother to read this thread properly. You mention restoring two categories yet the original complaint was about your tagging of pages. Dpmuk (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Hm, funny you should say that, I haven't linked anyone to User:Fastily/E in weeks. Furthermore, if you'll look at my recent talk page archives, you'll see that I actually make an effort to discuss with users. Believe it or not, unlike Betacommand here, I am of the belief that I serve the community, and am therefore not deaf to its complaints. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC) I was about to expand on what I'd posted based on your reply above. To be honest I have no real opinion on whether you're "deaf to complaints" or not but it does seem obvious to me that you often come across, possibly inadvertently, as being that way. Even if you had taken the concerns raised here on board a comment like "I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia than engage in drama" does not suggest you had - it suggests (to me at least) that you'd restored the categories as the easiest way out rather than because you'd taken the concerns on board. Personally I'd have been happier to see you leave them deleted and explain why then simply restore and leave such a short statement. This was also how I felt when you replied to my comments I reference above - I was left with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you hadn't taken on board what I'd said and you'd just replied in the manner which you thought would give you the easiest way out. Given the amount of actions you undertake I honestly don't think your error rate seems too high and I will also admit that in many of the areas you work we don't have enough admins and so it probably can be hard to prioritize replying fully to all queries versus dealing with backlogs. Bearing all that in mind I do honestly think what we have here is a communication issue rather than and significant problem with your actions (and this is why I suggested an RfC/U to try to get you communicating). If you honestly do take note of every error you make and take on board the concerns raised then it would appear that if you could give that impression as well as acting that way we may avoid many of these issues. Hope you don't take any of this the wrong way. Dpmuk (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC) I think the problem here is that so many nasty people play 'no talkies' and when someone who is rather busy is brief then it looks bad, whether it is or not. The speed of editing and error rate doesn't matter. If people want to avoid mistakes the best way to do that is to do nothing at all. He seems to have a page to tell people what they want to know, and it seems more helpful to refer someone to G10 or whatever on that page than say nothing at all when deleting a page. Shrug. Unfortunately no talkies seems allowed by policy in many circumstances, but Fastily doesn't seem to adhere to the no talkies idea as much as some other editors. He seems chatty but busy. Penyulap talk 05:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC) That's interesting. We had a very lengthy and on-going discussion on AN that you basically made a couple of comments on and walked away while people continued to discuss you for days without any further input from you at all over several raised issues. You even went so far, in early february, to claim a complaint about you from December was "extremely old" You then further went on to self-impose a restriction that didn't remotely begin to address the concerns being raised (in that they were from entirely different areas of admin work) and called all further complaints moot. I'm not really sure how that makes you not deaf to the community's complaints.--Crossmr (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Links for the lazy, please? The archives are huge. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC) You took part in the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#WP:TFD_deletions_by_admin_User:Fastily. The last comment he makes to that thread is, as far as I'm considered, a lie. He walks away at that point, and people continued to discuss him for 3 weeks before it got archived with no further input from him. Look for the part where you asked me for diffs, I provided them, and Fastily's response was "all of these are extremely old", despite one of them barely being 2 months old. He then says "I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P" with a cute little emoticon no less. Despite the concerns being raised not only being about his closes, but his deletions he declares all concerns done because he's going to self-impose a restriction that he no longer does closes. Not sure how that addresses the bad deletions at all, but as far as he was concerned they were a done deal because of that. So again, not really sure how this is an indication that he's listening to the community's complaints. It looks like quite the opposite.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Which it appears he's now done again. Despite on-going discussion and direct statements being made to him, he's continued to edit without returning to this discussion. I don't really see any evidence that Fastily is listening to the community's concern and instead appears to be saying whatever he feels is necessary at the time to appease the community and then walking away. As I mentioned before, the Deja Vu is very strong.--Crossmr (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Just my take on the three files cited above: File:History of New England.pdf was a useless PDF ("wikibooks") compilation of existing Wikipedia articles, falsely tagged as uploader's "own work" and public domain. Could have been speedy deleted on sight as a copyvio (done so now). File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg is legit copyright-wise (obviously user-created), but has no foreseeable encyclopedic use; nominated at FFD now. File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg seems legit to me; it's a user-created, synthesized computer rendering of a song that itself is obviously PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC) I disagree with the speedy of File:History of New England.pdf as it's nowhere close to being an "unambiguous copyright violation". I've just checked again and all the appropriate attribution and licensing information is in the pdf so this is simply a case of wrong tagging rather than a copyright infringement and we don't speedy for getting the tags wrong. I'd agree that their seems little point in hosting it given that it's just a copy of our articles but I'd suggest restoration if the user asks for it (e.g. if they want to use it as a historical snapshot). Dpmuk (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Well, even if the copyright had been fixed (and I agree it would have been fixable in principle), it would still fall under WP:CSD#F10, "files that are neither image, sound, nor video files, are not used in any article, and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use", so it's rather moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Well true, they'd have to come up with a good reason for keeping it, and I think that's unlikely to occur, which is why I didn't restore it. Given that most of the work do is in copyrights I pointed it out as I didn't want people to think I'd missed something when I commented above. Dpmuk (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC) I have no opinion regarding the deletion rationales of the images or the speed at which they were deleted, but I do have concerns about Fastily's deletion log entry for the two sockpuppet categories as "Attack Pages". It looks to me (at least from the comments on Night Ranger's talk page and in the block log) like Kumioko was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry, the socks were tagged and the populated categories were created. I agree that they could constitute attack pages of the accounts tagged were not Kumioko's socks, or if the category pages had personal attack language in them (did they?), but otherwise a sockpuppet category doesn't seem to be anything like an attack page. I'm also a little concerned by Fastily's responses when Night Ranger requested an explanation: basically providing non answers, answering questions with questions and then deleting the thread with the edit summary "troll". NR's subsequent response to that was not appropriate, but at least a little understandable. I'd be angry too. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC) TLDR: In Wikipedia, socks are sock unless they have admin friends. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Which admin are you talking about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Sockpuppet categories are not "attack pages" if the socks are correctly tagged. If they were, deleting them under G10 is a no-no. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC) correctly tagged being the key phrase here. :-) — Ched :  ?  12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Even if the sock accounts were tagged incorrectly, a category is not an attack page. You could make a case for someone tagging random accounts as socks as attack pages I guess, but as far as I can tell those were confirmed socks of Kumioko. Attack pages say things like "Joey is a Nazi", or "such and such person is *insert unsupported negative claim here*". Not a category that simply populates user pages based on userpage templates. Kumioko was, indeed, blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The deletion rationales of those categories aren't correct and without condoning his subsequent behavior, I can see why NR was upset. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC) CommentIn my humble opinion, if Fastily feels that he has better things to do than engage in drama then I suggest he move to the (relatively) non-controversial areas of expanding articles and editing out-dated or bad references which require minimum interaction with others. These are areas where smart scripting etc. is of good use. My point is that Fastily's behavior is borderline contempt (or maybe even full contempt) that clearly demonstrates his beliefs that other editor's are not competent enough to question his conduct or maybe he is far superior to others. I can't imagine an experienced user not being able to answer simple queries for technical or other reasons. Wikishagnik (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC) I can understand the view that Fastily tends to show up here on a semi-regular basis over these types of deletion things. I can even understand the concept of comparing some things to delta/beta. My problem here though is this: Some people are actually good at doing computer programming, and perhaps they're not the most "chit-chatty" types of folks. But if you try to talk to them, they can give you some very valuable information, and be very helpful in the end. You may not come away with a "warm fuzzy feeling", but that doesn't make them "contemptuous". Sure, maybe a break now and then from various activities can be good for all of us - but in the end, if you stick with what you're good at - then it shouldn't be an ABF issue. — Ched :  ?  15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC) The problem is the deletion logs are incorrect. Autopopulated categories aren't attack pages any way you slice it. See my comment above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC) I recently had an image deleted, no warning, that was a drawing made by me in the public domain?? Bzuk (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC). Ched, do you honestly believe that's the issue here? I can understand somebody being pre-occupied and focussed in their work and I too have met my share of Geeks (scholars etc.) but civility and trust are very important in Wikipedia. A person merely busy now can choose to reply later. A person not very communicative can make a few terse statements. We are all used to that in Wikipedia, but refusing to pariticipate in a Wikipedia discussion to me shows either contempt for the policy structure of Wikipedia or towards its editor's. Wikishagnik (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Fastily is clearly working too fast/carelessly. He recently deleted [[Multimedia University|a page] with over 1000 edits and 16k of text as a copyright violation because someone inserted 200 bytes which may have violated copyright. (I have removed them, but the first admin to review it thought it was reverse copying.) The page remained deleted nearly 2 months before someone requested restoration at WP:REFUND. Errors are bound to happen, but I don't see how an error like that can be made unless someone is either 1) automating deletion without evaluating merits or 2) going too fast to properly evaluate things. Additionally, I have read over the previous ANI conversation and find the lack of communication quite disturbing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC) I just took a second to review Fastily's last 10 deletions and quickly found 2 errors - both Aztec Warriors and Rhetorical Strategies were deleted as A10, when they should not have been. At minimum, both are plausible search terms and Aztec Warriors arguably expands on the topic (albeit without references). To delete good faith contributions such as these is very BITEy IMO. (I have restored the articles and redirected, so anyone can review them for his or herself.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Expanding the review to the last 34 deletions (six pages) from article space, I found: The X-101st deleted under A1 when it had sufficient context (doesn't fit any speedy criteria, but not restored because its clearly not notable) Prince Tupouto'a Tungi a redirect that had existed since 2006 and is clearly valid, but pointed to bad location b/c of a bot fixing a double redirect after a bad page move. NOte:Fastily himself deleted the implausible title it was briefly pointing to and so in theory should have known the situation even w/o checking the article history. (restored) W. eugene smith fund deleted as G11, but not promotional and most likely notable (restored and moved to proper capitalization/name) The Voice - Britain's Favourite Black Newspaper deleted as G11, perhaps validly so. However, the content is clearly written by a fan, not a business person, and is a good faith attempt at writing at article, including references. (I have not restored because The Voice (newspaper) already exists and I don't want to clean up the language and merge myself. It does, however, have unique content) System 12 created by a (good faith but improper) page move to System 12 (disambiguation) and then G7'ed leaving the dab page impossible to find (move undone) April Masini deleted as G4. While the article was deleted after AfD in the fall, G4 doesn't really apply as the content is completely different, with many references added. (I have held off on restoring for now. Restored upon request of article re-writer.) I should note that the vast majority of Fastily's deletions are files w/insufficient source info or unused non-free images and thus are probably fine. (Although I think it is clear he doesn't check and just deletes are such pictures that has passed the "expiration" date.) However, 8/34 is a ridiculous high error rate for article space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Fastily has announced a Wikibreak saying he is burnt out. Hopefully after some time off, he'll come back more focused and make fewer errors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC) COMMENT WE JUST HAD A MONTHLONG DISCUSSION OF HIS DELETION ACTIVITIES, with the strong suggestion by several editors of taking action against him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Recall that this was mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-20/Discussion report regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#WP:TFD_deletions_by_admin_User:Fastily.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Mm, well, somehow the notion that he's taking a Wikibreak just as the heat's turned up again is no surprise. Let's not let that affect the discussion. Thaddeus is absolutely right: 25% is an appalling error rate, one for which we'd haul a newbie up by the short hairs, and is intolerable in an admin with deletion tools at his command. As others have said, this is damned reminiscent of Betacommand's antics, which drove away and/or soured many good editors. Perhaps a restriction on automated admin actions would be something useful to hand him when he gets back. Ravenswing 20:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Once again its time other admins stepped up to this area. There aren't many active in those areas which means F deals with a lot. The level of mistakes are too high but so is the workload. Look at his archives there is no evidence he doesn't engage with people on his talk page, he always has. He used to use automated responses but no longer does, he replies in full. In regard to speed he compiles lists to delete and does it in batches, which is why the deletions are done quickly not because he does not look at them. There has been a witch hunt against Fastily in the past every time it comes up its the same people that complain. If people really think there is a problem create a RFC and move on. This just goes round in circles.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry, no excuses. There are only three possible reasons for an error rate so high: incompetence, indifference or inattention. You can decide for yourself which it is, but I'm sure you'll agree that none of the above are desirable in an editor or tolerable in an admin. It is also quite possible for uninvolved people who have never had any interaction with him (raises hand) to examine the evidence and conclude that his editing pattern is out of line. Bizarre as the premise may be, there are actually frequent complaints about some editors and admins for no sinister reasons beyond that they are chronic offenders. Ravenswing 03:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC) I'd add a fourth reason - some people work to different policies than others. Not sure if it applies in this case but I've certainly encountered taggers and even admins who speedy unourced or even poorly formatted articles. I recently went to Fastily's page with a query about a specific deletion and had a perfectly civil response, so I'd be happy to park this until after he returns from his wiki break and we get a chance to see if he then takes on board some of the criticisms here. ϢereSpielChequers 21:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC) There is no witch hunt here. Here are two facts from recent discussions: Fastily dismissed a 2 month old AN/I thread as "extremely old" and then claimed an IP was forum shopping by taking an undeletion request to a noticeboard and not discussing it with him when the diffs clearly showed the IP took it to Fastily's talk page nearly 24 hours before he took it to the noticeboard. When questioned about the first, he stopped participating in the discussion despite it continuing on for nearly 3 weeks after that point. When questioned about the second he stopped participating in the discussion and declared a wiki-break. These are not the desirable ways for handling interaction with community members.--Crossmr (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Fastily is pretty much the only admin that works in PUF and FfD, he does hundreds of deletions a week because of this. The number of mistakes is tiny. If there were other people also doing the work, it would fall less on his shoulders, and he'd be able to spend more time on each item. That being said, Wikipedia only has about a dozen to two dozen people who work in the file namespace, only a few of them admins. Any area where there are many, many more people complaining about how work is being done than there are people doing the work, you're going to have massive bleedoff of workers and the area is going to be largely dysfunctional. The file namespace isn't the largest, it's just the most extreme case. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC) While this thread was directly instigated by some questionable FfDs, there's rather more to it that that. I've been a little concerned of late by some (IMO) somewhat hasty deletions by Fastily at TfD (which had default summaries provided by a bot: I would personally expect any XfD with differing opinions to be accompanied by a manual deletion rationale), but that was merely concern over the method rather than because I thought the closes were wrong as such. I appreciate that we have backlogs all over XfD and that we really do need help in these areas, but false positives beget drama and harm the community more than backlogs do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC) There is one thought that I believe that most know intuitively but few put into words relevant to both Betacommand/Delta and Fastily, (and many less severe situations that people are uncomfortable with) even if they hadn't made outright errors. Most Wikipedia guidelines are not written with sufficient precision and exactness so that one person can just do major things based on their interpretation of any part of it. Giving notice, opportunity for discussion, actually having discussion when requested, making a careful review/investigation of the situaiotn are things that are intuitively expected before major actions, and intuitively considered necessary in light of those imperfections. It would be best if the concept of somebody feeling free to say that they get to play rapid judge, jury and executioner because they are "just following the rules" were to end. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC) @ThaddeusB - from your examples above, can you explain the context of "The X-101st legion was a clan base in Roblox". You say that you did not restore it because it was clearly not notable. You know as well as I do (or at least should) that when a page is marked with a speedy deletion template, when you go to delete it the deletion reason autopopulates with the CSD tag. So, in essence... if you had arrived at that page first, and decided to delete it because it was clearly not notable (tho you apparently know inherently what a Roblox clan base legion is without any further context), what deletion category would you have used? Do you think there is any chance that Fastily went to the page, said 'Uhh A1 doesn't apply, Roblox is clearly the MMOG for kids but beh this is really trivial for its own article', went to delete it and just took the speedy classification of the tag as read? I think its very easy to go and second guess, and expanding on Sven's comment above I wonder how many of the folks taking Fastily to task do any kind of deletion work themselves. Syrthiss (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC) It is a wrong deletion b/c CSD does not provide for the deletion of minor fictional characters. I wouldn't have deleted it via CSD and would have told the nominator to use PROD. IMO, CSD should be followed exactly, but that doesn't mean I am going to make pointless undeletions either. Furthermore, if this was the only error I certainly would not have commented, but Fastily has regularly made blatantly bad deletions in article space so I took a small sample to try to get some idea of out his error rate on articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC) I have to agree with Syrthiss that some of the comments above are coming from people who have no problem bitching at other people bu can't be arsed to get out there and do the dirty work themselves. Guess what; it gets annoying when people who refuse to accept they may not know as much as you endlessly carp over minutiae and miss the broader picture. I can't get all worked up over the wrong numeral being appended to a deletion (and as a broader aside, I still don't quite understand why CSD is the one policy which Must Be Followed To The Letter At All Times Or Else); what ultimately matters is that the damn thing was deleted, and clearly should have been. And yes, I would have accepted A1 as a perfectly valid reason to delete that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC) If I had the bit, I'd certainly get involved, but the reason CSD must be followed to the letter is because there are few checks and balances. Someone tags it, or someone finds and article and just deletes it. They are judge jury and executioner and the average user can't even hold them accountable unless they had a chance to see the article before it disappeared. If an administartor is found to be tagging articles incorrectly when they delete them, it puts into the question the care and attention they're giving to those deletions.--Crossmr (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC) There seems to be an argument by some that Fastily's behavior is due to overwork. Apparently few or no other admins choose to work in the areas where he works. I think it's important to note that NOBODY on Wikipedia is required to work on anything. The entire project is purely voluntary, so he has no obligation to produce results or work at such a high rate. Therefore, I don't think the argument that he's overworked holds much water because if he's overworked all he has to do is slow down and either let someone else pick up the slack, or let FfD languish long enough that people will take notice and join in rather than expecting him to just carry it all. I don't think he's overworked so much as indifferent. This is much like the argument that Betacommand should be excused for his similar behavior because he did so much work and I see similar responses from similar apologists. But nobody made him do that work and nobody is making Fastily work either. There's no excuse for such a high error rate, the indifferent and often haughty responses to other editors, disappearing whenever a discussion begins about his actions, and taking a wikibreak because he's "burnt out by people harassing him all the time". WP:DIVA anyone? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC) And to demonstrate my point above... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC) And thanks for demonstrating my point about the apologists. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Before I became an admin, I might have agreed with you, but now that I've seen it from both sides instead of making assumptions without actually knowing what I was talking about I have a lot more sympathy for Fastily's position. It's very, very easy to criticize, and in no way do I think Fastily is completely blame-free (some mistakes are documented, look for ones that DGG points out in previous discussions), but talking in pompous dogmatic language saying "How DARE thee" doesn't actually help move towards resolution of the problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Hi Blade re your comment "what ultimately matters is that the damn thing was deleted, and clearly should have been." Deletion codes matter because they are part of our communication with other editors. People see the deletion reason when they start to create a new article of the same name. If something has been deleted because of copyvio or for being overly promotional then we are happy to have a new attempt made to write the article, if the article was deleted because the subject doesn't yet merit an encyclopaedia article then we want people to wait until the subject has become notable. It's also an important part of our communication with the person whose work we are deleting. If they are writing about subjects that don't meet our criteria or then we need to tell them that, deleting articles under the wrong code means giving newbies the wrong reason for rejecting their work. Now there is an argument that some codes could be merged, if we decide that vandals and creators of attack pages are very rarely going to become good editors then a deletion reason of "meh" might not harm us - until that is someone else starts creating a page of that name. But many newbies start out writing about footballers who have been signed but have not yet played and various other "newbie" mistakes, and in those cases getting the deletion reason right is probably more important than actually deleting the article. An editor whose work has been rejected for a sensible reason that was appropriately communicated is I believe more likely to stay with us and try to meet our rules. An editor whose work has been deleted arbitrarily for a reason that doesn't seem to make sense is I suspect less likely to stay and I fear more likely to consider us unprofessional and inaccurate. ϢereSpielChequers 06:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Blade, as I said above, I don't buy this "martyr" excuse. Fastily is a volunteer like the rest of us and has no obligation to do what he does. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC) I've also seen similar behavior from Fastily, most notably in his super-fast nominations of dozens (hundreds?) of orphaned sound files several months ago. Because often files are deleted without further review at FFD, it is important for a nominator to have a decent success rate of identifying deletion-worthy files. Fastily had an extremely high error rate and did not respond well to criticism. I tried to check all the nominated sound files for several days, but I ran out of time reviewing and I'm sure dozens of worthy sound files were deleted. See old talk page revision. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC) What is the Next Step? So far I haven't commented on this thread, but it appears that many editors feel that something more deliberate should be done with Fastily. This thread is over a week old and is still getting comments, even days after Fastily gave himself a much needed wikibreak. Yet it appears that some feel that this is not enough, and perhaps something more should be done. Whether it is a sort of "topic ban" from deleting articles, a complete desysop, or a lengthy block. None of us who have edited for any length of time have not had our fair share of mistakes. Yet it appears that Fastily makes a few more mistakes than others. This is apparent by looking at the number of times Fastily is the topic of discussion at ANI. Hardly a week goes by without seeing some thread with his name on it. The number of "mistakes" made by Fastily only seems to have contributed to the frustration some feel while editing Wikipedia. We all get stressed with our little Wikipedia hobby sometimes. This shouldn't be the case, nor should normal everyday users have to continue to argue against deletions time and time again. Fastily gets so many editors complaining about deletions, he has even set up his own user space page to deal with them. That's a big red flag in my book. So then, what should be the next step in this process?--JOJ Hutton 18:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC) That page is pretty ridiculous. It is basically telling everybody who wants to have a discussion to go pound sand. North8000 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Fastily will conveniently be on wikibreak until the day after this thread is archived. 12.90.146.190 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Who's sock has been left in the dryer here? Calabe1992 18:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC) The next step is exactly what was suggested last time: RFC/U. Shit or get off the pot, people. Stop asking the same question again and again, and stop letting the same people with bees in their bonnets get all tough about it, then do nothing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Jojhutton: What's so bad about having a subpage with deletion rationales? I have one myself, which existed over a year before Fastily created his. Does that say something about my deletions? Anywho, as for the topic at hand. I see where others are coming from. While taking care of the daily image deletion at C:SD, I found that Fastily's tagging has gone downhill as well. All these files were tagged with missing permission, despite the fact that the summaries read "Read by Alex Killby", which is the uploader's username. Similar issues arose with File:2da1xiao.ogg, File:Gdpz4.gif, File:Keralatourism.ogg, File:Ru-Cmapm.ogg and File:Tony Sideways.ogg. Who knows how this issue stretches back—and with months of him exclusively deleting files himself, who knows how many files have been deleting incorrectly. Other admins (such as myself, who work in the same area) stopped simply because we can't keep up with Fastily's deletion rate. He has the ability to delete thousands of images within five minutes. It takes me at least an hour to finish deleting everything in the image categories at C:SD (where I use Twinkle to help me with batch deletions), WP:FFD and WP:PUF. And I think that's one of the problems, his pace is far too fast. Sure, it lives up to his username, but still... — ξxplicit 19:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC) I think the problem here is that he tags if there is no source information in the recommended format regardless of whether it's there in some other manner or indeed is even necessary to determine copyright status. This is suggestive of automated unchecked editing but assuming good faith I can only assume it's a case of not checking properly (possibly only checking that is indeed no source information in the recommended format) as they say above they do check. I'm thinking of stating to draft a RfC/U when I can find the time. I'm not even sure we have a problem here but repeated threads at ANI is not really productive when it comes to discussing their edits as a whole and determining whether there's a wide problem rather than problems with a few one off situations. For most editors with this number of ANI threads I'd assume there was a problem but taking into account the number of edits they make I'm not so sure here. Hopefully an RfC/U where there was more centralised discussion would at a minimum help determine whether community consensus is that there is or isn't a problem with their edits taken as whole. Dpmuk (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC) I propose the RFCU route. However, I don't know how to start an RFCU. I would be happy to participate in one, however. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Why do we need an rfc to prove the obvious?. We can right here enact an indefinite ban from participation in deletion processes. That he is not checking adequately is proven by the log evidence that he can not be checking at all. There is the possibility that some supernatural ability permits him to be always right, but that would need some pretty extraordinary evidence (& is invalidated by the number of complaints that have been upheld). Like any ban here , it can be challenged at arb com, but the burden can be on he who wishes to challenge it. The argument "I check my all the pages I ultimately delete, compile a list of pages to delete, and use a script to run through them." is highly implausible, for when would he be doing the checking, how would his script deal with those deleted before his script got to them or those where another editor had declined the deletion, and no conceivable script could take proper account of objections made in the interval. If he does have such a miraculous script, he should prove it by posting the code & then everyone will befit. Otherwise, I consider that claim of his a bad faith claim, and one warranting immediate action to prevent the resumption whenever he returns from the break. What he has been doing is radically disruptive to Wikipedia as not just rejecting good content but in discouraging new contributors, and admin status is no protection for someone doing that. How would we treat an admin who worked at the speed he did, but declining every deletion? DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC) I would like to reply to the original title of this section What is the next step? Going by the strong opinions of various user's but also repecting the basic tenets of Wikipedia, I would like to suggest the following. Peronal meeting - as an extreme departure of the regular practice on Wikipedia of discussing issues of dispute I suggest that some senior editor's of Wikipedia meet the user Fastily in person and take his opinon. It has been suggested that Fastily might not be the person who takes part in administrator's discussions, possibly becasue he is busy with other Wikipedia responsibilities. A personal meeting might break more ice with Fastilty and help him express his opinion throuugh others. He is an experienced user of Wikipedia and surely a valuable contributor. I suggest a friendly meet arranged either through a local Wikipedia chapter or over email etc. before we finalize and topic bans or deletion bans. Discuss image deletion policies - I have been personally stung with deletion of images without any discussion. I am inclined to believe that such deletions are the result of a bias against certain types of pictures - e.g. - photographs of imprtant places / people from amateur photoographers - and not on the basis of the actual copyright disclosures. Like all users I used the normal upload wizard to upload this image and explained all that could be explained. If some information was missing then as a user I should be let to know what I was expected to add. Leaving notes on the talk page of the deleting editor has produced no results. Strangely enough, the same editor's who expertly delete hundred's of images are also the one's who are too busy to give reasons. We probably need several seperate discussions to address all issues regarding such abrupt deletion of images but let's get the ball rolling on this one. I still hold on to my opinion that user Fastily's actions are more a result of extreme contempt of regular Wikipedia practices, policies and users, than the mistakes of an honest and busy person. He has made ample comments to support this. In my case, good evidence is taking a precedence over good faith. A user has the right to make Wikipedia a better source of information, knowledge etc. but certainly has no right to take actions that leave hundreds of people dazed and confused. -00:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Wikishagnik (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC) This is getting ridiculous as has been said many a time take to RFCU if you want otherwise this is going nowhere. Its the same people every time now that are trying to force there views. That is the option that has been proposed at every discussion but as yet no one has done this. Instead they have brought this up at every discussion board or opportunity possible which is exactly why Fastily feels he has been hounded and to be honest i agree with him. Also are other admins willing to get involved in some of the areas Fastily deals with otherwise thats going to get out of hand and it will become fairly evident the good work fattily does. But for one reason i cant see it and thats because it gets a lot of flak. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC) How is RfC, a non-binding process that fastily can't be forced to participate in going to do anything for this situation? We've recently seen Fastily walk away from more than one discussion the moment the discussions don't seem to be going his way. As I pointed out to Fastily if he doesn't want to see things being brought up again and again he should actually stick around and discuss them for once rather than making a placating comment and then walking away until the next discussion comes up and doing it all over again.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Edinburgh Wanderer please understand that what you state as hounding is actually a lot of very valid questions that have never been answered. What I perceive as get over with it as your point-of-view is exactly what this discussion is about. It would be rather convenient for any admin to take a hasty (or harsh) action against Fastily but that is precisely what some of us are trying to avoid, as all of us are volunteers. I wouldn't mind if Fastily did a little less of good work and actually did no work for some time. Let other admins worry about important work that would be left incomplete (which I am sure they will). Wikishagnik (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC) General comment, an admin needs to be open to feedback and willing to discuss issues related to his or hers admin activities. That's as much an obligation as anything else involved as an admin...that's the biggest failing I see here. RxS (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Any comments on how we deal with drama/wikibreak/drama cycles? Both generally and in this specific case. (While I've not looked at all the particulars myself, it has been suggested that this has happened w/ Fastily before, and concerns that it will happen this time. Anyone? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC) If you're referring to what I said, you took part in it, and I linked you to the discussion already. In general as to how to approach these kinds of things, I would suggest that the community no longer accept self-imposed sanctions or wiki-breaks as a resolution to situations. What inevitably happens is that the subject or their defenders will then turn around and claim those things have no teeth since they chose to do it themselves and were under no obligation to actually follow them. Like the recent situation we had with Baseball bugs who self-imposed a month long AN/I ban, then came back early with a very poor thread and then several people jumped in defending him claiming since he self-imposed, it didn't mean anything. Despite the fact that the community basically killed on-going discussion for that very thing because he did that. In the future, I would suggest all discussions continue until a resolution is reached, and if the wiki-break/self-imposed restrictions meet or exceed the community's resolution, fine, if not, they'll have to be adjusted to at least match what the community wants at a minimum.--Crossmr (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC) I've done a few small analyses of Fastily's deletions in the past, and found that he has a steady percentage of mistakes that's not very high (much lower than the percentage of my edits that I have to go back and fix something on), but because he does so many, even a <5% error rate will start turning out volumes. The errors are random, consistent with someone going too fast at a fairly repetetive task, and occasionally putting the shells in the bowl and tossing the nut, or finding themselves trying to shell their kid brother's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle that got in the bag by mistake. That said, if you consistently don't fill in the license templates or FURs right, you'll probably find your stuff consistently deleted. And he does respond on his talkpage - if you ask him to undelete something, he generally just does it. But his talkpage archives quite fast (I manually archive mine when people start complaining that it takes more than 10 minutes to load, his seems to turnround in 72 hrs), so requests get missed. And, since most queries have a standard answer, he just points to a standard set of answers. But from years in customer service, I know that this is not what most customers want. They want a bit of personal attention, something that relates specifically to them. Perhaps the answer is to have a better mechanism for responding to the questions and requests for undeletion. A place where people asking "why was my image deleted" could speak to someone from a team dedicated to helping people add suitable images, who could talk them through the problems. Where I work, the same people aren't expected to be front line customer service giving information about (say) planning applications, and make decisions on whether someone's planning application gets approved. Just a thought. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC) speaking generally, there are several reasons to ask the original administrator: first, to avoid undercutting their authority and decreasing the likelihood of wheel-warring; second, because they might have a good explanation that the deletion message by itself does not make obvious; third, to give them an opportunity to learn by being aware of the complaints & themselves correcting their own errors; fourth, having previously analyzed the situation, they are in the best position to give real advice to the requestor. Obviously, if someone gives stock answers via a form interface, they are destroying the usefulness of most of this. The net effect of it is to discourage users with bona fide complaints from carrying it further--especially when deletion review, upon getting a request from someone whose item was deleted, generally send them back to the deleting administrator. When someone encounters this, it always seems like the sort of runaround they;re accustomed to getting from the most arrogant of monopolistic companies. (and a virtual monopoly at this point is exactly our position). anyone can delete very rapidly--the only thing keeping any of us from going as quickly as Twinkle can let us is that we could not deal with the questions. Properly dealing with users is the limitation--any admin has the obligation to start no more than they can properly finish. If an admin cannot answer the questions on a personal level, that admin is going too fast. If someone is unwilling to deal with people individually, the person has no viable role as an admin here dealing with deletion. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC) I have unarchived this discussion as we need to reach a resolution and figure out how to move forward rather than just letting this die until the issue arises again. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Fastily has left for the time being, so I'm not sure what is to be gained by kicking a man while he's down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Well, good to know that if my behavior is ever questioned at AN/I I can go on Wikibreak to end the discussion... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC) No, 28bytes is right - this needs to go to RFC/U. The discusion has not ended, it simply needs moving. GiantSnowman 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure how productive even an RFC/U will be without Fastily there actively defending his side. I am reminded of the RFC/U in absentia of User:YellowMonkey, which ended inconclusively—put indefinitely on hold because YM was not around to further the discussion. Now, granted, Fastily has announced that he is leaving and planning on coming back, unlike YM, who just dropped of the face of the earth. Nevertheless, I am sceptical of any such investigations/mediations that do not involve the party at the centre of the debate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Burpelson AFB, I understand your frustration, but to clarify: you don't have to end the discussion, you just have to take it to a more appropriate venue. I know RfC/Us are a giant pain to put together and participate in, but that's where the discussion has to continue, if it is to continue. 28bytes (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC) I'm most interested in seeing how Fastily acts when he comes back from his self imposed wiki break. Will he have finally come to the conclusion that what he was doing was disruptive and was, simply put, pissung a lot of people off? Or will he just continue to mass delete? Hopefully a lesson will have been learned. And even though he isn't editing at the moment, I'm fairly sure that he is reading every word of this thread. Aren't you? Hopefully we won't have any more Fastily related threads at ANI for a while. A lot if people jumped on his case this time. Lot more than normal, and that's saying something. It's not all sour grapes, as some have suggested. It's about right and wrong. It's about making sure that if an admin makes a mistake, or multiple mistakes, that they are held accountable, just like everyone else. Yes mistakes happen, but there seems to be a much higher rate of mistakes and a much higher rate of ANI discussions surrounding Fastily than most users. Where there's smoke there's fire. --JOJ Hutton 18:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC) AN/I is well within its power to enact a topic ban or apply other restrictions if it so wishes, among many other things. How is RfC a more appropriate venue, other than the fact that the results are non-binding, fastily doesn't have to participate, etc. Fastily leaving is irrelevant. Just because he's left doesn't mean the community can't decide what to do if/when he comes back.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC) I'm glad someone has some sense. Deleting those two categories as G10 was pure nonsense, he was piling on along with other people, particularly after I was blocked. When I asked him for an explanation for G10 he refused to provide a rationale. And it looks like he has a loooong history of these kinds of bad deletions and not responding appropriately to queries. Night Ranger (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I'm happy to add my comments to any RFC/U but I have no idea how to put one together and since I'm not one of the principal complainants here it should probably be one of them and not me anyway. Hopefully one of them will do so. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Well that's Betacommand and Fastily dealt with, who is next on the hit list? Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptions, deliberate

Disruptions at an ongoing mediation[6] by User:B3430715: [7] and [8]. I request a review of this and advice on next step. Several of us are perplexed by the weird disruptions caused by this user. The user has a very short history of disruptive editing. The links will also show my warnings to the editor.—Djathinkimacowboy 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really responsive, but there's something disturbing about a Wikipedia editor having a huge image saying "Fuck copyright" ([9]) on his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I noted that also, Bbb23. My personal wish is that he weren't so (apparently) bad at English. If you notice, his fluency does seem to fluctuate. But he certainly knows what he's doing with his disruptions.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The latest weirdness may be seen here:[10]. Can't say if this is deliberate or if he really does not comprehend. A brilliant strategy, if that's what it is, though.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He strikes me as a troll. Have you asked the mediator to step in?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this[11] you must see. No, Bbb, the mediator doesn't even seem to reply to MedCab itself regarding vital issues, so ... but I did advise her of this. And I agree imho, I think he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what he's doing when he's not at the mediation cabal. I found this one really weird. He doesn't seem to like the movie as he removed a link to it from another article. Another weird edit related to the movie: [12]. Oh, a heads up to any admins watching this topic, B3 removes warnings from his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For all the world it looks as if he's just whipping about with the intent to troll. There's no other explanation. He's keeping off here - I trust you took a gander at his reply to this ANI on his talk page! I'll try to see how far back he goes ... I am under the impression he's very new. Yet his disruptive edits go back a ways on the Columbo artilce.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What seems recommended, aside from the diffs I have provided so far, is a look at his contribs. If anyone wants it, I'll find all of his disruptive edits as they pertain to my issue. One thing I noticed way back is that he 'does his rounds', and as I said, his disruptions are sometimes weirdly subtle.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with him dates back to around 22 February. All of this from the editor's talk page: personal attack[13]. I warned him about this[14]. Second weird personal attack after deleting my warning[15]. My next warning[16]. His next personal attack[17]. Here he thinks he's deleted the evidence[18]. This was his invitation to sign up to participate in the ongoing MedCab[19]. The following are the diffs from Columbo and from the article's talk page (please note the edit summaries whenever there are any): the first edit to the article, innocent enough[20]. That proves he knows how to edit properly and within rules. But then there's these two edits[21]. Clearly off his rails. Though I am repeating this, I draw to your attention his edit warring here[22] (which also shows a correction I have had to make twice now thanks to him) Note the reversion, for no good reason. I leave you with his blatant edit warring in the removal of the RfC I had there a while back (he removed that tag repeatedly):[23].—Djathinkimacowboy 01:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

May I add: here[24] I apprised my fellow editor who's with me at mediation about this trouble as well.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his entire history, but I don't think his "stupid people" ES is any more of a personal attack than you calling his answers schizophrenic, or telling him "... and learn better grammar while you're at it". I can quite understand that you're irritated by the guy, Djathink, but in terms of the shades-of-grey area between attack and not-attack, I don't see that you're actually that far apart from each other. Try toning it down with him a few (several?) notches, and see if setting a better example to him might make him more inclined to communicate more peacefully. Pesky (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation has failed, and the disruption is not clear-cut enough to warrant any immediate admin action here. Hence, you need to request arbitration, in which case the Arbitration Committee will look at the evidence and likely issue admonishments, topic bans, and even complete site bans, depending on the severity of the situation given. --MuZemike 07:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit: hardly an improvement, IMHO. Muddying the water. A slight competence issue, perhaps? 114 total edits. Wow. Hey: this is not a personal attack, folks. This is Columbo we're talking about, here. Can old dogs learn new tricks? We'll be monitoring... Doc talk 08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to show this[25] as an example of how this editor can edit properly, and knows what he's doing. Of course it is also proof that his English is really much better than he usually pretends. Reply to Pesky: Have you looked at the disruptive editing I showed from the mediation that he's done? And also from his talk page? When I responded angrily to him it was because he was just trolling about and sticking his tongue out - do you see him replying here? He's been responding on his talk page. This was enough trouble. I don't see what arbitration is going to do, except perhaps send me back here.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here[26], an extremely recent edit, he is asked why he placed an image of a copyrighted DVD cover in place of an old image. Note his reply in edit summary, and his insistence on using schizophrenic reasoning when he does reply to other editors. So, he adds what is likely a copyvio and says it is because 'People love color photo ... ' This is but a taste of the insanity this editor brings, to disrupt articles. In one or two new edit summaries, he is asking what the Columbo catchphrases have to do with ANI. This user is a troll. I am beginning to expect him to be treated as one; why is it that we're supposed to try to charm him into behaving?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Query: I'd like to know why this issue is being ignored here. The issue as I tried so hard to explain clearly is the following, about the editor in question:

1. After editing normally for a good while at Columbo, he suddenly became a little belligerent.
2. We either worked with him or ignored him until he became a bit offensive.
3. When I approached him politely on his talk, he attacked me.
4. When I warned him about this, he attacked again.
5. Recently in the Columbo mediation, he altered at least one of my posts, and injected disruptive, weird posts in odd places.
6. He was warned about this in about the same way as you see above.
7. He disrupted the mediation again, all the while his English getting 'worse' and 'worse'.
8. He responded to this ANI on his talk page with strange ramblings and began mentioning the ANI in his edit summaries.

I don't understand what more you guys needs to give me a perspective on this. It certainly does not help to say to go to arbitration - so this troll can laugh at us some more?—Djathinkimacowboy 00:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on a reading of Talk:Columbo#Lead image: WP:COPYVIO problem, there could be a compromise about the DVD cover. The above discussion shows that no admin is prepared to issue a block at this time. If the editor is really trying to cause trouble, he will be back here soon. It would be better if Djathink would wait for someone else to make the next report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine - message received loud and clear. What do we do here now? Close and archive this where no one will ever see it, when the editor goes round the bend again? Just wondering.—Djathinkimacowboy 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see[27] and note the post above it, where the editor keeps responding to the ANI there. Yes, let's do drop this for now and let him keep trolling. ANI just makes me so proud at this moment. And of course, no one could at any time have even bothered him, by going to his talk and asking him to respond here. This board is asinine in the extreme. Let's just wait for "the next person" to come and report him.—Djathinkimacowboy 06:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any trolling, and think you should probably stop using that word. I do see an editor with poor English skills, who is perhaps editing beyond his means, but I don't see any bad faith. I find it completely understandable that a new user might suddenly start editing a mediation page, even though they weren't previously involved, and then not "sign-up" since the mediation was basically already over. You've been fairly threatening, and used some pretty strong language yourself. Trolling is a really strong claim: you're implying he is only here to disrupt Wikipedia, make false edits, antagonize people, etc. And yet I don't think you've come close to showing that through diffs. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I did nominate the page he created for deletion per A10 (he essentially took the stuff removed from the List of episodes page and made a new page to keep it under a similar name), but, again, I don't see that as being intentionally disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW! OK, let me begin by addressing Qwyrxian that good faith can be assumed unless proven otherwise and let me assure you that B3430715 is desperately doing so. Its not that the user is bad in english, actually he is competent enough to put a very graphic English term on his userpage. Getting down to the point. Have you gone through the revision history? It shows that some really meaningful comments have been removed expertly from the page giving the appearance that the user is a happy-go-lucky type of user. His talk page will show you that he is an expert in feigning ignorance of the language unless it comes to the art of rudely dismissing a person, or acknowledging a compliment. This is certainly not contributing to a harmonious working environment. --Wikishagnik (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a manic and inappropriate obsession with a subject a kind of trolling? W., I truly thank you for showing that there is a problem with him and it needs to be somehow addressed. That is exactly why I came here asking for advice and direction regarding what steps could be taken. That editor has deliberately disrupted several things and has persisted in doing it. It's a shame nobody sees this pattern, especially Qwyrxian. But as I said to Q, I'm prepared to drop this whole issue for my part. Someone else will come here about him if he persists. Does anyone note how sweetly behaved he's been lately? Still playing the troll ... I apologise if that term offends some people. But I still say he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dja... remember this little piece of advice and your reply? - DVdm (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, God, I was just waiting for something like that. I went and put my foot in it, didn't I? Now this is all about me, whilst B3430715 gets justified and protected. This is NOT about me, DVdm. I am trying to stop someone much worse than I ever was! He's doing it deliberately, DVdm! Why don't you read the things before coming at me like this? Please, don't come here again to post stuff like that. Post it at my talk page. Please.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course he is doing it deliberately, that's the whole point. I have read the things, and I'm not coming at you, on the contrary. But if you insist, I will not comment any further. Forget about it. - DVdm (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Those working here are free to review me if they wish. I do not object. As for me, I am withdrawing from this silly thing and will not visit or post here again. In light of the undue attention going toward me, I leave it to the good wisdom of those whom I have seen posting (all too rarely) on this board. After all, the editor in question will get in trouble if he persists in wrongdoing or whatever it is he's doing. I leave you with this warning: keep examining issues in the way you did here, and LOTS of these types will eventually rule WP. I sincerely thank all of you who participated.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

May I say something? Apparently I received tons of disruptions from a same person. This person would like to controls everything. When someone disagrees him, he will argue and argue until you are just tired of it.

For ex, in the mediation case, I simply point out what was wrong with proves. But this person starts to avoid the thing when he knew he is wrong,and begins some pointless arguments. (same with the table issue back in Feb)

Moreover, this same person is being a dictator, he thinks that he represents ever wiki users... look how many time he made his decision even no one agrees him.

I remains silent and chose not to come here but today, to avoid having another fight with this person. However, this person continues his personal disruptions.

I know for sure that the Admins can tell who is right or wrong, and they'll need no instructions from anyone. So for now, I will remain silent again. B3430715 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

An observation from an uninvolved non-admin: if this is indicative of User:B3430715's skills regarding the English language, I can see little prospect of him/her making any positive contribution to this encyclopaedia. Regardless of any other issues, I'd suggest that B3430715 would be better employed elsewhere: basic literacy in the language of the relevant encyclopaedia is a necessary precondition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

“ he is asking what the Columbo catchphrases have to do with ANI. ” — Djathinkimacowboy

Reply,because someone said this, thus I replyed(talk) 10:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - B3430715 please don't use quotation marks unless you are quoting someone else. Please mention whom you are quoting if you do. Please don't use phrase, instead try complete sentences. This is not a poetry competition but a legitimate discussion. If you use random phrases like you did now, I will strikethrough your comment and request a more complete and comprehensible statement. --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikishagnik, You are in this discussion since the beginning. I quoted the phrase right from this page. But since you are having confusion, I added the person whom I quoted from.

• Just imagine：

when someone who edits Columbo says that Columbo season 11 has just released, and gives a [French version DVD] as a prove...

when someone wants to change the existing episode order to "1~10 + Specials + 11 + Specials" instead

while on the other hand, the Columbo page said this in 2009:

In the UK, (Region 2) all episodes have now been released as ten seasons, the tenth season covering all the shows from "Columbo Goes to College" (1990) to the finale "Columbo Likes the Nightlife" (2003). However in France, and The Netherlands (also Region 2) the DVDs were released as twelve seasons.

Anyone will say things like hey you, look at the big photos, you are talking about an old things that will not be used in an English wiki article. Because in UK, all episodes have now been released as ten seasons

But if someone tries to avoid the fact, and claims you are being disruptive, being disruptive to a place where nobody is there.

anyone gets nuts--B3430715 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

B3430715 - Good attempt at answering the questions but I suggest you may condense your answers even more and avoid the excess formatting as it confues the reader. Next time you have region specific variations for any TV sereal please mention it clearly in the article and provide suitable references. I am sure no-one will object to that. --Wikishagnik (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Really, sometimes it is impossible to go away and leave something alone! Yes, Wikishagnik, really good. However, none of that is to the point, if you will look at my opening statement. It does not explain his disruptive editing, or his inserting things into my posts (whic he no longer does since he knew it was wrong in the first place). It also does not explain the nonstop broken English when it's convenient, and a much better fluency when he really wants to communicate something. It does not explain this sudden and singular interest in Columbo and the restoration of discarded WP:UNDUE material (which was also not to the original point). Honestly, don't you think this is encouragement of the worst kind?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, did anyone notice this[28] from yesterday? Yes, keep encouraging B3430715. I see he has many of you fooled as to the true nature of his activities here.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General comment:My fellow WPs, this is what ought to occur on ANI:

1. The problem is stated.
2. All involved editors come and open with statements.
3. An admin comes in as soon as possible, having reviewed preliminaries and makes a statement.
4. Depending on the issue, commentary should be welcome in general. Especially commentary from other admins and knowledgeable editors.
5. An agreement should be reached as to appropriate action.
6. 'Closing statements' if you want to call them that.
7. A firm final declaration - not binding or otherwise violating ANI - issued by an admin. A bit like the Supreme Court does opinions, so a dissenting declaration should be there also.

Instead, this is what happens on ANI:

1. Problem is stated.
2. WP:CHINESE FIRE DRILL ensues.
3. Everyone who is interested comes to air grievances, from WP:UNDUE disagreements to complaining about the brown spots on giraffes.
4. And all of that only if anyone is interested in responding at all.
5. Lots of yelling can occur. No one listens to anyone.
6. Almost immediately the original problem is high jacked and lost forever. If an editor comes to remind everyone of the original problem, that editor is ignored or shouted down.

Who is ever going to fix this place?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Djathinkimacowboy, it sounds like you're unhappy with the way this particular AN/I report has been handled, and are making the extension to assert that there's a pressing, general problem here. Now I'd be the first to agree that there are times when AN/I resembles a zoo, and it's not known as the dramaaahh board for nothing. But at the moment I think it's generally functioning rather well. Most reports are dealt with quickly and appropriately, but I do agree it's frustrating on those rare occasions (like this one) when they are not. For what it's worth, we had a very long and full discussion of some principles rather like the ones you set out - just look at the most recent talk page archives for this project page. The consensus was that a strict protocol such as you suggest is not needed (and in fact is unworkable) because reports of so many different sorts are made here, and one size does not fit all.

On your specific report, I'm sorry you've not had the resolution you wanted. Reports are left unresolved for a number of reasons, such as:

1. There's clearly an issue, but it doesn't seem major enough to warrant admin action yet
2. There may be an issue, but it's been reported in an unclear way (eg without sufficient diffs)
3. There may be an issue, but it's hard to see one side as exclusively in the right
4. There may be an issue, but process issues (such as conflict, incivility, trolling or digressions) make it hard to see.

In this case, I think the inaction you are seeing is partly because of 1) above - other people don't yet feel as strongly as you about this issue. It's muddied a little further by noticing interactions such as these from you, which reduce your credibility even if you have a good case. Continually reposting here when you don't get an answer can feel like nagging, and puts people off as well. How you present your self and your case is almost as important as how good your case is, in Wikipedia as in life.

Having said all that, I'm going to post a warning on the user talk page of the editor in question because at the very least there are some WP:COMPETENCE issues going on. I don't think anything further than a warning is warranted right now, so would suggest we close this thread as resolved once I have done that. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've had a closer look at both main protagonists' posts and I have left a mild warning at B3430715's talk page. However on reviewing all edits more closely I gear there is a boomerang coming back at you, Djathinkimacowboy. Posts such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:B3430715&diff=next&oldid=483886948 this, this and this are, in my view, much worse offences. Your very own talk pages asks people to "not bite the newcomers" and yet that is exactly what you have been doing here. I don't see the evidence of trolling that you do, rather I see a newcomer who is fairly unfamiliar with WP protocol and with English being mocked and tied up in bureaucracy. From what I can see, with a helping hand, this user might be an asset. Why not extend one, rather than a sarcastic comment? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you posted some very wise words, and I appreciate the evaluation you have given the ANI process (as a reply to my venting steam). However, I think you are in error when you say that B3 is some sort of innocent newcomer, because he is clearly not a newcomer, only a new account: he knows how to edit quite well when he wants, he expertly removes warnings from his talk page (wonder how long yours will last), and can ratchet up his fluency in English when he likes. Then suddenly he's posting in near-gibberish later, when it suits. Too many helping hands have gone out toward B3 already, only to be nipped-at. If you looked at the other events, his contribs and what some admins have said, you'd know that. I myself am not going to offer a helping hand to someone I see as a troll! Help him how, by letting him feel all the security he wants? I'll say something further, I do not care about appearances: I'm beginning to think B3 is a sock. My evidence is thin, and no one wants that, so I'll shove that where it belongs for now. There, now you have my unadulterated personal feelings as well. And I'm sorry I came off so badly here. I never thought this place was the bastion of diplomacy. What do you want me to do aside from 'buzzing off' and not posting anything further here? A love sonnet to B3?--ain't gonna happen.—Djathinkimacowboy 23:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim--you suggested we close this "as resolved" once you post a warning on B3's talk. That is not satisfactory, unless another admin seconds it. You are moving too quickly, which was never what I wanted from anyone. If "no one gives a damn" is the criterion for closing a thread as "resolved", then by all means!—Djathinkimacowboy 00:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Had Kim not taken the time to provide helpful feedback, this would have been automatically archived anyway for receiving no action. I agree with her assessment. You have just now escalated from claiming this person is a troll to claiming that they're a sockpuppet (implied by your claim that they're an experienced editor, despite the relative new-ness of the account). I have not yet seen a single piece of convincing evidence that this is intentional disruption of the project. I do believe that, if the user's future edits continue to be argumentative while still being fairly incomprehensible, that WP:COMEPETENCE (regarding English language competence) may come into play, and they may end up blocked. But that point has not yet been reached. It's time for you to back away. Keep editing the Columbo articlees. If you have problems with the user on those articles in the future, you're welcome to bring them to me (or even back here, though, of course, be wary of the boomerang). Don't start watching their contributions, or their talkpage, because several of us really think you're seeing this wrong. Could Kim and I be wrong? Absolutely--speaking for myself, I've been wrong plenty of times before. Did both of us check the contribution history, and disagree with your assessment? Yes, we did. Unless you have new evidence, or some other editor significantly disagrees, I don't see much more value in this thread. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2 Wikihounding, harassment

See also: Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections § Stefan4 Harassment

See also: User talk:Stefan2 § Bad faith hounding

See also: Commons:User talk:Stefan4 § COM:AN/B

See also: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 22

See also: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 23

See also: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 24

See also: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 24

See also: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anyanghallaarenainside.jpg

See also: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anyanghallatrophycase.JPG

See also: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oxford om3302.jpg

See also: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Konkukuniversitystationoutside.JPG

See also: File:Mposter.jpg

See also: File:Ultrabotsscreen1.jpg

After I opposed Stefan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few of his nominations at possibly unfree files, a couple of which seem to be clearly in bad faith, he's gone through to tag several images I've uploaded. Despite my indication on his talk page that he should stop, he continued to post notices on my talk page and tag files, and nominate several for deletion. As he persists in the hounding, I suggest he be blocked until such a time that he indicates he will stop.--Crossmr (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to make any assumptions about copyright status of images. If the copyright status can't be proven, one has to assume that images are unfree. See Commons:COM:PRP, for example. Your comments in the deletion discussions suggested that you don't know image policies, so I checked your images for errors and proposed some obvious ones for deletion. For example, non-free images must be subject to critical commentary, must not be used in galleries and must not be used excessively, as explained at WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, and photos of South Korean buildings can't be hosted on Commons unless the architect died at least 50 years ago, as explained at Commons:COM:FOP#Korea (South). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to assume that uploaders acted in good faith and properly copied licensing data years ago when images were first uploaded. Which you've failed to do. Not only that you clearly tried to misrepresent an individuals edits in your nominations by indicating they were a serial copyright violator when they were not. When it clearly stated on their talk page they were not. The fact is, you didn't like my opposing you and started going through all my uploads here, and even at commons trying to find a problem. That's clearly wikihounding.-Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As clear evidence of his intent to hound me and not actually do image work: This edit to commons [29]. After claiming pictures of south korean buildings aren't permitted on commons, he only nominates a couple of my images, but goes ahead and cleans up similar images by other users. If he truly believed those pictures weren't permitted on commons he would have nominated it for deletion instead of cleaning it up and adding a category. Yes it's a commons edit, but it's just a very clear demonstration of the harassment that started here because I opposed him here. Most specifically I took issue with 4 of his listings on the 23rd where he described an editors uploads as Not own work? Many copyright issues mentioned on the uploader's talk page, but I can't find the image anywhere else. (bolding mine), when you visit the page. You see exactly 2 complaints and in the first complaint another user clearly points out that he talked to the webmaster of the site in question and it was indeed the user. I've no doubt the second complaint was the same thing. I also noted that he appeared to be assuming bad faith of users who uploaded images years ago because source pages had been deleted/hidden/etc and this is when the deluge of tagging, nominating and clear harassment started. He directly targetted my edits here and on commons because I opposed him (and not just him, I also opposed some other people who listed images as well), so there was no intent on my part to focus on him, when he's clearly come after me in retaliation.--Crossmr (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't clean up the image on Commons, I categorised it so that I would more easily be able to nominate a large number of images in the same report. In the end, it failed because I couldn't find any date of construction, but my plan is to try to find a date later, unless anyone else already has proposed the images for deletion by then.

One can usually not AGF when it comes to copyrights. Many users don't know how copyrights work or what a derivative work is (cf. your own photos of South Korean buildings) and users often get insufficient permissions, so it is necessary to be very careful when it comes to copyright issues. In the case you mentioned, I see 6 copyright-related notices on the user's talk page before my notices, and 5 of them have since been deleted (I haven't checked if the 6th one has been changed). If you check the deletion log, you can see that the webmaster-related text was deleted with the deletion comment "permission claimed but never supplied". That is, no evidence that Wikipedia was ever allowed to use that material.

If the source is gone, there is no way to verify a licence. People uploading from Flickr often get the licence wrong so images have to be deleted if they can't be proven to be free. That is exactly why there are licence reviews on Commons so that there is some evidence kept that the images have been on Flickr under a free licence at some point. You might also notice that it was not I but a different user who placed the Flickr images on that request page in the first place. Obviously, there are at least two users who agree that the sourcing is insufficient.

There has been no retaliation from my side. However, your posts to the deletion pages suggested that you didn't understand image policies and copyright rules, so I checked your images and proposed some of them for deletion. You might have noticed that many of the images I proposed for deletion actually weren't uploaded by you; they were images uploaded by other people which I happened to find in an article where one of your images appeared. --Stefan2 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We always assume good faith, which you've failed to do repeatedly. You even went so far as to imply a user could be editing the exif data on a years old image simply to try and get a google image on here. You went further to accuse an editor of being a serial copyright violator in your rationale to taint the discussion when there was zero evidence that that was the case on the talk page. I found a lot of your deletion rationales to be extremely light on evidence or reasoning, and not just yours and posted my opinion as such. You then proceeded to go after every image I've uploaded to two projects as a result. WP:HOUND, WP:AGF give them good long hard reads.--Crossmr (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One has to be very careful with copyright issues. I have seen many uploads from Flickr and other external sites where users have provided wrong licence information (for example by missing an NC or an ND or by thinking that any image found on the Internet is in the public domain).

There are many reasons for EXIF data to change. Some images have no EXIF data (might be caused by editing the images in a program which deletes the data) and I don't find it too unlikely that some programs might alter the EXIF time so that it shows the modification time in an image editor instead of the time when the photo was taken (although programs really are supposed to store such information in a different field). Editing using Exiftool or the like might be less likely.

Note that I'm going to be away during a large part of the weekend, so I might not be able to write any further comments until tomorrow afternoon. I'm bringing a mobile phone, but it isn't very convenient for writing long messages. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One also has to be careful how they treat other users, and constantly doing so with assumptions of bad faith is not the direction to take. Immediately auditing an editors contributions because they oppose you is also not the direction to take. To be honest you've clearly come across as a bully in this process with your bad faith assumptions of uploader's behaviour and your immediate reaction to my opposing some of your listings. You have no evidence that any of those editors made a mistake adding the licensing data to those images. None at all, and you're asking them to prove the impossible because you know the original pages are gone now.Further more you have zero evidence to suggest that uploader was tampering with the exif data. He didn't even know enough on how to properly rotate his image, and you think he's fudging the exif data?--Crossmr (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I recommend this request is considered resolved. I can see no need for admin action while there is ongoing dialogue and Stefan2 appears to be taking care to explain their actions. Unfortunately Crossmr has confused this request for action by including discussion about Commons images. If a pattern of imagestalking on Wikipedia is apparent and persists, then I suggest the complaint is preferably resolved by direct discussion on user pages sticking to the principle of Assume good faith, or taken to Wikiquette assistance if external opinions might help. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  It's not remotely resolved. I used his actions at commons to demonstrate the lengths he's going to to harass me. Immediately after opposing Stefan, he started going through every single file I've uploaded here, and then when he ran out of files, he went to commons to continue. My evidence at commons was to show that he was specifically harassing me by nominating my files for deletion (both here and at commons) while other similar images from other users were simply being cleaned up. As further evidence, some of his deletion reasoning is extremely weak. As an example he nominated File:Anyangjerseyscompare.png for deletion with the rationale: Excessive use of non-free images of clothes. Not an article on clothes; fails both WP:FTCG#3 and WP:FTCG#8. (whatever that means, I don't see any numbers on the pages he's linking to). Yet the image is directly referenced in and talked about in a section on the article. In addition, the image was present and checked during the Good Article process. He further nominates File:Changchunfight.jpg with the rationale: Not subject to critical commentary, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free image not needed; any free image of the same hockey team would work equally well. Which is as far as I can tell an outright lie. Not only does the image contain a full caption detailing it's significance, the event is also referenced in the main prose as a significant event in the team's history. The bench clearing brawl lead to a league leading number of suspensions which is still the record (and likely will be forever, as it's a very high number). So he claims there is no critical commentary, which there is, and then claims an "image of the hockey team would work" but this image isn't being used to illustrate the hockey team it's being used to illustrate a significant event in their history. It seems he simply has no understanding of what it is he's nominating for deletion and the reasons for doing so. His immediate move to start tagging and nominating images with such spurious and honestly nonsensical reasoning clearly appears to be retaliatory hounding and harassment. I should be able to give my opinion on noticeboard discussions without being subjected to that kind of retaliatory behaviour. Yes, he's trying to play nice and justify his actions now, but they don't really stand up to scrutiny when inspected.--Crossmr (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact that for the longest time there were only the 2 parties talking shows that someone failed to try to have that exact same discussion prior to coming here for admin action. Discussion is first step. If you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour, WP:RFC/U is thataway. If I was Stefan, I would back far away from any specific users ... far, far away. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I posted to his talk page, when he continued to hammer away, I brought it here. He was already hounding me, I wasn't going to hound him to stop. That's the point of this noticeboard to deal with disruptive users which is how he's acting.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So just so I have the facts here, we're saying that:

• Flat out lying in nominations
• linking to non-existent policies as deletion rationales
• re-applying tags that had been long since removed from images
• doing all of the above to every image a user has uploaded immediately after having a debate with them and in a very short time frame, and then following them to another project to continue the action is not harassment and totally fine by our community's standards? I just want to be sure when this comes up again.--Crossmr (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am back again. I have added a lots of links at the top of this discussions. To my knowledge, they link to all pages where both Crossmr and I have been discussing things recently, and the links make finding the discussions easier. In particular, I suggest that you take a look at the link to Commons:COM:AN/B where I have recently written a long reply, addressing concerns stated there.

• I am not aware of any nominations in which I have been lying. If you feel that I have been unclear or if I have made an error in a nominations, feel free to comment in that nomination. If users list a confusing source, it may suggest that the image was taken from somewhere. Ideally, the uploaders would comment on the deletion discussions and explain how the images were obtained.
• I'm not sure which non-existent policies you think I'm linking to. Could you clarify?
• I didn't notice that you had already removed {{non-free reduce}} templates from those images. See my long comment on this at Commons:COM:AN/B.
• I don't think that I tagged all of your images. Also note that many of the images I proposed for deletion at that point weren't uploaded by you – many of them were logos uploaded by other people and used in the article China Dragon. I didn't think that I was harassing you and I wasn't angry or anything. As LX wrote in the Commons discussion, "To go through a user's contributions when there is reason to believe that they may be systematically making some mistake (such as adding unsourced facts to Wikipedia or uploading non-free images to Commons) is pretty standard practice and is not indicative of an assumption of bad faith." The discussion on a Warhammer 40,000 image suggested to me that Crossmr might have an incomplete understanding of derivative works, so I decided to check his contributions and found some images which I thought weren't in compliance with policy, although not always because of derivative work-related issues.

I don't think that I am more strict than other people in determining whether an image is free or not. See, for example, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 29#File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg, where a different user is very strict when determining the validity of the licence of an image. My nominations don't seem to be more strict than that one. I will now go to the deletion discussions and clarify my statements for some of my nominations. I also suggest that you read my post at Commons:COM:AN/B where I wrote a much longer reply. The two discussions partially deal with the same matter, and I tried to avoid writing the same thing at two places.

I am sorry if you felt uncomfortable with my nominations of some of your images; that was never my intention. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already linked it twice, [30]. While you can certainly come up with an interesting reason for all of your edits, the fundamental sum of the events tells a different story. WP:HOUND is quite clear and non-ambiguous Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. You not only did it here, you took it to another project as well. If there were images that genuinely needed discussing, that's one thing, but you took this well beyond that by:

• Tagging images that had already been tagged, and not just removed by me. There is no legal standard for the size of FUR images, our bot has a threshold for tagging but that's it
• Nominating my images for deletion while editing other user's similar images but not nominating them at commons
• At best we'll say fudging the truth, over the nomination of File:Changchunfight.jpg, claiming there is no critical commentary, but then your nomination also seems to clearly indicate that you have no idea what the image is or how it is being used
• [31] Whatever this is, as indicated you may have meant to link to something else, but that's a pretty strange error to make. Seems to me you may have been in such a hurry to get at my images you weren't really paying attention to what you're doing. Even not withstanding the bad linking, the image was in a GA during the GA process and deemed fine, to nominate it for deletion at that point stinks of sour grapes.
• Continuing to tag and make posts to my talk page, across 2 projects when I clearly indicated that I wanted you to stop and offering no response until I filed an AN/I thread
• Doing all of the above only minutes after we'd engaged in debate over several images.

Yes, you have provided some excuses for a couple of those but I don't really feel they hold up to scrutiny. Had you stopped when I posted to your talk page, I may have viewed it differently. But you were so wrapped up in getting at my uploads, and in the process making several mistakes, that you failed to engage in further discussion. This is why it's clearly a WP:HOUND issue. Was I perfect in my image uploads? Probably not, most people aren't. Nor did I find you perfect in your nominations. I found several incidents of bad faith assumptions on your part that didn't extend simply to the technical question of copyright at best. But what I didn't do after engaging you in debate on those topics was to go out and comb through your contrib history looking for more problems, fill up your talk page with notices and then follow you to other projects to do the same.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to repeat my request to consider this thread resolved. The discussion here appears to duplicate much of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Stefan4_Harassment and as this discussion is primarily about allegations of imagestalking and replies that are mostly about Commons copyright related policies (and even is inappropriately bringing in quotes from the Commons discussion), this seems to have veered well off-topic for WP:AN/I. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors; I cannot see that a remotely likely outcome here, so by definition this is the wrong noticeboard to raise this discussion. Fæ (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  Two different projects. And most of the things in discussion are on en.wiki not commons. Only 3 images at commons, about a dozen here. The question here is clearly abou tWP:HOUND which is an administrator issue. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding why I linked commons here, it was for one reason: To demonstrate the lengths he was going to to hound me, and to show a clear example of how he was specifically targeting my edits.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And he continues to lie [32]. There have been two sentences in the article discussing that event since I added the image to the article. As well as a full caption explaining its significance as a historic event in the team and league's history. Since it's clear he wants to continue to harass me I must renew my request that he be blocked.--Crossmr (talk)

• I refer you to the latest reply on Commons ([33]) which has been taking account of your claims about Wikipedia, not just Commons. Please stick to one noticeboard rather than forum shopping across both projects in parallel with the same complaints based on the same material. I suggest you keep in mind that repeatedly calling another long term contributor a liar (without giving the benefit of the doubt that they might have made an error) is unlikely to be seen as trying to assume good faith. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fae, I think it's inappropriate to call this "forum shopping" when there are issues with images at both Commons and here. We can't do anything about the Commons edits, obviously, but it's not forum shopping when the issue has apparently occurred here as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. The incident started here, and Stefan took it to commons to continue it. As I've pointed out a couple of times I've only linked them to demonstrate the depth of what he's done. They're two parts of the same incident but En.wiki can't do anything on commons and commons admins can't do anything on en.wiki. As such I reported it in both places when he refused to engage me in discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec, HandThatFeeds) Thanks, I'm happy to accept that observation. If there is a muliti-project harassment problem then evidence should be raised at meta rather than creating parallel complaints across the projects. As has already been said, I do not believe there is anything here for administrative action and though Stefan has apparently attempted to explain his actions in good faith, they have been sensibly advised to back far, far away rather than encourage more drama. Crossmr has raised much here about Commons edits and similarly raised complaints about Wikipedia edits on Commons; I am certain that most readers would agree this has badly muddied any case presented. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Then please let me attempt to de-muddy what has happened here and make it into something slightly more readable and explainable:

• I found myself on PUF images. After commenting on what I went there for, I decided to give the day's listings a read as I don't usually head into that area.
• I commented on several listings, including some of stefan's
• Some of those turned into back and forth debates
• Immediately following a couple of those debates (one over technical application and one over what I considered to be a bad faith issue on his part) he started going through all my uploads
• After I started to get notices on my talk page, I posted to his talk page indicating I wanted him to stop
• He did not engage me in any further discussion at that point and continued to post notices to my talk page and then I started getting e-mail notices about talk page notices on commons
• I notified him that since he failed to respond and was continuing in what I indicated to him earlier what I considered harassment I was posting here, which I did and also posted at commons since he took the behaviour there.

Here are the key issues as to why I feel this is a WP:HOUND (with quotes from hound) issue:

• Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, - over a few hours he singled me out and basically audited every upload I made across 2 projects
• joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. - While he didn't join multiple discussions, he went after multiple images at once and started debates in multiple areas, and attempted to confront a high number of my uploads in a very short period of time
• is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor this is debatable, we can't read his mind, but I indicated on his talk page that I wasn't looking very favourably on what he was doing and he continued, so he was aware that it was likely to cause me distress or annoyance.
• Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. he didn't follow me from place to place on wikipedia, but he did follow me to another project, hence the relevance of linking the information from commons.
• This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. - Doing this immediately after we'd just engaged in debate over a couple of images, and failing to respond to my talk page message is one of the larger factors in my viewing this as hounding and harassment.

In terms of specific behaviour that also made me feel this was hounding:

• The re-tagging of images which had already had the tags cleared by myself and other users, and in my case with explanation. He claims he didn't notice they'd already been tagged, I can't help but feel that means he wasn't really paying attention then.
• Nominating my images for deletion while editing other user's similar images but not nominating them at commons - sure, he had an excuse ready that he "didn't know the age of the building and that he didn't really have any more time for deletions that day" but the fact remains that he went in and specifically targeted my images while bypassing others. Yes this is at commons, we can't act on it, but it can show behaviour pattern.
• The nomination of an image that passed the GA process with funny rationales (he's fixed that now, but the error he made again makes me feel like he wasn't paying attention)
• The now recent comment he made where claimed the event in the image wasn't on the page, when it clearly has been for over 2 years. We don't want to call it a lie, fine, but he already nominated it with what I consider a nonsensical deletion rationale and then came back to make that statement. He should have been paying much greater attention with his follow-up comment.

For me, these all clearly add up to hounding and harassment. It's some of the over-the-top and extra things which give it away. If he'd truly found a couple of misused images fine, but the tagging, and ignoring other's images, and then following me over to commons, is what pushes this from a simple good faith check to something more.--Crossmr (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To Fæ: The discussion is related to actions on both Wikipedia and Commons which is why more or less the same discussion is held at two places. I agree that it is confusing and that it would be practical to have only one discussion. I see that Rillke closed the Commons discussion with {{not done}}, so unless Crossmr wants to continue discussing the Commons actions somewhere, it might mean that we now only have one discussion left.

I would like to comment that WP:HOUND states that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy." I was trying to fix what I interpreted as violations of Wikipedia policies (WP:NFCC) and Commons policies (Commons:COM:FOP). I never saw this as anything wrong. One or more of the discussions suggested that Crossmr might not have a full understanding of derivative works so I thought that it would be appropriate to check his uploads. I opened up a lot of images in different tabs and started reporting images which I thought were inappropriate. Maybe I should have answered faster when he posted a message to my talk page.

Many of the deletion requests posted at that time were not related to his uploads but to images uploaded by other people to an article on a hockey team. I was planning to make a mass deletion report in Commons:Category:Lotte Department Store too, but I couldn't find any dates of construction of the buildings, only dates of opening of the shops. Some shops might have reused pre-existing buildings. See also the related discussion at Commons:User talk:Stefan4#You better get busy.

I think that it may be appropriate to include a quotation from your own user page: "Don't take the deletion of articles personally." Although we aren't talking about articles, the situation is the same. If I find an image which doesn't seem to comply with some image policy, I propose it for deletion, and I never base my decision on whether to propose it for deletion on who the uploader is. I tried to clarify the deletion rationale in the cases where you found them unclear. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I take the hounding personally. I've already unambiguously stated that there may be issues with a couple of specific images. I've noticed throughout this process a few of your excuses have been of the "I didn't see that" nature. Like the fact that the image was covered in the article, or the reduce tags had already been applied and removed from images by myself and another editor. For someone who spent such a long time going through all my uploads, I would expect them to pay much greater attention to what they're doing. However, if I combine that with the nominations we see starting here [34] and this nomination [35] as examples, I'm beginning to get the impression that you may not be editing with due care. As it seems you are often misunderstanding or missing some obvious piece of information. This would explain some of your behaviour but not all of it. However, when I further consider how far backwards you'll bend over to try and assume bad faith of uploaders, like in this case [36] where you claim we need more evidence, though the uploader clearly an unambiguously stating that he made the image, and the fact that it is in a higher image, that does not show evidence of being upsized. Upsized images are generally pretty rough. Much rougher than that one. Or here when you imply that an uploader who doesn't have the apparent technical knowledge to rotate his image [37] may have gone so far to tamper with exif data years ago simply to get a google image on the encyclopedia, despite spending time looking, I couldn't find that image on google images. I'm left with a much different picture. You say there was no intention to hound, yet even though I posted to your talk, you continued, without discussing anything with me. You followed my images to another project and continued there. That shows a very clear focus. You have an excuse for every edit, but Occam's razor is often invoked for a reason. And the behaviour adds up to text book hounding and harassment. You spent a significant amount of time focused on my edits, refused to engage in discussion and followed me to another project. Hound says a lot more than using an editors contribs to fix perceived policy violations is ok. There is also a full explanation on how to go about it, and what kind of behaviour is inappropriate.--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan, I think you have explained your point of view well and you are (literally) within policy. However, Five pillars#4 caters for a wide interpretation of respect, and if a fellow contributor in good standing complains that they feel harassed, it seems only civil behaviour that one takes it seriously and back off if necessary. Wikipedia will not fall over and die just because you have not personally dealt with every doubtful image that Crossmr has ever uploaded. We regularly see people feeling "imagestalked" when several images are suddenly marked for deletion on the same day, and it certainly seems unfair to expect the uploader to review and take part in a large number of multiple discussions. A more civil approach might be to select a very small number of examples of problematic uploads, mark these for deletion discussion and engage with the uploader to see if there is a misunderstanding. Such a discussion is likely to have the same outcome but the path to get there would be collaborative rather than adversarial.

I still don't see any need for administrator action here. However, as has been suggested more than once, it would be a good thing for you to leave further challenges of Crossmr's uploads to others, if you continue to pursue his "every upload", particularly across projects, then you will look less like a champion of good copyright and more like an obsessive hunter of other contributors, worth a second look by those of us worried about how our projects can remain a civil and welcoming space. Would you consider making a commitment to follow this non-adversarial approach? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Western betrayal

I have placed a 7 day block for new users and IP users on article Western betrayal and its talk page, because one or more editors using IP addresses have been stirring up passions, which has led to a lot of comments about editors rather than article development. I have hatted those threads.

However there is a subsidiary problem User:Volunteer Marek has been deleting comments by IP addresses on other user talk pages. This has led to one of the users Malick78 repeatedly reverting an edit made by Malick78 back onto user talk:Volunteer Marek which Volunteer Marek has repeatedly deleted. I have warned both of the to stop.[38][39]

As I intend to be involved in the development of Western betrayal it would be useful if another administrator was to review my actions and amend them if they are so minded. -- PBS (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the IP comments I removed where made by 98.92.207.190 and 72.145.253.232 I believe (this person has by now used so many different IPs that I might have confused them). These two addresses, in addition to these [40] [41], are the same person as this IP [42] who was blocked for one year by User:SarekOfVulcan on March 8th for disruptive editing, and whose previous comments had to be oversighted. Hence this is a person who is evading a block in order to post personal attacks and harassment against myself, as well as to WP:CANVASS. As result removing these comments is perfectly justified per WP:BAN, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, not to mention WP:TALK which states that Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. is fine.

I was planning on filing a formal WP:SPI but I'm pretty busy atm and those take some time to write up (this is also why I haven't reported Malick78 yet) in regard to these IPs (they're all socks of User:Leidseplein though that part is not obvious unless you're familiar with the user - hence an SPI).

I don't have time to fully explain the Malick78 part of the story here. Basically it's someone who I asked as far back (maybe even earlier, can't remember) as August 2010 not to post to my talk page [43] (notice the rude message I am removing). Because of a dispute we had on one article Malick78 though has taken upon himself to follow me to various articles and try to come up with reasons, all of them essentially spurious, to criticize my editing (one example out of many). Along the way he figured out my nationality and began making disparaging remarks about Poles as a group ([44], as well as making numerous personal attacks (one out of many). I told him not to post to my talk page again on October 2010 [45] and of course more recently [46], after which he, like Philip says, began edit warring to force his comments on to my talk page. As far as I know Malick78 is not connected to the person behind the IP addresses but is merely enjoying the harassment campaign they're subjecting me to, so he is trying to enable that person to the best of his ability.VolunteerMarek 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI report here [47].VolunteerMarek 06:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, me thinks VM doth protest too much. Firstly, let's remind new-comers that VM is the same person as Radeksz who was part of the EEML, which was punished for various things, including coordinating activity off-WP (including, it happens, ganging up on an article of mine about two years ago, if I remember rightly, which they had AFDed. It was reinstated after the EEML issue came to light). I don't know why he changed his name after being punished, you take a guess, but either way - when we started bumping into each other (him now as VM) perhaps a year back - we immediately didn't see eye to eye (though then I didn't know that he was the same guy as Radeksz). To suggest that it is me who is at fault, is of course just one side of the story. VM edits disruptively, seems to assume he owns pages and takes a lot of offence when others edit them and it's not to his liking, and he himself is happy to use insults (I believe I don't, yet I admit with this editor I don't try to soften my views). To suggest I have an issue with his Polishness is wrong and opportunistic: I live in Poland, speak Polish, and there is a six-month old foetus in my wife's womb that is half-Polish. I'm not anti-Polish ;) I do however dislike a certain group of jingoistic and over-sensitive Polish editors on WP who seem to tag-team all opposition, quashing all dissent on Polish articles. Many are from the old EEML, unsurprisingly. As for me following him around WP - I've made thousands of edits and he and I both have a Polish connection, so we're likely to bump into each other at times. That's just wiki-life. (As it happens, he seems to take a keen interest in my actions - commenting on my sandbox as soon as anything changes.)
• As for readding stuff on his talkpage: well, WP:TALK says that editors should only remove content if it's a personal attack. What I wrote on his talk page wasn't. It also says: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I objected (he hadn't answered my complaint about him deleting stuff on my talk page) and he continued to delete/revert my edits. WP:TALK doesn't mention what to do when somebody removes your comment - so, I reverted. PBS later pointed me to WP:DRC, which I was not aware of, but hey - it's an essay, not a guideline or policy. But as a sign of goodwill - I'll refrain from doing so in future.
• Regarding his removal of a 3rd party's comment from my talk page (and others') - I believe VM did it solely for the purpose of hiding something he considered personally embarrassing - that it was perhaps by a banned user provides just a faint veneer of respectability to the actions. He should have asked me to remove it - since the message was to me personally, and not just a random defamatory comment. As we see here in an edit summary, other editors didn't like his intervention either or agree with his self-justification.
• As to posting on VM's talk page, I see no reason not to do so in future if his conduct (e.g. deleting things from my page without getting my say-so) warrants it. If he oversteps the mark, he has to be told somehow.Malick78 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • From WP:TALK, specifically WP:OWNTALK: "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving." This is the guideline on which the DRC essay is based. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I first came to this talk page and its Western betrayal article on 20 March, merely in response to a question I noticed concerning the section When to use and when not to use "[sic]", in a quote of a quote. I have not tried to research the history of the article or it talk page, or of its participants.

I quickly found that throughout the talk page User:Volunteer Marek was deleting a number of posts rather than responding or challenging them, or using strikeout, which seemed like much better methods of dealing with posts which may have been inappropriate rather than simply deleting them. These deleted posts may or may not have been posted by socks, or banned users - I had no way of knowing. In my opinion none of them that I saw were "harmful", did not contain "personal attacks", and were certainly not "vandalism". They may or may not have been "trolling". Essentially they were objecting to the practice of deletions of posts on the page, and to the apparent WP:Ownership of the page by Volunteer Marek. In briefly reviewing the talk page I had separately come to the same conclusion myself, that Volunteer Marek appeared to "own" the page. I thus reinstated two of the posts that had been deleted, in my opinion deleted on an entirely arbitrary basis, apparently because Volunteer Marek disagreed with them. (All these off-topic discussions have recently been hatted, appropriately, by User:Philip Baird Shearer).

Soon after I first objected to the deletions of posts I received a notification that I had a new message on my own user talk page. When I went to read it I found that Volunteer Marek had already gone to my talk page, and deleted the message posted to me by a different user. I was astounded and infuriated by what was clearly vandalism, and I used very bad language, for which I later apologized, and now apologize again here. It is my understanding that Volunteer Marek has also deleted messages from the user talk pages of User:Malick78 and of User:Philip Baird Shearer that had been posted by others. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been hounded by this person (the one behind the IPs) on (and probably off, but nm that for now) Wiki for awhile. They have been blocked for disruptive editing. What is actually amazing in this whole mess is that the other IPs haven't been blocked yet and that some users (not necessarily you) insist on aiding and abetting this person.

As to charges of "ownership" that's just plainly false. Before this month, I have hardly made any edits to the article. In fact the last time I made any edits before Malick78 showed up was precisely when the person behind the IPs was active there. Which was... oh... almost exactly a year ago. In the year between March 2011 and March 2012, plenty of various users have edited the article, made changes, adjustments etc. This is blindly obvious just by looking at the article's history. Likewise, I have not reverted you, nor PBS nor Paul Siebert on the article either.VolunteerMarek 19:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no particular interest one way or the other in the article Western betrayal, and have only quickly skimmed through it. I have no dog in that fight. By "ownership" I was referring to the article's talk page. As you say, you have not reverted my posts; but you did delete a post from another editor, posted to my talk page. This is vandalism. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

By this logic oversight edits would be vandalism. Bottom line, when dealing with SP/IP posts that seem to focus on stalking/harassing/outing, we do allow for their reversion. I am not familiar with most details of the recent discussion at Western betrayal page, but reviewing some edits, I do think that it is likely VM is being harassed/stalked by somebody. I suggest that he should disengage himself from this debate, to avoid collateral damage, while a neutral admin looks into this case and determines which SP/IP edits need to be blanked, and their originators, banned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said, none of the deleted posts that I saw were in any way inappropriate, except as they might have been posted by a sock or banned user - which I was not aware of, and am still not convinced of. I am not aware of the history of "harassment". In my experience in wandering around Wikipedia, posts made by socks or banned users have been struck with an explanation provided, or collapsed, but never simply deleted. Deletion (on an article's talk page) should properly be applied only to incontrovertible WP:Vandalism: "irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." I did not see any posts deleted that were vandalism, or anywhere near it. They were simply objecting to earlier posts being deleted. (This is as opposed to normal reverts to changes to an article itself.) Maybe I'm misapplying WP policy, but to my mind, having someone come to my talk page and deleting a post to me, from someone else, also constitutes vandalism.

Do you not make a distinction between deleting posts on an article's talk page, and deleting 3rd-party posts on a user's talk page? Milkunderwood (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I usually consider deleting anything from another talk page bad form (one own comments excepted, under refactor). At the same time, I can imagine a situation in which this can be justified (again, oversight, and such), but I have not read the comments in question (I don't see them diffed anywhere here), so I cannot comment on them specifically. I do believe, however, that I've seen in the past IP/SPA hate-filled/vandal comments on my talk page removed by third parties, and I usually agreed with them that such comments have no place on our project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Geolocating the IPs indicates that they are very likely the same person: main sock 1 sock 2. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That may very well be. I don't see how this controverts what I was saying. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where I announced that I was trying to "controvert" you. Merely providing technical evidence for the IP-socking that you are "still not convinced of". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Two points: firstly VM has a history of behaving as if he 'owns' pages - see here for instance. Any criticism of a page (not even of him) and he starts accusing people of "harassment" or "trolling".

Secondly, Piotrus above was in the EEML with VM. He has also left "warnings" on my talk page when VM has felt, presumably, "threatened" by others' disapproval of his edits. I'd suspect he knows quite a lot about the discussion at Western Betrayal. Malick78 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Two points: firstly VM has a history of behaving as if he 'owns' pages - see here for instance - oh for christ sake! Here's what happened:

March 2, 21:05, Malick78 adds a 'fact' tag and a "[sic]" inside a quote on Western Betrayal article.

March 2, 21:26 I provide the requested citation and remove the 'sic' since it was inside a direct quote.

In the meantime I was writing up the Feeder of lice article, getting it to DYK (I was planning on getting it to GA status but frankly I am so sick of all this harassment I feel like I really don't want to contribute anything to Wikipedia at the moment)

An hour later, March 2, 22:14, Malick78 pops up on the Feeder of lice article DYK nomination and starts making baseless criticisms in an attempt to sabotage it in revenge [48]. He's told of by other people [49] He does the same thing on the talk page of the article itself [50]. He's told off by others and warned about his behavior [51] [52].

And all of this because I simply dared to provide a source for a 'fact' tag Malick78 left and removed an unwarranted "sic"! Somebody's got problems here and it's not me. And this was after I had asked him to leave me alone [53] [54] to which he threatened "As for coming to your talk page, I will frequent it as and when I like", which is pretty much a clear statement of intent to harass.

And yes, this goes back to at least September 2011, when I made some criticism on Malick78's article (because it was sloppily written and used unreliable source). He did the same thing back then; showed up to an article I wrote or spend a lot of time on, and began trying to find something wrong with it for "payback". And he's been doing it on and off ever since.

A frequent personal attack Malick78 engages in is to insinuate or directly accuse me of not knowing English or speaking English badly. As it happens, I'm pretty sure that I have been speaking English longer than Malick78 himself and am far better at it. It's just a gratuitous personal attack based on the fact that in our original interaction I - whom he believes to be a non-native speaker - "dared" to criticize his English grammar (which was in fact deserving of criticism).

I would very much support and appreciate an interaction ban for Malick78 here.VolunteerMarek 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As shown below, you seem to have been stalking me in February. As for your English - I commented that "Western Betrayal" sounds bad to a native ear, and you disagreed - so it seemed pertinent to comment that perhaps you weren't a native. You go by a Polish name and it didn't seem a great leap in logic.Malick78 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Invoking EEML, which was last enforced in 2010, adds nothing of substance to your case and really makes it seem as though you are adopting a "me vs. those people" WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Drop it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone comes here and says they have had little contact with a page, it sounds like they are claiming neutrality. Yet this person acted in concert, against the rules, with one of the main actors in this issue. There's surely some worth in pointing that out to independent editors who may have to make a decision on this matter? Isn't there?

Oh, and I just noticed these two things: here, on 12 February 2012, VM reverts me on a page he has never edited before, a mere 17 minutes after I had edited it. And here he does even better, on 9 February, he tells me off just 2 minutes after I left a comment - on another page he'd never edited on. On both occasions, he'd never ever edited there before. Hope you got that. So, the only conclusion I can make, is that he was following my edits... (and in one case even reverted me). Make of that what you will. But please remember it when he claims that I follow him around... Malick78 (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

VM and Piotrus are both Polish editors and have similar interests and views. You don't need to squawk about ancient conspiracies when it's more reasonable to assume that they probably keep tabs on each other's contributions here. You're just mudslinging with EEML.

VM can get very testy at times, I will admit. The first diff you provided was a good example of that. On the other hand, your comment that provoked VM's response in the second link was pretty inane, IMO, and deserved the verbal slap-upside-the-head it received. Just because a name has a foreign-looking spelling doesn't mean it's automatically unusable, especially with a Polish name, where any anglicisation is likely based on German and would as such cause a POV ruckus. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not mudslinging with the EEML. It's a justified concern. As for your second point: whether my comment was inane or not, to follow me to page he'd never taken an interest in before and then be so rude... shows a lot of bad faith. And stalking.Malick78 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't "provoke" his response. He went fishing for something to complain about. It's really quite obvious.Malick78 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A case which has lain dormant for so long is not a "justified concern". It's a scary-looking 4-letter acronym that people like to screech about in order to defame editors long after the fact. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at User_talk:Malick78#Incivility_warning? I don't think that comments like "Only their obsessession with their agenda and the eventual disinterest they create in honest Wikipedians encourages their desperate existence." or "Interacting with them can be soul destroying..." are indicative of AGF and such, yet based on those comments I doubt my further involvement on Malick's talk page is going to be constructive. PS. For the record, I have asked Malick to pay attention to civility issues before (User_talk:Malick78#Please_refrain_from_personal_attacks_2). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Piotrus, that first quote was added by user 72.145.253.232, not me. The second, "Interacting with them can be soul destroying...", is mine, but is mild for a perceived attack. Isn't it just a description of how I feel? Malick78 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Since you asked for clarification of my comment on my talk page: yes, I realize that one of the two quotes is not by you. I cited it here as an example of how this thread on your talk page has degenerated. and yes, I consider it worrisome that instead of removing / moderating / warning the anon, you seem to be mutually supporting one another in the combative attitude, particularly after I asked you to be more civil and collegial. Still, I recognize that it seems fruitless for me to interject on your talk page anymore, and thus I am asking neutral admins found here to review this discussion and draw their own conclusions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to any policy or guideline concerning deletions or reverts of posts made, not to articles, but to talk pages? I have a difficult time finding my way through Wikipedia's thicket of policies and guidelines. In the absence of knowing what may be prescribed or proscribed, I can only apply what seems to be common sense to me:

• On a user's talk page:
  • no one except that user may delete or alter any post on that user's talk page, for any reason whatever, including incontrovertibly outright vandalism, solely as defined there, other than:
    • editing or deleting a post made by yourself, only (in which case it should be made clear what was done, and why); or
    • performing a simple formatting operation for clarity, by indenting or outdenting, or very occasionally rearranging the sequence of posts as needed, when a post may have been improperly placed in the middle of another post; and being absolutely certain that no change in either text or meaning has occurred; but
    • a post may be commented on, for instance to state that the poster is known to be a banned sock, etc.
  • Any other action taken by a third party should be considered vandalism.

• On an article's talk page:
  • no non-neutral participant may delete or alter any other user's post, except where the post is incontrovertibly outright vandalism, solely as defined there, and excluding posts perceived to be "harassment" or a "personal attack" - no one other than an agreed-upon neutral observer may delete, revert, edit, strikeout or collapse such a post; but excepting only
    • performing a simple formatting operation for clarity, by indenting or outdenting, or very occasionally rearranging the sequence of posts as needed, when a post may have been improperly placed in the middle of another post; and being absolutely certain that no change in either text or meaning has occurred; but
    • a post may be commented on, for instance to state that the poster is known to be a banned sock, etc.
  • Any other action taken by a non-neutral participant should be considered vandalism.

Milkunderwood (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:EagleEye edit warring and WP:IDHT

Unresolved

User blocked for 24 hours by TParis Saedon (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

EagleEye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been attempting to add content sourced to a blogspot blog to the article mundane astrology. I have spent way, way too much time trying to explain to this person that blogs are not considered an RS except in very certain circumstances but the user refuses to acknowledge the policy. I created a report at WP:3RRN but it's gone unanswered and and this point the user is on his 6th revert after AndytheGrump reverted his addition as well and reexplained the policy that I have explained. Going over his talk page, you can see the WP:IDHT attitude as well as some strange interpretations of policy (e.g. I can't revert him since I haven't added sourced content to the page...what?)

Full disclosure: I accidentally violated 3RR as well, and mentioned it in my report, but when I noticed I stopped reverting and will not do so again. This user doesn't appear to believe that the rules apply to him and appears to be an astrology POV pusher, so can someone please block him for the 3RR and once again explain that blogs are not RS? Thanks. Will notify user in a moment. Saedon (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to give an idea of what this user is trying to add: "Mundane Astrology in the early 21st century saw the successful prediction by the American mundane astrologer Theodore White of Japan's Fukushima Earthquake which occurred March 11, 2011. Amazingly enough, and to the astonishment of worldwide seismotologists, Theodore White also accurately predicted the exact magnitude of Japan's historic earthquake before it happened." Of course I'm the POV pusher :). Saedon (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good block, TParis beat me too it. EagleEye would do well to use this time to review various content policies. It is not POV to use words like pseudoscience or fringe - neutrality does not mean giving undue weight to scientifically incorrect or minority positions. WilliamH (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the ongoing case of WP:IDHT that is evident on User talk:EagleEye, even after the block, I suspect we will be getting more problems when the block is lifted - perhaps a previously-uninvolved admin could try to get the point across, and save us future hassle? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just tried it. WilliamH (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, well I think I've exhausted my efforts. Doesn't look like they are any nearer to understanding it, and I simply think they're going to walk right back into it when the block expires. WilliamH (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks to be the case so why not indef until they can demonstrate they understand policy and that they will follow it? They're making it quite clear they intend to continue the same so it's the very definition of a preventative block. SÆdon^talk 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia policy well and will adhere to it. But I will not participate with POV bad editors. They are very bad for Wikipedia. I am learning more about the process but am not happy with the particular POV editors who break Wikipedia guidelines and policies while threatening an editor with an "indefinite block" but have not shown any civility, or teamwork with another Wikipedia editor unless they are part of their gang. There should be no gangs on Wikipedia. I donate money to Wikipedia as well, but this experience today has made me doubt whether to give any more money to Wikipedia and I have plenty to give. I would prefer help from a qualified Wikipedia editor who is honest, not-POV and is a good and balanced editor; however, at this time I am rethinking if to support Wikipedia at all considering the lack of help from the POV editors who participate in no discussion on the Talk page, but name-call, personally attack and insults with violations of Wikipedia policies I have endured today. It has left a sour taste in my mouth so I will just gather up all the violations of Wikipedia policies by means of the users and their comments in the meantime. But thank you for letting me know. Eagle Eye 06:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cute. So, User:Saedon posts here saying he won't argue with Eagle Eye anymore, but "signs" as "Eagle Eye", then tried to hide it by removing the signature added by SineBot. I think it's time for indeffing both accounts until Eagle Eye / Saedon gets their story straight. Sounds like we may have a Good Hand / Bad Hand issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, he's reposting a post that EagleEye made on his talkpage [55]. The thing that Saedon did do wrong was to tell EagleEye that his block is going to be expanded to indefinite. This post is in response to that. I think Saedon should stay off his talkpage, but unless EagleEye is prepared to listen to what he doesn't want to hear, we'll be back here when the block has expired. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Not a clear way to quote someone then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is patently clear that this individual a) has no understanding or acceptance of why they are blocked and that b) s/he will continue the behaviour after the block expires. I strongly recommend an indefinite block. WilliamH (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both a and b, but I'd suggest allowing them a bit more rope - it'll be easy enough to act after the 24h expires, if necessary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I didn't tell him his block would be extended, I told him that I was going to request that it be extended here and offered to move any response he had. I'm very experienced in the fringe topic area and have dealt with dozens of problem users in depth, so I'm not sure why you think I should stay off his talk page. I'm, of course, always willing to listen to user input so if you think I have been out of line I would appreciate it if you'd let me know how. @Hand: I'm not a new user and would certainly never do something as audacious as try to post as someone else. I suppose I could have mentioned that I was quoting him but considering the easy to find paper trail on his talk page (and our copyright policy) I figured this would be the cleanest way to do so. Back to the topic at hand: if you really don't think a block extension is necessary then I'm fine with that. I don't have the same optimism that this user will turn around, though it's possible that when the 24h is up and they've calmed down they'll get the point, but judging from my experience I see all the normal red flags. Since no one is willing to extend the block, would anyone be willing to take over the duties of trying to explain things? They still don't seem to think that using blogs is problematic. SÆdon^talk 19:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologise for a misread on that one - you said you had asked, not that it would happen. My bad. I think you should stay off his talkpage only to avoid getting into a fight with the guy. It's not worth it. Others will deal with him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll also apologize for the misunderstanding of your edit, Saedon. In my defense, there was nothing to indicate it was a quote, and this wouldn't be the first time someone tried a trick like that. Usually just tossing it in a blockquote tag, or even just quotemarks, is enough to let us know you're quoting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think usual practice, or at least the clearest in my experience, is just to precede the copied text with something like (copied from User talk:Example by User:NULL) at the beginning. On the block itself, I think this user is going to be back here within a week of his unblock so there's no harm in giving him rope. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries on either count, Hand and Elen. I used to put a note when I moved text but IIRC during the long DreamFocus discussion during his last block all of his text was moved from his talk page directly and I liked how clean it looked. But anyway, I'm happy to do what ever the community wants. Hand, William or Elen, would either of you mind throwing {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=ps}} on EagleEye's page and logging at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log_of_notifications? Probably the easiest way to go about this. SÆdon^talk 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I struck Hand that Feeds from the above request, I've always thought s/he was an admin but I was wrong SÆdon^talk 22:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

indefinite protection of userpage over userbox

Hi, I don't know where else to take this so I assumed here would be the best place to allow the community to discuss the matter.

Admin Salvio giuliano recently decided to indefinitely protect my userpage due to a userbox he didn't like. I, and several other users, have attempted to explain that

• A. The userbox was a joke, and is protected by WP:Userbox
• B. It could be a legitimate belief and thus the trolling accusation could fall under WP:NPA

without any response back.

I'm not trying to point fingers, I just feel as though the protection was ridiculous and wanted to know how the community felt about the matter. I will gladly remove the userbox if there is an issue with it, I just want to be able to edit my own userpage again. Thank you :) -badmachine 03:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. I see on Salvio giuliano's that he's open not only to trout slapping, but to recall. He's eligible for being whacked by the biggest goddamn rainbow trout that can be pulled out of the drink for this one, if not some serious review of his admin record and what other user pages he's felt free to censor and lock. I'd be very interested to hear what possible justification he has to proffer for this. Ravenswing 04:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Salvio is a good egg. Never would Salvio try to do anything out of order to anyone. I am an interested editor because Salvio protected my page for me after some horrid attacks were made against me there. Please try and work out the issue with Salvio, and remember Salvio may not always be immediately available to reply ... but I do not dare to presume to speak for Salvio.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Yes, well, whether you are a fan or not of Salvio's does not excuse his actions. I would be livid to the point of obscenity were any admin, whatever his putative good-guyness, to unilaterally censor out a viewpoint for which he didn't care from my user page, and then to protect that page to prevent me from any further edits to it. Short of a "I Heart Child Molesters" userbox, I can't possibly imagine a justification for it. Ravenswing 06:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, could we take it down a few pegs? There's nothing he's done that's irreversible, nor are you capable of reading his mind and telling us what he was thinking. Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're requesting community input on whether to keep the giant GNAA banner on your page after the page protection is lifted, my input would be "please don't." I've never understood the appeal of an organization that tosses around a racial slur for the lulz. If Salvio made a habit of going around removing Satanism userboxes from people's user pages, I would be concerned, but here he appeared to remove a number of things (including the Satanism box, the GNAA banner, and a 666-pixel wide image of somebody's cock) from your userpage with the not-that-implausible edit summary of "rm. trolling". Regardless, my recommendation to Salvio would be to unprotect the page, and my recommendation to you would be to not put things on there that a reasonable person could mistake for trolling. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the humor behind GNAA nonsense either...but oh well. The image is blocked by the bad image filter so wouldn't show up for anyone (...unless admins see through filters.) I see absolutely nothing wrong with the userbox, joke or not. I see no attempt at discussion before action was taken...only a message with a heading of 'Satanism' saying that userspace was being misused. Remove and discuss? Prefer discuss first, but oh well. Remove, protect, notify and then stop discussing? Not the way it should be done. --Onorem♠Dil 05:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK...so there was some discussion first that I'd missed. I still don't agree that adding a image that nobody sees, a GNAA image and a satanism userbox are grounds for removal and protection. It may not be useful stuff, but I don't see how it's disruptive. --Onorem♠Dil 05:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio issued this warning[56] to Badmachine on the 19th. Shorty after, Badmachine was blocked for one week by User:Guerillero for "trolling and baiting". Reading machine's talk page, it seems his user page has stirred up a variety of trouble. I am also curious to hear Salvio's explanation, because it's probably a pretty good one.--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 06:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have protected the page myself, but is it a good idea to use a religious figure as a joke? We do have Wikipedians that identify as Satanists , and people would be up in arms if someone made joke Mohammed userboxes. AniMate 06:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with AniMate here. While we allow jokes within reason on userpages, they shouldn't cause needless offence. Adding a religion as a joke could easily cause needless offence to adherents of that religion as religion is often a sensitive matter. (N.B. I'm not commenting on Salvio giuliano's actions.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an in-joke over on Encyclopedia Dramatica, as I said, if you feel it is inappropriate, then it shall not be readded :) -badmachine 07:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'll comment here and not on my talk page, since this charlie foxtrot moved a bit too quickly for me to reply swiftly. Wikipedia is lousy when it comes to dealing with low-level trolling and this is one such case. Badmachine was already warned that sexual images are not appropriate on userpages and yet he reinserted one not too long ago, he then added a very large image of the GNAA logo whose caption was "gaynigs4life" and, finally, he placed on his userpage a custom-made userbox according to which he hails Satan everyday. I consider all this trolling – the idea that I did this out of religious discrimination is ludicrous and reflects more on those making that silly accusation than on me, in my opinion – and, since this is most definitely not the first time badmachine does something of the kind, I took action, also protecting his userpage to prevent him from misusing any further – as a side note, when badmachine was brought to ANI the first time for having various images of a penis on his userpage, I warned him that I would protect his userpage if he tried something like that again; he did, but the image was added to the blacklist, so protection was not needed then. Now it was and I'm not going to lift it. Badmachine has been using his userpage to troll and since talking to him did not achieve anything, a different approach had to be taken. "Stop or I'll say stop again" is not the best way to proceed if one wants to be taken seriously... I'll leave it for the community to decide whether I acted inappropriately or not and, if there is consensus that protection was wrong, then I'll accept that. That said, if anyone wants to start a petition for my recall, feel free to do so. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive#06_February_2012. At the time it was thought that badmachine was a sock of (or even the sockmaster for) a number of My Little Pony/GNAA trolling socks. User:Alison vouched for badmachine being a real person (which of course does not stop them being disruptive unfortunately), and at the time, well prior to this, I warned the user not to replace the offensive items on their userpage, and they said they would not do so. Normally if it is necessary to lock the userpage, it is a given that it is also necessary to block the user for the same duration, so Salvio has actually been kind here. I'm not sure I'm seeing useful edits from badmachine. Persuade me I'm wrong, but if a user's main purpose is to see how many disruptive things they can add to their userpage, they aren't that great an asset. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Observation From an outsider's point of view, it looks like Salvio used a hammer in a situation where a hammer was called for. This isn't religious discrimination or censorship, it's effective and justified troll-busting, with the troll crying "foul!". Dennis Brown (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Outside comment So a troll (and an obvious one at that) gets called out for being one, and the ADMIN is the party who's causing trouble? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Stipulating that Badmachine is being a troll here - and while questions of being able to read minds were floated at me, I could likewise ask it of others here - what's the issue? You cannot charge him with posting offensive material; if exhortations to Satanism (for instance) are prima facie offensive on Badmachine's page, they must be offensive everywhere else on Wikipedia too, and I doubt anyone's going through the roster of Wikipedian Satanists to grill them on their bonafides. The worst anyone can claim is that he's trying to get the goat of people staring at his talk page ... in which case, what's compelling any of you to give him an audience? "OK, could we take it down a few pegs? ... Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here." Useful advice; possibly some folks here could benefit by it. Ravenswing 15:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the key thing here is that Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopaedia. While editors have kindly been given userspace by the project in which to express a little more of themselves, this isn't Myspace, Facebook or Deviant Art. There's no reason at all to provide space for user generated content that isn't somehow helping to build the encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have more vanity content than I do/did -badmachine 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I have stuff I do on the project. You have willies and GNAA banners. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't what you say, it's how you say it that differentiates "having an opinion" and "being a troll". I would have jumped on Silvio if I had even a tiny suspicion that he was censoring someone's beliefs, this simply isn't the case here. Using your user pages to intentionally cause controversy is rather pointy and isn't an acceptable use. Viewing the previous discussions (Elen links above) further demonstrates his efforts to make a point here. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Having said my little part about Salvio: I'll address something Blade said: 'OK, could we take it down a few pegs? There's nothing he's done that's irreversible, nor are you capable of reading his mind and telling us what he was thinking. Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here.' I agree. (Hopefully, Blade, that wasn't directed at me.) Another editor said we cannot read each others' minds and that is also a good point. But what is important is that if you request or welcome community input, unless it's pretty egregious, don't throw our posts back in our teeth. Reactions are part of the process. OK? —Djathinkimacowboy 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Everything is "reverse-able", so that point is moot. If someone blanks 50 pages in one minute, that can be reversed, too. Being reversible isn't the litmus test for taking action, determining the editor's likelihood of continued disruption is. When an editor lacks the ability to say "Yeah, I now understand what I did wrong", then the likelihood is quite high. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My issue is, what did I do wrong? -badmachine 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You do things deliberately because other people find them offensive, and then pretend you don't know what happened. Drop the bullshit. → ROUX ₪ 21:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong in removing [[:File:Human penis and scrotum.JPG|thumb|center|666px]] with an edit summary "rm. trolling". Bulwersator (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General comments and requests

Over the past number of weeks, there has been an increase in the amount of GNAA-related trolling and disruption. It is unclear whether and to what extent the trolling is being perpetrated by the "real" GNAA, or by imposters claiming to be affiliated with the GNAA, nor does it matter very much. What matters is that the diversion of community time and creation of rancor created by disputes like this one is precisely what the people engaging in the intentionally provocative behavior are seeking to create. The corollaries are that:

• good-faith users are asked in the strongest terms to refrain from emulating or enabling the disruptive behavior—and putting a GNAA-related userbox on one's page is about as blatant an example of this as can be imagined; and
• administrators and other editors acting in good faith to respond to such disruption, actual or perceived, are working in the best interests of the project and are entitled to a reasonable degree of discretion, the assumption of good faith, and the avoidance of name-calling as they do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as ANI essentially does nothing to stop trolling - even to the point of treating any word that is 'troll'-related as a 'dirty' word - I can't see what your point is. Either you quash the trolls' activities and pay attention when trolling is reported, or else go read WP:RATSASS when you see trolling: isn't that the usual advice?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad is correct. This case looks exactly like a user experimenting to determine what is the most outrageous thing they can keep on their user page—who cares whether that is trolling or good faith editing? What matters is that it stop now. Also, remove the GNAA logo from the top of User talk:Badmachine. Who cares whether the user just likes the attractive lettering, or whether they are promoting an organization whose sole reason for existence is trolling? An open website dedicated to building an encyclopedia is a sitting duck for trolls who are rewarded when editors tie themselves in knots debating whether GNAA might be useful for building the encyclopedia. Per WP:DENY, just remove the trolling, with escalating responses if repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Bruno Bouchet

Hi, it appears that Bruno Bouchet has been editing his own article. User:Brewhahaha uploaded a photo of himself at File:BrunoBouchet.JPG, also appears to be shamelessly self-promoting himself and 2DayFM's Kyle and Jackie O Show. Thoughts on the issue? - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How can he have taken the photo himself and thus own the copyright? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If he paid someone to take promotional shots of himself, they are his to do with as he likes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose he could have used a timer lol! More likely, its the common mistake that people think that snaps taken of them belong to them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it seems unlikely he'd be attending an awards event with a tripod and using a timer, so I've PUFed it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The photographer may have assigned the rights to him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't fit with "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is what it says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a photo of myself, taken by myself, in one of those photo-booth machines. Y'know, the ones where you can get driving licence and passport photos? Pesky (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have to have been a bloody big machine in this case :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! The mind boggles ... having said that, I could also quite easily Photoshop my pic to have a background of almost anywhere that I can snaffle a pic of ... ;P Pesky (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there's a thought. Maybe in the original he was standing outside the toilet holding a plunger.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• At the risk of igniting a wholly different debate... this wort of lawyering over images is really aggravating to me. I mean, you're assuming that someone else took the picture and didn't give him the right to reuse it (if he has a digital copy, I feel fairly confident that the "original" was given to him). Of course, that's open to challenge (and that's partially what OTRS is for), but this sort of... assumption of bad faith (to use Wikipedia parlance) bothers me. That and the hoops that everyone has to jump though to post any images on Wikipedia any longer.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  No, it's clearly labeled "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is quite plainly incompatible with someone else having taken it and having given him the rights to it. And I'm simply saying that the copyright information is inadequate, which may well be an entirely innocent mistake through not understanding copyright - nowhere have I suggested anyone is deliberately doing anything wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  This is obviously not the best venue for an in depth discussion about this, but... my point is basically that we're guided (especially by that convoluted "wizard") to use the template that says "I <whoever> created this work entirely by myself", so to then accuse people of being deceitful after they do use it isn't very cool. Not that you're screaming at him that he's a liar or anything, but consider the situation from his perspective is my only point.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone say he was being deceitful? He could have made a mistake with the template quite easily. But it's pretty certain it's wrong, and only he knows what the answer is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Xanderliptak is Back

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

---

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs)

That editor has returned. For those who don't know, the editor uploaded a number of his personally-drawn images to commons, with the usual free license, and then yelped when they were edited to remove his personal watermark (thus depriving him of his ability to use them to advertise his website). He fought this war for over a year. Then about a year ago, he issued a threatening letter to the folks who operate commons, making the claim that the images were copyright violations (if so, he himself was the violator), and he got his way - they deleted the images. He was also indef'd bother there and here. One would have thought that was the end of that sordid affair. But now he's back. Any admin's suggestions would be welcome. Once I notify the editor, I'm not going to say anything more unless asked to or compelled to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd better say that give a final warning to the user about his actions. If he still claims those as copyright violations; I'd better suggest deleting each and every file he uploads. And if this is serious, just put a indef block with autoblock enabled; email disabled; cannot edit own talk page. He's already blocked by Timothy. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 09:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the appeal as the user has been socking regularly (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xanderliptak/Archive. The community may wish to make him a WP:STANDARD OFFER should he appeal again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone was giving this any consideration, I strongly suggest reading this and this (as well as the talk page of the RfC/U) before even thinking about granting an unblock. One of the most pertinent issues is the infrequent intersection of Xanderliptak's versions of events and what actually happened. In my opinion, this is once again very much in evidence in his unblock request, and anybody looking at this issue should take a look at what has actually happened in the past. → ROUX ₪ 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about me - I'm certainly not thinking about unblocking him. Perhaps in some alternate universe where it's perfectly ok for blocked users to just start another account.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just making sure everyone has the relevant info. There's a lot to dig down into, which is why I linked to the RfC/U, as it summarizes the actual problems, and while Xanderliptak's account of past events is certainly interesting, it is not accurate in any sense of the word. → ROUX ₪ 21:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Around the time he was sent packing at Commons (and here), he made an outrageous legal threat,[57] in a successful attempt at getting his own uploads deleted after more than a year of constant disruption. He was blocked 14 months ago, not "2 years" ago as his current unblock request states (and which also omits any reference to his successful legal threat against wikimedia). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One of Tak's more bizarre claims is that because he's not banned, then he's free to make other accounts. (Yes, he's been told otherwise, but he still makes the same claim - as per his usual M.O. of spinning things the way he wants them to be.) So, the question arises, is it time to discuss a ban of Tak and all his socks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) has since indef blocked the user [58]. I think this is fair enough; there doesn't seem to be much potential gain from letting the user play out an encore of his past. As regards Elen's suggestion of a WP:SO I think it may be somewhat unwise given his disruption at Commons — just deflecting him to another project to cause the same trouble with his uploads is pointless, especially given the lack of productivity. --Tristessa (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He was indeffed on 7 November 2010 - but has since returned to his talk page, and has used other accounts in the meantime apparently. GiantSnowman 16:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. That'll teach me to look at timestamps! Would you be kind enough to list the suspected alternate account(s) you know of? --Tristessa (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us! There's a full list of socks here. GiantSnowman 16:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Alright then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) has already talk blocked the master account today (16:59, 27 March 2012) and the other accounts at the SPI all seem to be blocked. What, therefore, is left to do here? Is he using any other sockpuppets at the moment that aren't listed on SPI? --Tristessa (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tristessa and Giant Snowman, I hate to say this, but you are exemplifying the usual Wikipedia attitude of dive in first and ask questions later. Please familiarize yourself with this and this (as well as the talk page of the RfC/U) before continuing to comment. As things stand, Boing!Said Zebedee has revoked talkpage access, as Xanderliptak was repeatedly altering comments made by other people and would not stop. → ROUX ₪ 19:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

They already figured it out 2 hours before you posted. ಠ_ಠ — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Are censorship of others' statements in own talk page apporipate?

The talk page of User:AlienX2009 (talk) contains the following sentence:

...please do not use inappropriate swear words on this talk page please or they will be censored.

Is this apporipate? Because I heard that talk-page censorship is frowned upon here. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 11:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's their own talkpage, and it doesn't change the meaning of the text overall, they can basically do what they want (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is, but it's scarcely an onerous imposition to not express oneself in obscenities, which after all isn't precisely civil in the first place. Ravenswing 14:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't allow swear words on my talkpage. I always replace a letter in such words with a hyphen. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Per User pages "Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed", which includes the user the user talk page is about removing such material. It is hard to imagine unwelcome swearing on a user talk page being seen as justifiable for furthering the goals of the project. --Fæ (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

He's quite entitled to ask people not to cuss on his talkpage - and particularly not to cuss him out on his talkpage, I would have thought. And he's quite entitled to remove any content he wants, including cussing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Usual confusion. Wikipedia:CENSORED does not apply to user pages only to articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have the same disclaimer on the top of my page. It's simple courtesy; you can express your opinion without having to resort to F-bombs, and I star out the words. I don't want to have to read them every time I get a new message alert. Nate • (chatter) 21:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a userbox detailing what issues I will revert out of hand if brought up on my talk page, and all of them are either linked to PC/FR or topic areas I actively avoid. I have had no complaints yet. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, running around to other peoples talk pages and "cleaning up" what you consider to be swear words is not appropriate. No one has mentioned that here obviously, but it seems to me to be an appropriate item to at least touch on. That and fortifying the concept that rules for article space do not necessarily extend into user space (or Wikipedia/project space, or the Help space...), although many of them do.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Running about to mess with the talk pages of others is an absolute "no-no" and is not to the purpose. To the purpose here is the consideration that many editors are verbally castigated for removing certain things from their talk pages. Admins especially like to do this kind of reproving, yet I see it is up to the user to do as the user pleases with his own talk page. I think what admins need to do is stop sending the community mixed messages about what can be done on one's own talk page. I recall a dozen times I have posted, asking an admin permission to remove something. No one should have to do that. Nor should my talk page be concerned with pleasing all the nitpickers who want critical posts to remain alongside positive posts (I have heard that complaint from admins too).—Djathinkimacowboy 18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious IP editor 194.60.38.198

IP editor 194.60.38.198 is identified by Wikipedia as registered to the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament. It has had a long history of making edits that are almost exclusively to biographies of British politicians, often removing negative statements that seem adequately sourced. Take a look at the IP's archives. Look at these four 1 2 3 4 trying to remove negative information about Chris Kelly (British politician), no edit summaries, I warned each time but no discussion, just simple reverts. Also see here. Some edits seem constructive like this one but no sources. I get the feeling that this IP is attached to a public computer at Parliament, maybe in the library or something, and random staffers use it to edit Wikipedia. I suggest blocking the IP and requiring the users to log in, at least then we'd be able to see how many different people are editing, let the good individual editors edit, and stop those editors that can't work within Wikipedia guidelines. Zad68 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is the right venue: I'd suggest AIV if another one of those edits are made. I've just reverted the IP on Judith Jolly, Baroness Jolly (what a name) where they introduced non-neutral biographical content copied from this PDF. You'd given them a final warning; next stop AIV, methinks. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No problems about blocking if it does persist. It's not like it's David Cameron on the other end...narrows eyes...or is it... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just remember: as soon as it is blocked, you MUST leave a notice for the WMF Communications Committee. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, let that "you" be you, then? Thanks for the reminder. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:WOLfan112

WOLfan112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this user after noticing a valid article nominated for deletion, and found many more like it, including this, this, this, and this. He also incorrectly added CSD tags to articles such as here. I warned the user about these AfDs/taggings here, and he subsequently reported a good-faith contributor at AIV here. Fine, everyone's new at some point.

However, WOLfan112 then proceeded to misuse Twinkle for dozens of rollback edits, and requested the rollback right nine times (by his count) in a span of two weeks: March 13, March 20, March 21, March 25. Today, I received this warning to assume good faith regarding my initial warning from two weeks ago. His talk page is littered with warnings, and his unintelligible replies are evident throughout, including #Here tell me exactly what I need to do to get rollback and #Years of experience. I am requesting an indefinite block on this user who apparently cannot understand what several users are telling him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

please....don't! I am very sorry and will stop now. 1 more Chance, please. 1 more chance. I want a last chance and a fresh start. --UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Last chance saloon - here are the rules

• You don't use Twinkle
• You don't ask for rollback
• You don't nominate articles for deletion
• You find yourself a WP:MENTOR
• You do something useful on the project
• You don't argue with anyone enforcing these rules

Keep that up for three months and you can leave the saloon as a normal editor. What do you say? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment The above is entirely reasonable, but I would not be optimistic. Clearly the user needs mentoring, and has added the mentor wanted userbox to their userpage, but I doubt that the user is capable of accepting it. I left a couple of comments on his talkpage, and although one did get a reply it was not what I could call an engagement in dialogue. Generally their behaviour is disturbing and peculiar.TheLongTone (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well, it's probably not a good sign that they have not responded here. Unfortunately, ignoring it will mostly get them blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The user seems to know a lot more about how this place works than he initially lets on, so I suspect sock puppetry of some sort. WP:IDHT behaviour indicates griefing intentions rather than naivity, the intention being to mock the supposedly weak response to antagonistic editing / sock puppetry, this is especially apparent if you read the user's comments at village pump. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Has it crossed your mind he genuinely isn't aware he's doing it wrong? I rarely edit (just typos from IP, normally), but I do read these pages when bored at work, and I've seen others do worse, openly admitted they were antagonising, and got away with it. But they had admin mates. The tone of WOL's critics comes across a bit bullying, IMHO. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He's been warned he's doing it wrong for weeks. Weeks. And yet, Elen of the Roads proposed a modest set of restrictions that sound reasonable. If this is bullying, I'd hate to see what you think actual abusive behavior looks like. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest this editor to look at WP:TPNO for guidelines on how to collaborate with other editors. For example, don't use exclamation points or other excessive emphasis, because it implies you're shouting or don't make legal threats (even using words like 'defamation' or 'libel') makes it seem like you're going to sue someone. From this editor's talk page, they want to be an administrator, if that's their eventual goal, they should read the advice for RfA candidates and learn from that. For example, "Maturity: There are no age restrictions for being an admin. The criteria are based on the users' common sense, good judgment, and good prose. 'Cool-talk' and 'teen-talk' may win fan club !votes, but may not go down so well with older editors.[4] Wikipedia has several very young successful admins; it also has a lot of older people who behave like children." I suggest this user keep that in mind when posting like "R" and "U" and "1". In addition, this user has requested the desire to have a fresh start, I don't think that will do any good for the community if this user's attitude stays the same. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 fraud: User is being unreasonable?

I made a section in the talk page, asking why fraud is not mentioned in the article, and i gave video proof and articles with evidence of fraud. So the user Jack Bornholm added an image which accused me of being a troll and basically said "dont feed the troll", which i thought was unreasonable and borderline personal attack.

So i reverted him here and said in the edit summary: "reverted addition of image claiming i am a troll for bring up fraud not being mentioned in article, which is a fact and which i provided video evidence for". Then he added the image back and said "Dont censor the talkpage".

Anyone else of the opinion that this is unreasonable. My request is that he remove the image accusing me of being a troll for bringing up fraud--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Responses

You are using the talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX about something you admittedly don't understand, using inflammatory language and without good sources. This continued after it being pointed out to you. Simple solution, don't use the page as a soapbox. Ravensfire (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, that source may not be suitable for WP because it allows user content, but there are many other sources which mention fraud, yet fraud & vote rigging is not mentioned even once in the article: Business inside, simple news, msnbc, local newspaper, professional blogs abc news,

Given your postings at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Fraud: America is becoming more and more like North Korea?, I suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:BOOMERANG. And then find something more useful to do with your time, and ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

yes, i know WP is not a forum. so your saying that talking about fraud and why its not mentioned in article even though its covered by the media, then that violates WP:NOTFORUM??--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As I also qouted from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 was starting to become a forum for for general discussion of the article's subject. Disrupting the more calm discussions on article improvements. Anyone reading the discussion can see that I myself also was starting to trolling. So I dont simply accuse Miscon for being a troll, we can all become trolls from time to time. The image is there to remember not to feed them (others trolls and our own). The discussion is not productive. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I can see everyone's points here. Absolutely, WP is not a soapbox / forum, and absolutely, article talk pages aren't for in-depth discussions about the subject of the article.

However, I think it's OTT to call the other editor a troll, and if there are reliable sources (as there seem to be) on the fraud subject, then refusing to mention it isn't NPOV. I think Misconceptions2 has a valid reason for being upset, and doesn't deserve a bad-faith accusation (even if the trolling image was to "remind everyone", Misconceptions2 clearly feels it was directed primarily at them). Simple aoplogies and agreeing that people misunderstood each other go a long way. And making sure that anything mentioned in RS has due weight and is not omitted from the article is necessary. Pesky (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs) for breaching the restriction on disruptive conduct they agreed to in order to be unblocked. I don't endorse calling editors a 'troll' however, and that did nothing to cool down the situation or discourage Misconceptions2's POV-pushing at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Fraud: America is becoming more and more like North Korea? Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand others have a point but my opinion is that accusing somone of being a troll for bringing up a legitimate subject is the definition of trolling. Misconceptions2 has done nothing wrong here, I would remove that "troll" image. Barry ^{(Why don't we talk?)} 14:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Slow edit war continues

Resolved

This user continues to slow edit war on this page despite receiving a previous block [[59]]. Please see block log [[60]]. Gravyring (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

where has he reverted 3 times in 24 hours?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

One doesn't have to break 3RR to be edit warring. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That topic is under WP:TROUBLES sanctions (not Carlingford Lough but what to call where it is, since it's on a border. Everyone is on a 1RR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest a new rule: in exchange for not being blocked on sight, single-issue POV-warriors in AE-related subjects are not allowed to report other users to noticeboards. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The links for this problem are at:

• Carlingford Lough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bjmullan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Carlingford Lough is on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. An discussion is taking place at Talk:Carlingford Lough#RfC: Carlingford Lough Location. The dispute is over how to describe the border between the two political units.

There is a WP:TROUBLES template on the article's talk page. Bjmullan doesn't seem to have broken the 1RR, though he has continued to revert over a period of days. Counting the edits of all the participants, there seem to be 21 or more reverts since March 1. It doesn't look good to have a lot of reverting during an active RfC. Maybe these guys could ask for an admin to close the RfC, which has been open since March 6. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really know anything about this, or the WP:TROUBLES area in general. However, it always makes me uncomfortable seeing reports like this. It takes two to edit war (well, more than a single person at least), and content issues shouldn't be decided through blocks. I'm sure those of you with tools and an interest in the area can work this out, but I hope that there's more than "block first, and deal with the situation later" solutions going on.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Could I direct editors to this talk page discussion. BJ reverted this sock abusing IP, who has form on this article. Reverting the edits by IP's are covered on Troubles articles as non sactionable, for exactly this reason. We also have two SPA accounts on both the article and talk page which needs to be looked at. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe Domer48 is in breach of his probation. Here [61] which I believe falls under The Troubles sanctions. Under probation, Domer is only allowed to make 1 edit per page per week but under WP:Adam_Carroll, he has made 4 edits in 2 weeks regarding the persons nationality. This is surely in breach of their probation outlined here [62]. An admin should look at this.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is  Confirmed to be Factocop (talk · contribs) again. Blocking - Alison ^❤ 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What/who is confirmed as Factocop? The Cavalry (Message me) 11:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP sock. Bjmullan (or indeed anyone) gets a free pass on reverting Factocop socks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks for clearing that up! The Cavalry (Message me) 11:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Totalbirds4321 is a newest sockpuppet of the blocked User:Bbtregervdfv who has abused multiple accounts, please ban the IP address

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

---

Here is the edit diff by User:Totalbirds4321: [63]

Here is an edit diff at the same article by the indefinately blocked sockpuppet of User:Bbtregervdfv, User:Gmbfj [64].

Here is an edit diff at the same article by another indefinately blocked sockpuppet of User:Bbtregervdfv, User:Plusspacere [65]

The user is clearly the newest of the sockpuppets of User:Bbtregervdfv who appears to admire Chiang Kai Shek while refusing to recognize that China was internally split since 1927 between Chiang's Nationalist Government of the Republic and Mao Zedong's Communist-controlled territories of China from 1927 to 1949. The user in each case refused to accept an image showing Chiang, Mao, and the US Ambassador to China meeting in 1945 - the ambassador held meetings with both Chiang and Mao during World War II, as both were the powers that be in China during the war. He/she removes it on false claims of "removing vandalism" or "repairing" the article - an image of Chiang, Mao, and the US ambassador to China standing beside each other is obviously not vandalism and how is removing the image "repairing the article"?

User:Bbtregervdfv is completely disruptive and is repeatedly evading blocks through sockpuppet use. Inedefinately blocking each sockpuppet individually has failed to prevent this user from abusive and disruptive activity because he/she just creates another sockpuppet account and does the same disruptive edits. The user has no intention of upholding Wikipedia's rules, please indefinately block or ban the IP address of User:Bbtregervdfv and this user's various sockpuppets such as User:Totalbirds4321.--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. An IP or range block is not possible. In future please file this sort of thing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, it does exactly what it says on the tin. :) WilliamH (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding by IP 68.113.122.83

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to deal with this issue, since I've never been harassed on here before, but the anonymous IP 68.113.122.83 has been making threats on my talk page in violation of WP:HOUND and then restoring them after I deleted them in violation of WP:DRC. The original issue was that user's repeated vandalism of Logan_Airport despite discussion on the talk page agreeing that their edit was false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeIsKr (talk • contribs) 01:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think you need to re-read the policy on vandalism. It's at WP:VAN. You referred to the IP's edits on your talk page as vandalism here, for instance--but this is not vandalism. I also don't see how the IP's edits constitute hounding--they don't even come close. Moreover, on the Logan talk page you start the talk page discussion, by referring to the IP as a troll. That's really bad manners. You may be interested in The Mote and the Beam. The rest is an editing dispute, and if you (and the IP) would tone down the rhetoric, you might actually be able to solve it. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Erm, Drmies, context. Might have been better if you mentioned what Nathan said to David, though that is probably very much more harsh than is required here.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Did you see that a certain Snoozlepet jumped to BeIsKr's defense, giving the IP a final warning and reporting them at AIV? I'm bothered by the perceived need editors feel to jump to ANI and to call so many IP edits vandalism. I think the mote applies perfectly, and should have a hatnote leading to WP:BOOMERANG--while BeIsKr accuses someone of HOUNDING, they are themselves BITING. "Oh, someone disagreed with me! I'm being oppressed!" Drmies (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Berbah repeatedly inserting non-free screenshots failing WP:NFCC

Berbah (talk · contribs) has a clear disregard for WP:NFCC. In just under a year of activity he's received over 70 warnings for various non-free image related problems, but pretty much ignores them. Recently he's been going around inserting non-free screenshots from music videos into a bunch of song articles. I removed most of them and tagged the images for deletion because they were being used in a strictly decorative manner (no sourced discussion of the images or the imagery of the video in question in most cases). I also gave Berbah a pretty sternly-worded warning, since he's also moved over to Commons and uploaded the non-free screenshots there under false licenses. This hasn't stopped him: He's continued to re-insert the images and remove the deletion tags from the image pages, both through his account and through several IPs, including 112.198.77.71 (talk · contribs), 112.198.90.60 (talk · contribs), and 112.198.77.151 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure what to do, since Berbah obviously doesn't care about our non-free content criteria and hasn't responded to any messages left on his talk page. He seems preoccupied with inserting non-free music video screenshots into many song articles, which doesn't jibe with NFCC at all. What's to be done? --IllaZilla (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked a year ago for the same thing, and he's just done it again. I have blocked indefinitely - if he ever sees the light, editing privileges can be restored. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, this issue isn't so black and white as the above account would suggest. Berbah does indeed seem to have a recent history of adding screen shots of music videos to the music video section of articles about American pop music songs. The original poster, IllaZilla, in turn appears to be rapidly removing images from articles about popular music, often with incorrect assertions of so-called "decorative" use. The purported 70 warnings are mostly automated notifications that came after IllaZilla and other editors nominated or delinked the images. It's not obvious that all or even most of Berbah's image uses are NFCC violations. They certainly aren't decorative, or clear violations. Nor is there a clear contempt for policy - quite the opposite, Berbah has added non-free use rationales in each case. If these rationales are incorrect or unpersuasive that is something to address, but it is not helpful to accuse someone of ignoring a policy they are following. In my spot check of the most recent examples (including the one for which IllaZilla gave Berbah the block warning) they were added in association with commentary about the music videos. The commentary itself sourced in some cases and unsourced in others, which takes us into the realm of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation. In one recent example Berbah and IllaZilla joined several others in edit warring over removing an image from The One That Got Away (song), a Katy Perry song,[66] and over adding an orphan tag to the image in question.[67] that Berbah had originally uploaded in November, 2011. The material depicted in the screen shot (the making of the video, the actors, the scene in question, etc.) are the subject of sourced commentary, and the image has a full non-free use rationale. At the risk of making an argument IllaZilla has not articulated, one could argue for removal on the basis that the image isn't really necessary to understand the subject per WP:NFCC#8, or as a simple matter of article style and editorial discretion. If so, that discussion ought to be had on the article talk page or some other appropriate venue, rather than here, and supported by cogent points on both sides rather than edit warring and administrative reports. The mass edits, edit warring, and possible socking or meatpuppeting are potential problems on both sides, and it would be better if the editors could address the content question head-on instead of getting into these behavioral matters. It appears that the editors of the music article have generally allowed album or single covers in infoboxes for identification purposes, but in most cases have avoided screen shots of the associated videos. If so, perhaps a consensus has emerged that this is the way to do music articles. Perhaps that is codified somewhere, but it is not a foregone conclusion based on NFCC policy or guidelines. One could argue both sides. If there is a site-wide consensus not to include the images and the issue is that the editor is making lots of content edits that violate the consensus, that needs to be carefully established. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - The editor obviously had trouble in the past getting the hang of the image templates, as many new editors do. He was blocked last year after uploading 35 images without proper copyright tags, followed by a matching slew of notices from the image tagging bots. He wasn't clearly defying the notices, though - they came after the uploads. The editor is now complying with the image templates and rationales, that's not what this dispute is about. It's two editors (and others, on each side) disagreeing whether screencaps should be used in article sections about music videos, a content question. The block may have been appropriate to prevent further edit warring and disruption, but the instruction to follow policy indirectly endorses one side over the other. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Berbah has been here for almost a year but this and this are the only 2 times he has said anything to anybody. Well, in any case, you have left what looks like the first non-bot non-robo-nastygram comment on his talk page. Let's see how he responds. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm more concerned about the copyright items uploaded under no license/wrong license/as free when they are copyright etc. I know the upload process is less than simple, but he's had a year to learn how to use it, and he's still not got it, and he's making a lot of work for people. If someone with patience and a cluebat can get him on track, any admin is welcome to unblock him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to Wikidemon, and in the interest of transperency: Yes, I removed most of these screencaps from articles on the basis of NFCC #8. One of Berbah's edits popped up on my watchlist, where he'd inserted a screenshot into an article where there was no sourced critical commentary about the video, and when I checked his contribs I saw much more of the same. Coupled with the numerous warnings on his talk page, this prompted me to go through the articles and images in question, and I found many not accompanied by sourced prose and many also lacking licensing tags. That's why I went on a removal-spree of Berbah's images, because it was clear to me that he lacked an understanding of fair use criteria and wasn't even considering "contextual significance". His attitude seems to be "every song article gets a screenshot", which won't fly. I was really pushed over the edge when I found he'd been uploading non-free screenshots to Commons, claiming them as his "own work". And no, the 70+ warnings didn't "come after IllaZilla and other editors nominated or delinked the images"...yes, there have been some orphan/speedy deletion notifications, but those are just the recent ones and comprise only about the most recent dozen of Berbah's warnings. Myself and 2 other editors have explicitly asked Berbah to stop indiscriminately adding screenshots without regard for contextual significance: [68] [69] [70] [71], but he's persisted anyway.

You're correct that the various music projects generally allow the cover art in the infobox for identification purposes. This is explicitly allowed per WP:NFCI as long as the article contains critical commentary of the release in question. Screencaps of music videos, however, are another matter: In every case here the article already had a non-free cover image in its infobox, and the screencap was an additional piece of non-free content being added to the article. To justify this, it's not enough that there be some discussion of the music video; that discussion has to be sourced, and it has to be about the look or style of the video to a degree that having a non-free screencap of the video "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". In most of the articles involved here, all there is is a description of what happens in the video, not much in the way of sourced commentary about its look/style/filming technique/etc. My response to this was the same as it would have been if I'd found non-free screencaps of movies being plugged into plot sections of film articles: removal of the images per NFCC #8 and tagging of them for deletion as orphaned. When Burbah didn't respond to the warning I gave him, and instead started reverting me through IPs, things got heated. In hindsight, yes there are a few articles among the lot where arguments could probably be made that the use of the screencap passes NFCC #8, but no one involved (Berbah, mainly) seems to have made any such arguments or even considered contextual significance; they put screenshots in just to have them, and that's what I call "strictly decorative" use: Use without regard for contextual significance. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The question of whether any particular image is or is not "about the look or style of the video to a degree that having a non-free screencap of the video 'would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding' " is not one for an individual admin to make via speedy; it's a value judgment, not black-and-white, and such a judgment requires a community decision. The same goes for images of portions of a plot--they may be blatantly inappropriate, but if there is any conceivable argument to be made, it needs an open argument. I may or may not like the view that the community will take of such an image, but I wouldn't attempt to judge them all by myself. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to non-free content, the onus of showing that it "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" lies with whomever adds it or wants to keep it. No one, least of all Berbah, has made any attempt to discuss any of the images' uses on the respective article talk pages, at least as far as I have seen (I'm not watchlisting the articles). I felt that they failed NFCC #8, and no one argued the contrary. I never asked any admins to make judgment calls; I tagged them as {{Di-orphaned fair use}} after removing them from the articles. The policy is not "leave the non-free content in place if there is any conceivable argument to be made"...especially if no one appears to be making any such arguments. If there is no sourced critical commentary discussing the visual aesthetics of the video or the scene depicted, then I have no qualms about removing the image. Anyone is welcome to find some secondary sources and add the relevant prose to the articles such that a screencap would be necessary to enhance reader understanding, but it's sad that editors are often only persuaded to do this in order to save non-free images. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

While I will agree fully with IllaZilla's interpretation of WP:NFCC#8, I'm really uncomfortable with this block. The music projects have crept from blatantly ignoring WP:NFCC#8 only in terms of cover images to blatantly ignoring WP:NFCC#8 in terms of both cover images and video screencaps. While I would like to see both classes of images nearly universally abolished, it looks to me like Berbah was following what he believed to be standard practice.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by DeFacto

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

---

• DeFacto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have received an appeal on UTRS from this user. As the block was discussed here previously and validated, I thought it would be appropriate to gather input before making any decision.

I now understand and accept that I indulged in inappropriate behaviour for Wikipedia (see mitigating circumstances below) and confirm that I will not be doing that again in a hurry.

First edit: Nov 27, 2005 18:19:26
Articles created: 138
Unique pages edited: 1,825
Average edits per page: 6.15
Live edits: 11,068
Deleted edits: 151
Total edits (including deleted): 11,219

A mitigating factor, perhaps, being my determination, in the face of a very apparent personal-POV-inspired determination (by an editor with a history of anti-imperial/pro-metric edits across numerous articles) to have the Asda content (pro-imperial) removed from the "Metrication in the United Kingdom" article, to argue for the preservation of a certain level of neutrality in the article by keeping some dissenting content.

Here is part of the sequence of events that left me so incensed that I let myself down on this occaision...

1. Towards the end of 2011 there had been a long (> 2 months) dispute over whether the Asda content should stay in the article - ignited by User:Martinvl's removal of that content, which, as an editor who has a history of extreme pro-metric/anti-imperial edits, he clearly objected to (he got blocked for edit warring during this dispute) as a matter of dogma. The discussion, involving Martinvl, HiLo48, VsevolodKrolikov and myself and mediated by Alpha Quadrant reached the decision (following HiLo48's withdrawal) that the material should stay.

2. At the beginning of 2012 a dispute was triggered at "Hindhead Tunnel" when I restored the long-standing imperial-first content that had been replaced, without discussion or comment, by 86.0.21.34 with metric-first content. I defended the restoration of imperial-first content on the basis of my understanding of the MOSNUM guidelines. This dispute was also protracted and my stance was opposed by Martinvl (along with Charlesdrakew, David Biddulph and others) and at the end of the day the majority decision was that the content should stay as changed by the anon IP editor - as metric-first.

3. Following the Hindhead Tunnel decision, I went to the MOSNUM guidelines article talk page with a proposal to get the wording clarified to more accurately reflect UK customary usage. My proposal was opposed by Martinvl, Charlesdrakew, David Biddulph and also by NebY and Hotcrocodile, and thus defeated.

4. Shortly following the decision at MOSNUM not to accommodate further, UK customary usage, the Asda content was mysteriously removed from the "Metrication in the UK" by Jillipede, a newly created user account (but operated with clear familiarity with Wiki jargon and editing customs). I restored that Asda content. This triggered another dispute over this content, this time involving not just Martinvl and HiLo48, but Charlesdrakew, NebY, Hotcrocodile, Steve Hosgood (who admitted to being pro-metric and who had removed the content before as anon IP 213.120.252.3) and Boson too (who seemed more prepared to reason rather than dictate). During the dispute I got a block for edit warring, despite not having specifically contravened the 3RR rule, but in the face of the heavy and uncompromising opposition that had followed me from MOSNUM. Martinvl even created a sub-page ("User:Martinvl/MitUK") to build an ANI case against me, and posted invites to other involved editors (known to oppose my stance) to support his attack. I tried to get that page speedily deleted as a persoanl attack page, but failed. I complained bitterly that the discussion had become, not an attempt to reach a reasoned consensus over whether to inclusde the Asda content, but a concerted attempt to have it suppressed by weight-of-numbers from the pro-metric/anti-imperial lobby. It was, I believe, for this raction and my vehement defence of it that I received an indef block, as the "weight-of-numbers" criticised my behaviour and won the sympathy of the uninvolved administrators, who did not realise the history behind the dispute, too.

Note too that since my block, Martinvl has taken the opportunity to "rework" the "Metrication in the UK" article and infuse it once again with his personal POV and characteristic OR/SYNTH based on selected primary sources and uncertified trancriptions (copyvio?) of primary sources hosted on the website of the anti-imperial/pro-metric single-issue pressure group the "UK Metric Association" (UKMA). He is also slowly removing and watering-down any criticism or negativity towards metrication and has split off into a new article ("Metrication of British Transport") the content related to the road system (which has not been metricated and for which any plans to metricate have been long-since abandoned).

— DeFacto

I indicated that, considering his editing history, there would likely be conditions on any unblock, such as a topic ban or a 1RR/0RR restriction (possibly in a topic area). He said that he will not agree to a topic ban but that he might agree to a 1RR restriction if it is necessary. --Chris (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggest a 2 edit per week limit for an indefinite period on each article related to "metrication" - I would trust that would keep things under control for an editor who has an appreciable number of edits now. Unless, of course, I misread what the problem topic is. Collect (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Did a checkuser ever figure out if User:DaftEco and User:DaftEco2 were socks, or someone impersonating a sock to get them in further trouble? My spidey sense told me at the time it wasn't de Facto, but my spidey sense is definitely not infallible. I don't see an SPI or anything on-wiki. If they're unrelated, then something like what Collect is proposing sounds reasonable. If they're related, then I'm more concerned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  I remember seeing a comment somewhere that dismissed DaftEco as a troublemaker and not a DeFacto sock - but I can't remember where, sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, based on the language I am inclined to think your spidey sense is correct. Drmies (talk)

• I'm surprised that someone who's been around as long as you have still made the old "Floq might know what he's talking about" mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• DaftEco was blocked as a DeFacto sock, and DaftEco2 was blocked as a DaftEco sock. No SPI. GiantSnowman 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just to connect some dots here, the following are  Confirmed matches to each other:
• DaftEco (talk · contribs)
• DeFacto (talk · contribs)
• DaftEco2 (talk · contribs)
• FatCoed (talk · contribs) TNXMan 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying - Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DeFacto created. GiantSnowman 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you, that helps. I oppose unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Judging by the above unblock appeal, which seems to me to be saying "It was everybody else's fault - I'm just misunderstood", I would Oppose an unblock at this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Boing. Or, at the very least, an initial topic ban. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, after reading the entire thing (thanks for fixing that, whoever did it), I oppose. The user is dead set on returning to the same area and righting a wrong: not a good sign. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. MBisanz ^talk 16:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose granting an unblock. The problem is still very recent (March 2012). A look at the editor's talk page does not inspire confidence. The unblock request above seems to be full of WP:BATTLE thinking. His 'mitigating factor' is "my determination, in the face of a very apparent personal-POV-inspired determination (by an editor with a history of anti-imperial/pro-metric edits across numerous articles) to have the Asda content (pro-imperial) removed from the "Metrication in the United Kingdom" article, to argue for the preservation of a certain level of neutrality in the article by keeping some dissenting content." So his excuse is that the people on the other side of the debate were behaving so badly. See WP:NOTTHEM. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: The concept of a topic ban is simple: it's that the community doesn't trust the user not to stir up trouble in that area. He might agree to a modest restriction if "it is necessary?" He thinks that there are actually "mitigating factors" to edit warring and sockpuppetry? Looking at the drama on DeFacto's talk page, I'm afraid I don't readily swallow that someone so adamant that he was being screwed and railroaded has suddenly seen the light, and am more of an opinion that he'll say whatever it takes - however much as little as his pride will allow him to swallow - to get unblocked. Why is this request being given any more credence than any other editor who pulls out the "But the other guy!" card? Ravenswing 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. The entire request sums up as, "I understand my behavior was inappropriate, but I only did it because these other people were being inappropriate." Not exactly getting the point, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking. Far from indicating that the user has understood the issues, the above request takes great pains to blame everyone except for the editor themselves for the blocking; it is extremely self-exculpatory. Given the evidence of sockpuppetry linked to above, there is insufficient evidence of sanction compliance to suggest the user will avoid the temptation of recidivism; indeed, the motivation for desiring the unblock appears to be so the user can continue their battle. --Tristessa (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking unless it comes with an indefinite topic ban from metrication related issues. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The sheer wording of the request is more a declaration of war instead of a peace offer. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - he just doesn't get it, does he? GiantSnowman 20:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Abso-lutley-fecking-no. The "defacto" ban he's about to get will be ironic, won't it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although the plea claims responsibility, it immediately turns to mitigation. The body does not show acceptance but rather a conspiracy. Not willing to consider a topic ban is a poor starting position. Glrx (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Query Should all the users mentioned in the appeal be told there's a discussion in ANI that involves them? Personally, I'd be happy to see this closed as a snowball but if the block might be lifted I'd like to see a strict topic ban regarding metrication. Editors of articles concerning Formula 1 might appreciate a ban there too. NebY (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Very possibly. I didn't notify DeFacto since I'd already informed him via email about this discussion, but I didn't even think about the editors he mentioned in his request. It's a tricky question... those editors are probably more likely than others to oppose an unblock, so it's possible that notifying them of this thread without notifying any others could be considered policy-enforced canvassing. Seems like a lose-lose scenario. :( --Chris (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Well, you won't have to advise me. I found this myself. There's no evidence whatsoever in that appeal above that DeFacto has any idea of what the real problem is, nor any understanding of how to avoid it again. There's a telling phrase in there - "following HiLo48's withdrawal". Yes, I withdrew, not because I had changed my mind, but because I had a life elsewhere, and could not cope with Defacto's ubiquitous presence. He was always there, always demanding that other editors find more sources to back up their views that what was he was posting was undue. It's one of those tactics that looks nice and civil on the surface, but is in fact a way in which DeFacto owned the articles. He is passionate. Too passionate. And has no comprehension of what he is doing and the impact of that behaviour on the articles and Wikipedia as a whole. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

• This is why I don't like community unblock discussions. Consensus would seem to be against unblocking DeFacto at this time, and that's fine. But it's important to remember that most editors come here with good intentions, and whatever else people might think of DeFacto, there can be little doubt that he started out with good intentions. Some editors, for one reason or another, get carried away or prove unsuited to Wikipedia, and sometimes need to be removed from the project (not always permanently), but that is not a reason to disregard an editor's previous good contributions. Much less so to openly mock them. Let's all try to remember that other editors—yes, even those who are indefinitely blocked—are real people, and think what effect our comments will have on them. (And, for the record, I'm the original blocking admin). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Previous discussions (and policy?) at this point would also mean that he would now be DeFacto banned. Calabe1992 01:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, first, way to not get the point, Calabe1992. Also, that's a really stupid rule, and if I had remembered that's how it worked, I wouldn't have opposed. If, in the future, DeFacto can convince an admin through an unblock request to unblock him, with appropriate conditions, then he should be unblocked. Having the bad luck to have your unblock request discussed at ANI should not morph into a "community ban" that can only be overridden by another ANI discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Exactly. I don't agree at all with the "de-facto ban" rule. Calabe1992 01:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • If somebody was blocked as the result of an AN/I discussion, unblocking without a discussion would seem to be to be contraindicated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Manik Sarkar

Resolved

 – Most recent IP warned, page tidied and semiprotected. --Tristessa (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The BLP on Manik Sarkar, an Indian politician, was in a mess for three reasons: most of the text for the article was lifted straight from other online sources [72], [73]; it was unsourced and contained poor English. I removed the text citing copyright vio on the talk page. One of the main registered editors has been warned but the text is repeatedly re-added, possibly by socks. The collection of editors seem interested in guidelines not at all. Thanks Span (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Span: I've warned the most recent IP [74], done some minor cleanup on the article to fix the lesions left by the removed text [75] and semiprotected the page (which should prevent the roving IPs from readding the text) for 1 week. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done. --Tristessa (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Span (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ramdev

Resolved

 – Advisory message left for user [76], edits appear to be good faith. No further action required for now. --Tristessa (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One particular editor repeatedly changes the "Introduction" section, distorting the article's point of view and sacrificing readability for English-language users in favor of the use of obscure, Indian words. I would appreciate it if an administrator would look into the situation. Morrowulf (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Morrowulf: I assume you're referring to Gauravshah.89 (talk · contribs), who keeps making similar minor changes. To be honest, the changes that the user is making appear to be in good faith and are innocuous (they certainly aren't vandalism, and you shouldn't revert them as such with Twinkle). I will leave a message on his talk page requesting that he refrain from continuing to revert to his wording and discuss the matter on the article's talk page, but I do believe you're making somewhat of a mountain out of a molehill to bring this to AN/I; you really should have tried to discuss it with him first. --Tristessa (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Trolling or impersonation of law enforcement

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

---

Resolved

I have already reported this user at WP:UAA but there seems to be a backlog there and this user is engaging in harassment that needs to be stopped ASAP. User The Border Patrol (talk · contribs) has stated that s/he is "looking for a few illegals" and has baselessly labeled a user as an "illegal Mexican". S/he has also questioned my ethnicity as if it matters on this site [77] [78]. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indef for trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we give an ANI shout-out to Daniel Case for their continuous attention to that page? Daniel, sorry that we always leave you to it. I've taken care of a few just now. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

IP hopper..

An IP hopper is using multiple IPs in the 216.66 range to carry out vandalism. He has mainly hit Materialscientist's talk page and a couple others. Rangeblock may be needed. Calabe1992 19:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Block review please

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

---

{{resolved|Survey says... good block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)}}
After the drama at User talk:Swifty recently, and his repeated accusations of hounding (see User talk:Swifty/Archives/2012/03), he's come from an unblock and gone straight to making thinly-veiled threats against the admin he accused of hounding him, at User talk:Kww#You need to stop assuming!. That looks completely unacceptable to me, and combined with his apparent inability or unwillingness to understand and follow the collegial behaviour required here (again see that talk page archive), I really don't think he has any place on this project. Consequently, I have indef-blocked him for the threat, but I'd like for that decision to be reviewed if people wouldn't mind - I'll be happy to modify or reverse the block if consensus says so. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He took the rope and hanged himself. That's the end of this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I had unblocked him because he fulfilled my original unblock criteria (agreeing to not abuse the G7 criteria further). I didn't have any real hope for him remaining unblocked for any long period of time, but didn't want to feed his apparent belief that I am persecuting him. I agree that he doesn't show any particular promise of being a useful editor.—Kww(talk) 20:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the block. On this he states "there will be problems." No thanks. Calabe1992 20:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kww, if you hadn't unblocked him, no other administrator was going to. I think you went above and beyond AGF, and the user immediately reverted back to his disruptive behavior. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. Responding to an unblock by almost immediately running off to re-ignite a fight - with bonus pseudo-legal threats and wikilawyering! - is one of the most efficient ways to earn a reinstatement of your block. Swifty, if you want to be unblocked, you need to disengage from your dislike of these other editors, not pursue it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. Good block; nothing to add here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine and cool and thank you for that I appreciate that Boing! My significant other has also read everything going on and he'd like me to say that as far as what he read I made no threats to any user. Making a statement on what was talked about between me and him is making awareness not threatening anyone and as far as his statement goes he made it to Wikipedia in general not any specific user as I pointed out when I put the unblock. He reports Wikipedia what am I to do? I'm not responsible for his actions if he does and that's what I was letting Kww know cause I don't want to be the one in trouble or blocked for his actions as that wouldn't be fair to me. You can post that on the ANI if you want Boing! Swifty*^talk_contribs 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the message above was not the entirely of your threat - you also said "But I'm done with this if you keep monitoring me I'm not responsible for my significant others actions okay?" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If he reports Wikipedia for Kww's actions I'm not and I don't want to be held responsible for it. And that's what I meant. People are vindictive on here but it ain't me. Swifty*^talk_contribs 20:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC) (copied from Swifty's talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC) )

hello this is josh, ricky's signficant other and yes i did threaten to report wikipedia because of unfair treatment towards ricky and because of everything written above i am. anyone who goes around and follows an editor is intimidating and harassing them and thats whats been happening to him and after what i've seen post above yes wikipedia will be brought to justice for what they have done. i do not believe hes being treated fairly and if you want to block him then block him for the same reason hes been blcoked on his old account but not for warning someone what i was telling him i do. thats not fair to him - josh. (copied from Swifty's talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC) )

This may be an even quicker way to get oneself blocked: handing one's account access over to one's SO so they can lobby for you. This account may now be compromised, as well as the issuer of threats. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support indef- Eagles247 said it well: this user has hanged himself with the WP:ROPE he was given. Reyk _YO! 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

*I realize I'm supposed to take this seriously, but ... where exactly is he going to "report Wikipedia"? Now, putting my grown-up admin hat back on, we don't need a pile-on ANI thread for this, this is resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe the block is "appropriate" to the current situation, but how it got to that situation is another matter. Swifty was tagging a bunch of files "inappropriately" and was warned by kww, apparently at 16:41, 23 March, according to [79]. Swifty then argues with kww for a few edits [80], including one undo of kww at 17:12 followed by some edits attempting to start an arbitration process against kww, which suggest that Swifty was 1) upset with kww, 2) not set on a sequence of file tagging. Then at 17:20, 23 March, kww blocks Swifty. Not only did kww's block hurt rather than help the situation, since Swiftly was starting a process about kww, kww's block could be viewed as retribution. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Swifty was attempting to remove all of his previous uploads, claiming he has a right to do so. Kww warned him to stop, but Swifty persisted in disruption. The same can be said if I block a vandal I've warned who persisted in vandalizing articles. That's not retribution, that's following policy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You claim Swifty "persisted in disruption". "Persist" doesn't describe the one undo. Or are you asserting that disputing with kww is disruption? Because when a user accuses an admin of "hounding", formally starts a process, and notifies the admin, and then gets blocked by that admin about a minute after the notice, some might see it as confirmation of the hounding. It's certainly not what I would view as administrative best practice. Rather, "incendiary" comes to mind. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I was about to disagree, but then I saw that someone slapped one of those fucking {{indef}} scarlet letters on Swifty's user page, so I'll undo my resolve tag, and my omment above, so as not to imply that I'm part of a group of people that think that's a classy way to act. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks folks, all done and leave it to unblock requests now, I guess -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Websense

Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at this article? It's become a battleground for internet censorship activism, and any attempt to improve the article is being met with cries of foul play & reversion of other people's edits to a highly politicised POV. Contrary to the talk page, I'm not seeing any evidence of a greater COI conspiracy by Websense employees in the edit history.

I have been accused of hounding for suggesting improvements on the talk page, and of being a vandal (a first for me at WP) for trying to make pragmatic and neutral improvements the article itself. I have recently tried unsucessfully to engage with the person who is "protecting" the Websense article, but unfortunately do not see any positive outcome occuring without admin intervention, given her disruptive patterns of interaction and behaviour towards other editors. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Socrates2008 is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, there was a previous discussion where he was also threatening me with "reporting to admin"[81](2012-03-24, 10:44) on Talk:Browser security and then when I avoided the arguing and gave up on trying to edit that article due to his combative nature apparently trying to WP:OWN articles, a couple of days later he suddenly arrives on Websense [82](2012-03-27, 11:18)[83][84][85] apparently trying to start a new argument with me on there instead...

Again, I don't want to get involved in an argument and was avoiding him, but he is following me onto other articles after the browser security discussion... I am not going to reply here any further due to the problems with drama but I thought I should at least report what actually happened

(Also I reported on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Websense, Inc. before that Websense has been subject to a sustained propaganda campaign by the company spanning years, I provided lots of evidence there even though some of it is too stale for checkuser to be any use, looking at the contributions of the ones in that list there makes it very, very, obvious, with the marketing manager openly coming out of the woodwork at one point...) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My interest at WP is in improving articles, not in following arbitrary people around, as my edit history clearly shows. The Websense article would be looking a whole lot better today (and be less politicised) if every editor trying to improve it was not labelled a vandal or meatpuppet, and their improvements constantly reverted. I'm going to decline to comment further and let the edits (and more importantly, the reversions) speak for themselves. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Probation breach

Copied from above: Domer48 is in breach of his probation. Here [86] which falls under The Troubles sanctions. Under probation, Domer is only allowed to make 1 edit per page per week but under WP:Adam_Carroll, he/she has made 4 edits in 2 weeks regarding the persons nationality. This is surely in breach of their probation outlined here [87].

This user is very aware of Troubles related pages and should know better. Gravyring (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Provide the diff's which violate any of the remedies of Troubles arbcom? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a check on Graveyring & Hackneyhound might be in order. These two seem to work as a tag team, both forget to inform about ANI and both forget to sign their comments from time to time. Bjmullan (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Unless someone thinks it a horrible idea, I'm about to block Gravyring indef for being a trouble-making, POV-pushing SPA in the Troubles subject area, who has now tried to game the system and get an opponent blocked for something they did in October of last year, and who misrepresented the situation too. Also, if he isn't a sock of a previously blocked editor, I'll eat my hat, although I don't know the players in the whole Troubles Drama well enough to identify which blocked editor. Any reason not to indef? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  Gravyring blocked indef; I don't know enough about Hackneyhound to say whether a check is called for or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Shared account

Through the course of my adventures I've come across Inventcreat (talk · contribs), an account belonging to a married couple and used by both. Obviously this is a violation of WP:NOSHARE, however they do appear to be a constructive account and are apparently reluctant to have separate accounts. I would be grateful for some further opinions on this, I'm unsure how to proceed here--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I saw your conversation with them--thanks for taking the time to do that. Yes, NOSHARE is quite clear: they each need to get different accounts and stick to them individually. They could take Mr. Inventcreat and Mrs. Inventcreat (I assume it's a mixed-gender couple), or Inventcreat and Inventcreata? Drmies (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say let common sense let em keep it... many societies see matrimony as the joining together of two persons after all . Of course to do that, we all have to pretend this thread doesn't exist; therefore I would ask some admit to close after me, and for no one else to post anything. Egg Centric 23:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Right it's been decided that closing it ain't acceptable. Well I stick by what I said. A great many married couples can be considered as more or less the same unit, ready to take responsibility and credit for anything that the one does. I see no reason they can't share the account, except for a pesky policy which we can ignore. Egg Centric 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(Or we can even change the policy - especially now that gay marriage is finally rolling out amongst the civilised world) Egg Centric 01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a special case that can be excluded from the rule, however for that to be so there should be an actual consensus here, NOSHARE makes it very clear that it's not allowed except for staff accounts and bots, and even bots need clear consensus--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I rather hope we can come to one now... not sure this is the right place to propose it, but lets have a go: Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

A married, or similar (with "similar" to be interpreted by the community on a case by case basis) couple should be permitted to share an account. Naturally all the users of the account will be held responsible for all of its edits, and thus subject to any sanctions, even if said person did not perform the edit themselves. Additionally, such accounts must make it clear that they are a shared account, especially if running for a community position such as administratior Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support As proposer Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about we propse that NOSHARE be modified to allow exceptions when approved? Set up a discussion location for this, similar to usernames, etc. Calabe1992 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) *Support as nominator. Calabe1992 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• You beat me to it. Support. Calabe1992 01:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NOSHARE is essential in order to hold users accountable for their edits. I know that you're busy, so schedule enforcement of this policy for this particular situation for January 2015 unless they become an issue in which case it would be expedited. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not in favor of actually making it policy, but I'm perfectly willing to follow North8000's approach. Turning a blind eye has a bad reputation, but it's an underutilized tool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Turning a blind eye? To what? What were we talking about? Oh, gotta go: roast in the oven. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Still, you have to wonder, if they get divorced then who gets the account or will they agree to "joint custody"? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI links displaying offensive image in popups

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Link removed. Calabe1992 00:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I put in a request at the help desk, but no one seems to be answering. In WP:POPUPS, hovering the mouse over any link to WP:ANI is currently displaying an offensive image. Can anyone figure out what's going on? Calabe1992 23:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm not seeing it.North8000 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am, you have to wait. Images are the last to load, hover over his ANI link and wait about 3 seconds or so for the image to load.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed it. Let me know if it's still showing up for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's gone now.--Crossmr (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. What happened that caused this? Calabe1992 23:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

[88]. Someone used nowiki to prevent the image from displaying, but evidently nowiki doesn't work in the popups display. I kind of dorked his comment up, I'll try to clean it up without re-displaying it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Discussion of advanced mathematics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am currently engaging in a heated discussion centred on advanced mathematical topics, with a group of around 50 small boys. 2.120.88.30 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

50 small boys, football in the park, jumpers for goalposts... has this got anything to do with Wikipedia? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. I reverted them the first time around but left them this time, just to be sure... Calabe1992 23:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite 50, in fact 49 of them. 2.120.88.30 (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is trolling, we're done. Nothing to do here. Calabe1992 23:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable homophobic attacks by Youreallycan/off2riorob

At an AfD discussion, Youreallycan has made the following personal attacks on myself:

• [89] - accuses me of "repeated NPOV contributions"; without any evidence to support it
  • [90] - I respond to this baseless accusation
• [91] - reiterates the same accusation, and includes another editor as well. Calls me a disruptive troll.
  • [92] - Greyhood notes that personal attacks are not on.
• [93] - I make a comment to another editor in response to their accusation that I am here to push an agenda.
  • [94] - Youreallycan posts: Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?

He was asked to redact the comments, and he has struck them. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and a redaction is not enough in this instance.

I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks. But most importantly, I have never really edited "queer" subjects, so how exactly am I pushing a "queer agenda" anywhere on this project? The only agenda I have been involved in is speaking out against homophobic attacks on GLBT editors, and urging the community to protect editors.

Numerous editors have in the past expressed serious concerns relating to what has been construed as homophobic comments made by Off2riorob/Youreallycan towards other editors. A recent example was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29. In previous instances, when this has been brought to the community's attention, he has gotten out of jail by using the BLP card.

Unfortunately for youreallycan/off2riorob, this time there is no BLP to hide behind.

He made outright an outright homophobic attack on another editor, and I am asking that he be given:

1. a lengthy block for his inexcusable attack

# A DIGWUREN warning given the topic area. - as per fluffernutter, this was already done. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The community finally needs to do the right thing by its GLBT editors here. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Queer", in the context he used it, is not a homophobic slur. In this context, he is likely calling your "agenda" out as being questionable or odd. It does not look like the two of you had a good interaction there, but you asked him to redact and he did. Unless you want an administrator to look at the interaction between the both of you, I'm not sure anything further is necessary here. Resolute 02:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not the 1940s. I don't think "queer agenda" can be reasonably taken not to have a homophobic connotation here. FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What FormerIP said. I really don't see "queer agenda" meaning anything other than homosexual agenda. LadyofShalott 03:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, for UK editors of a certain vintage the use of the term Queer for Gay wasn't in use in the early 70's when I was growing up and it was a word that would have meant odd or strange. Wiktionary agrees too. The only person who can explain what YRC meant is YRC and unless they do so anything else us just supposition. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll revise my comment. It isn't the 1970s. FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the word queer has that meaning, no argument. However, combined with the word agenda, and given the concerns people have already had with certain comments from O2RR/YRC concerning the subject matter of BGLT people, it seems to reduce the liklihood that any meaning other than that of homosexual agenda is viable. LadyofShalott 03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of all the Wikipedia editors I have ever encountered, Youreallycan has impressed me as the most homophobic. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29 I spoke in favor of an LGBT topic ban for the guy. I continue to hold this opinion, now more strongly than ever. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Though Russavia and I have clashed nastily on several occasions, I agree with him 100% on O2RR. I have watched his disgusting hate speech flare up numerous times on the boards, only for him to slither away from sanctions by masking his revolting remarks with policy. This time, he has nothing to hide behind. He's already been warned under DIGWUREN, but I think that is really a secondary concern here. I firmly support a lengthy block for O2RR. This has gone on far too long. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I logged my warning today to YRC (diff above in russavia's original post) as a DIGWUREN (now known as ARBEE) warning, since I informed him that he was operating in that topic area and needed to be wary. It was an informally-phrased warning, however, and I suppose there's no reason that he can't be given a more explicit templated version of the discretionary sanctions warning if someone feels it's necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Fluffernutter, thanks for your intervention there. I really do appreciate it mate. I don't know if you got my message on IRC, but I just stated that after discussing this with some other editors, and because of the history of shocking comments towards other editors, that something more substantial needs to be done in regards to him. Thanks again for your assistance with that. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

[Non-admin observation] No comment on all the above (though I'm wondering what prompted Russavia to introduce the big and clever 'F' word to talk about his contributions to en.WP on getting Fucking, Austria onto DYK for Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2009/November#14_November_2009 but while we're here, can a grown up admin please curtail Russavia's 7-day RM process on Zhirinovsky's ass and get it off centre-stage in DYK queue please? Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this is the misuse of a Wikimedia project for a blatant homophobic attack. We deal with blocking the homophobe before using interest in the case to escalate punitive measures against the target of abuse. If we were dealing with a persistent racist who started calling another editor the n-word, there would be no hesitation in taking appropriate action here. --Fæ (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)