Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Jaguar

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

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Jaguar

Hello, a user has asked me to consider whether it would be feasible to move this section back here from the subpage, as he feels that they were making real progress and the move to the subpage might hinder that, which seems a viable concern to me. I am however not familiar enough with the usages of ANI to know what's best, so I'd love if somebody more familiar than me could handle this issue. Kind regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The thread is over 181KB. Some threads listed here are around 90KB. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any opinion on moving the thread back, but if there are conclusions coming, they should be posted here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) A long thread sure, but we were making real progress, and as Snowolf echoes above a move to a non-watched subpage might hinder that. It has splintered discussion. A linked subpage isn't unprecedented but those tend to be for massive discussions often related to long arbcom cases--like Betacommand, Giano, 'The Troubles'; this is in a different world. I haven't necessarily major issues with the board management aspect of it. Apart from anything else it looks awkward when a wikifriend of the last person discussed goes & shuffles it off the page. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC) ^{(formerly: User:92.6.200.56)}

Just thought a quick update would be worth posting. Although a community consensus was to mass delete the stubs, one plucky editor has volunteered to spend the next few months trying to fix the issue. There's a discussion regarding that going on at the moment. Blackmane (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A decision had already been made and a strong consensus reached - to delete the Chinese stubs - when the page was on AN/I. Moving the page just meant that it devolved into bickering between the usual suspects (including me). I really think we need to implement that decision, and solve the Chinese stub problem, before indulging in further scope creep. (There is a wider issue than just China or Jaguar, and some disagreement over norms, so an RfC might be a good idea after this thread is resolved). If somebody actually wants to write 8000 decent articles which meet wikipedia standards, that would be a colossal task - and keeping the existing unsourced microstubs in the meantime wouldn't make their job any easier (since we can't even be confident that names are accurate, even a list of existing articles is more hindrance than help). It's not the first time that one of these crises has been met with "Wait! Somebody else can fix them all!" but it would be a first if they actually did get fixed. bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy if the articles were incubated or sandboxed; that way the vast majority of !voters who said "delete" can see the articles removed from mainspace, but the remaining "keep" !voters also get a chance to work on them. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you on that one. Blackmane (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld suggested incubation yesterday; I hope that's still acceptable to the good doctor now.

Would it be possible to put some kind of sunset date on incubation/userification? I don't doubt that the articles' defenders are earnest in their proposal to bring the articles up to standard, but past experience is not very heartening. Since the community agreed to delete, I wouldn't want unfixed articles to loiter indefinitely in limbo. 6 months maybe? bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the community agreed to delete then that's the consensus. Incubation generally amounts to stagnation; when one of the best-known ARS members supports Article Incubator being shutdown, it's safe to say it failed. At this point prolonging things is, unfortunately, unlikely to do much good. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that someone looking up an obscure term gets nothing instead of a starting point for further research. Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

"It's useful" is something which often gets mentioned at AfD, but it doesn't overturn WP:N. Anybody looking up the obscure term will gain nothing from finding one of the articles as they stand, since they merely repeat what the seeker already knows - that a settlement exists with that name. Probably exists. (I just took one to AfD and a Keep !voter helpfully added coordinates to the article. Google's satellite view shows an empty field at those coordinates). A worryingly large proportion have been found to contain errors - if an article only says one thing and it's wrong about that, I doubt it's a good starting point for further research. I can understand why some people might disagree with the overwhelming consensus to remove those Chinese stubs, but it was a consensus nonetheless. bobrayner (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. Anyone searching Wikipedia for "Aikou Township" today will be directed to List of township-level divisions of Anhui, which contains more information about that township than the stub did. Kanguole 19:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by User:John J. Bulten

User:John_J._Bulten (JJB) changed WP:SS to add that notability didn't matter for article contents in such a way that there is the implication notability is explicitly not required for article spinouts and reiterated it after I removed with [1]. I discussed this with him and others who have engaged in a wall of text and keep on taking everything in some strange way and wanting to spread discussion to other places rather than centralize at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Splitting articles arbitrarily. A request there to remove it led to him reiterating it. At [2] I pointed out JJB was being inconsistent saying they thought notability was always relevant and asked JJB to remove the edit or explain why they were standing by it. They responded by editing to show they wanted the bit about notability being irrelevant [3] and not putting any explanation in where requested but trying to split the discussion again back to that guidelines talk page.

JJB has bee involved in a related business Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f before doing these changes.

I believe these actions indicate pointy and disruptive behaviour by John_J._Bulten . Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My first response is here. I invite recommendations but may not be available immediately. JJB 01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly told Dmcq that charges like the first sentence of the OP are false, that Dmcq is inferring something not stated (as Jclemens just agreed with me on). The VPP discussion has been fruitful. Though it may also assist with MMA mediation (Agent00f), it has been discussed by many editors now who recognize its global policy value. Dmcq's charges to spread discussion to other places will not be supported by any diff, as every suggestion I have made to use other pages has valid grounding. Dmcq's charges of inconsistency arise because of the misstatement in the first sentence: I do affirm notability is always relevant. Dmcq also unaccountably calls me "they" though my name is John. I do believe editing a guideline belongs on the guideline's talk page, yes. What should I do? JJB 01:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The charge that "others" engaged in 3 behaviors is perhaps conflated, as the 3 charges refer specifically to me, and the many others from VPP (should I name and invite some or all?) should not be tarred by that. The charge that I did not explain "where requested" objects to my explaining changes to WP:SS on its talk page rather than VPP. JJB 01:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq also failed to notify Agent00f of mentioning him on this page (now corrected); and my other significant objections appear at the first link I gave, and at the current last section of Wikipedia talk:Summary style. JJB 01:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed odd behaviour with JJB as well with his proposals to make large (mostly pointless) changes to WP:NPOV: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Recommended_changes with very bizarre interpretaions of what consitutes opposition: despite large opposition he moved ahead to make his large sweeping changes to NPOV with: As I suspected, these matter-of-fact changes were not opposed, yet because of what page this is they were not implemented either Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Forward (look at this in conjunction with the history as well: [4]). Also here he re-inserted a new addition to the page [5] with the reason of [6] On this page we start with silent consensus. You now have a vocal consensus of two (Unscintillating and me). .

Note also that JJB has returned only recently from his year long ban for sustained edit-warring, misuse of edit summaries and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground etc Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#John_J._Bulten. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think you (Dmcq) are attributing motive that is not in evidence. Quoting or paraphrasing WP:NNC in WP:SS is actually a very good idea, and you've brought non-edit-warring policy dispute to ANI rather than discussing it on the appropriate talk page. If I were you, I really wouldn't want to bring something to ANI where I'd called a good-faith policy clarification attempt vandalism--even if it was just an automated edit summary. I also think the best thing to do here is for everyone to discuss their positions and objections, without benefit of or need for blocks, protections, or any other administrative tool use. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• This is odd, as he and I had a long discussion about this very topic here [7] where he had already concluded that WP:SS didn't require notability for spun out articles. This was his rationale for allowing individual MMA articles to exist without having to demonstrate notability. I maintained that all articles required passing WP:V and WP:GNG independently and disagreed with his conclusions. I'm curious as to why he would change WP:SS to reflect something he said it already stated, and why he wasn't following the good advice at WP:BRD by discussing it once his changes were reverted. I don't have time to review this completely at this time, but felt his previous discussion may shine some light on the subject. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. On NPOV I have not continued prosecuting my improvements. On WT:N I also admitted when a superior argument was made just after my edit. On Longevity my history is an open book, but the last editor who brought up old news at ANI didn't get anywhere. On Dennis my initial statements to him were more supportive of "not requiring N", but I believe I always upheld that "N is relevant". I didn't change it to reflect something I said it already stated; I added something to it that WP:N already stated. On BRD I affirm it and I believe evidence will show I upheld it. On Dennis's hint that previous discussion may shine light, I affirm that my attempt to pseudomediate at MMA is related, but so are many other topic areas, as other editors have affirmed. JJB 01:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC) User:Hasteur has just committed a WP:TALKO violation to this page, rearranging my comments differently from the intended presentation. JJB 01:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*1 It's called making it easier to read. TRY IT Hasteur (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically granted under Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Hasteur — continues after insertion below

Please do not charge my single-paragraph style as "error". JJB 01:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you post "wall of text" single-paragraphs, it's likely that many readers will just skip over them, because they are difficult to read. Paragraph breaks not only give you the opportunity to present your points cogently, grouping like ideas together, but the visual break provided helps the reader navigate through the text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 I think JJB has missed the point of the notification clause. In no way did Dmcq state the name he linked to a ongoing conduct discussion about the user. JJB did however mention the user, so his notification was appropriate. Sidebar: I bet money that the first posting the editor makes will be to claim a conspiracy to suppress his/JJB's viewpoint by a cabal out to destroy all of Wikipedia. I'm not bitter, just no longer innocent to the type of posting that this micro-consensus posts when they get challanged with no good reasoning.Hasteur (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"The editor" (Agent00f) was mentioned by Dmcq as part of an RFC/U link (which you started), which is pretty good mention. I don't believe your prediction about "the editor" is appropriate for this board. JJB 01:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, when objections were raised at WP:NPOV you waited until the comments stopped coming and then started again: [8]. You clearly have not upheld BRD because you were adding content for which there was no consensus for, in fact the consensus was against it. Also here is where I revert you bold additions: [9], here you re-add them again [10] IRWolfie- (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I must also categorically reject IRWolfie-'s characterizations, and disagree with Dennis about my having a "rationale for allowing individual MMA articles to exist without having to demonstrate notability." Rather, I was investigating whether N considerations could result in a mediation solution, not firmly deciding on any particular consideration. If specific explanation of my use of BRD at NPOV is needed, I will be happy to oblige. JJB 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) However, I am taking a brief break now. Feel free to pile on, I will respond or ignore when I get back. JJB 02:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In this comment [11] you pretty clearly say that MMA articles shouldn't have to pass WP:GNG if they are filtered through WP:SS. "But first, standing alone does not mean standing alone for N, in context it means standing alone for V; and second, not every article must pass GNG, which is why we have SNG and local consensus as well." I'm sorry, but the whole point of your conversation there was to find a way to have MMA articles, via WP:SS, that didn't have to pass GNG. I didn't get it at the start of the conversation, because the idea is rather "out there" in terms of interpreting policy. Your stated that rather "firmly" there, there was no ambiguity in your position. I'm not making a comment on this current case, just saying you already had indicated that you were convinced that WP:SS was a way to avoid having to pass N / GNG (WP:N), and trying to persuade me to this point of view, which I rejected. This is why once I saw you were tinkering with WP:SS, this threw up a red flag, and even though I wasn't going to be on Wikipedia tonight, here I am. I'm not expressing an opinion on this ANI itself (and won't), but your recollection of the previous conversations is less than perfect here. The coincidence is simply worth pointing out, and others may consider or discount as they please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well then I think he flatly contradicted himself in a statement he made in that VPP discussion "Masem 1: It is true that Dmcq raises the bogeyman of "all spinouts become automatic keepers", though there is no evidence I ever held this view" in this diff. Dmcq (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, as current WT:N discussion confirms, N is not GNG; N is the superset of GNG or SNG or local or AFD consensus of N independent of any guideline. So it's not a heresy to admit not every article must pass GNG, firmly and unambiguously. I was hoping that SS might be a way to find a middle ground between two hot camps. When I first started editing SS I advertised that one reason for doing so was a then-current conflict. Again, if either of you can "connect the dots" for me and show that I made the claims you inferred, I would appreciate it. JJB 04:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I will leave to others to connect as I feel it is obvious to anyone who wants to pour through the conversation[12], I'm not going to offer an opinion here and haven't looked at all the information, and I'm only noting a pre-disposition and possible motivation as it was relevant. Having such strong feelings about WP:SS as well as the desire to connect it to MMA to allow keeping all articles is a conflict for you. It doesn't automatically prohibit you from editing it, but your fundamental understanding of the policy is and was flawed, and at the least it is biased/ Self-restraint would have been a better option. I like you JJB, even if we disagree on many things, and your interpretation is certainly imaginative, but it is inconsistent with the policy itself. I would think it better if you didn't tinker with it as you have a demonstrated bias here. We all have biases on one subject or another, and it is wise to simply avoid those areas. If you are going to forcefully use a policy as a basis for keeping all your articles, do not go and change the policy so that others will question if it is only to make it fit your world view. It is a bit of common sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Jclemens encouraged discussion, I'm disappointed you've drawn obvious conclusions that are also not worth your connecting for my benefit. MMA was merely the catalyst to reveal a problem, acknowledged at VPP, relating to spinout notability. Ending 5-6 years of delete wars that I documented there would also improve the encyclopedia. I have no desire necessarily to "allow keeping all articles": I'm merely looking for methods that might bridge the gap.

I went into RFC and into RFC/U unbiased. Communicating with Agent00f revealed a concern that could be tested by policy discussion. Communicating with Hasteur revealed, let's not go there, but it was a different experience than with Agent00f. Communicating with you revealed that you don't always see things any more neutrally than I do (a first example is that you see those other two editors differently than I do; a second example is that you affirmed Hasteur for calling my migrative resolution proposals "Stockholm syndrome"; if you want more examples I'll go back to your talk).

I announced my involvement when I started editing SS. As VPP reveals, the widespread nature of the issue merits discussion not fixated on MMA. My edits to SS were either minor, accepted by Dmcq, or were exact quotes from other guidelines, so I don't know why my "fundamental understanding" is flawed and don't know that you want to enlighten me. Your phrase "keeping all your articles" charges me with WP:OWN without evidence. But see my next comment below. JJB 11:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB is continuing disruption by trying to move or fork the centralized discussion to the talk page of WP:SS see [13]. The topic clearly could affect the wording of WP:SIZE and also involves bits copied from WP:NOTABILITY and might affect it too. The discussion was clearly at WP:VPP#Splitting articles arbitrarily and there is no point having talks at Wikipedia_talk:Article_size#Discussion_about_split_of_large_articles_at_an_arbitrary_point where he also tried to have separate talks, or continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#Policy_check. Dmcq (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is just more MMA related disruption, the tactics of the MMA fans is to create as many points of discussion as is possible, use SPA to debate the community into submission, to try and change community guidelines and policy in such a way as to allow them to have there one article per event and have the encyclopaedia the go to place for MMA related news and gossip. Mtking ^(edits) 09:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As such, we should never discuss it again. Deor (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In the last graf of Dmcq's diff, given to allege I'm trying to move or fork discussion, I acknowledge Dmcq's idiosyncratic views about proper discussion pages by beginning, "So at whatever page we continue to work this out ...." I am no MMA fan nor SPA. I am merely someone discovering the effects of sticking both feet into attempts to pseudomediate MMA. JJB 11:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you can not mediate at MMA. You clearly have a bias and are not objective in this matter. This is fine and you are certainly welcome to participate, but your bias is very, very evident, as has been demonstrated in a number of venues. Mediation implies neutrality and your actions clearly indicate you are not. I certainly would never go and change the guidelines for something I was "mediating" in, as that is clearly a violation of neutrality and trust. No mediator would dare do such a thing. That you would present yourself as neutral is disturbing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I entered the discussion neutrally. I discovered data that appeared to tend in one direction and gradually affirmed that data as more and more accumulated. The first datum was that the diffs presented were nowhere near the type of misbehavior usually seen at RFC/U, and your inability to see that makes your own bias evident IMHO (perhaps you had no bias when you began, of course). You seem to believe it is unnecessary to bring more evidence to convince me of my bias, it's so obvious to you. Also, no party considered SS as a guideline for MMA resolution, so there was nobody holding out trust for me to not improve SS. However, I have been cautious about the word "mediate" in the past so am refactoring it.

My recommended closure is that you rejoin VPP, or else ask me to link you an essay on spinout notability for joint collegial discussion such as we enjoyed at your talk. JJB 11:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As I'm not involved in the MMA debate, my bias isn't being called into question here. The conversation we had shows that I did consider your argument, and much of what I'm seeing at the PPV confirms what I told you there. Even if I were to consider you neutral (and I don't), editing the policy pages for policies that are being used to bolster your solution is clearly a violation of that neutrality, and yes, is disturbing. Regardless of what side of the argument someone is on, or if they are in the middle, changing the "rules" to match their outcome is not acceptable. To me, that act alone disqualifies you from calling yourself neutral, as it looks like you are trying to manipulate the "rules" to be consistent with your desired outcome, even if that outcome is a compromise. That is a rather huge, cardinal sin in mediation, and a fatal one. You just don't do that in mediation. Ever. That you fail to understand this shows that either you don't understand what neutral or mediation means, or that you have a bias and are manipulating the policies to fit it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

\The other possibility is disruption whilst understanding the policies and without having a bias. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What do people here make of 'There is still one other page that discussion may still validly "split out" onto later, viz., User talk:Dmcq.' in his latest diff on the WP:SS talk page? I had just written "Thanks for that offer, in general I'm happy to go on about how things work or ways to do things or a bit of general waffle or even a few days of a one to one dispute, but I have this thing against meatpuppetry and canvassing and groupthink so for longer or wider disputes I try for transparency as far as possible - so I try to practice what I preach as far as talking about articles or policies is concerned" on Jclemens talk page about talking there separately. Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That is an oblique hint that your behavior linked from that diff (continuing to discuss on other pages) not only refuses to discuss a guideline change at its talk, but also is starting to cross the line into needing a user warning. Since you ran here, such a warning is also appropriate here, if necessary; but per Jclemens only a warning. I have been waiting for you to discuss policy substantively on any page. (I see your new 3 grafs at VPP now, so I'll try back there again.) JJB 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have clearly described the objections to the insertion [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=494667789&oldid=494654943 diff] which also includes JJB's reply. If some admin would like to make a decision about my complaint against JJB of disruption I would be very grateful. Dmcq (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since no one else will, then I guess I need to make it clear, although I thought I had in a more gentle manner earlier. Anyone who is involved in a dispute discussion, and their central point is based upon a policy, should not edit that policy page. Period. If you arguing how WP:SS is why your proposal is "right", then you do not go and modify WP:SS to make it fit your view. Common sense would tell you that you don't even go and modify anything for the policy during a conflict that is based on it, as you have a conflict of interest at that time. JJB, do not edit any policy that you are using central to dispute resolution, which at this time means WP:SS, until the MMA dispute around it has concluded. Dmcq, since you are involved at the pump discussion and other RFC/U venues, you should also refrain. I will only to revert to a state prior to when both of you began editing it, and I will consider further editing to be disruptive. Right now, I'm not taking any other action except to revert and tell you both to stop editing it, directly or by proxy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that stops it whilst the MMA business is going on and I can't see why things shouldn't then get back to normal. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• • At the talk page of WP:SS he is intimating that I am not removed enough to make this determination. If any other admin wants to review, please feel free to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • For the record I support the revert, in fact had considered making the very same edit, this shows a clear change in tactics to move the discussion to other parts of the 'pedia so as to demonstrate MMA events meeting guidelines and policy by changing the guidelines and policy to say what they need them to say. Mtking ^(edits) 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• It is not a good idea to propose far-reaching general policy interpretations for the purpose of achieving one's end on a specific localized issue. Myself, I do think we ought to sometimes split on the basis of complexity & logic rather than Notability, but I think it would be unconstructive to suggest doing so to accommodate more fully any one particular area where I have a special interest. I agree with Dennis & Dmcq about the intent of JJB's changes here, and I agree that they should not be discussed in the MMA context. Trying to do things that way would result in unstable policy, and damage the encyclopedia as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well said; I think your first sentence in particular should be framed and hung on the door for all who enter to read. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Another admin has chosen to fully protect the page from editing by anyone as an extra precaution, which I support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not part of the WP:SS editing disagreement above though my RfC was linked, but I'd like to point there was significant agreement at VPP on other issues of notability outside of the thread that discussed WP:SS specifics. It was unfortunate that instead of building on this consensus, the conversation was shifted towards accusations about inherent notability and other wiki-law minutia. I only hope the other editors there can continue the productive dialog without getting mired in ANI drama.

To that end it would be best if Hasteur didn't keep attempting to conflate with myself or other editors (fixed link). This behavior's already previously resulted in this comment at the RfC/U started by him/her, which was very confusing given I wasn't involved with any WP:SS/SIZE specifics or wherever "games in a series" came from. Fortunately that confusing incident was sorted out, and it's only due to it that I'm circumstantial involved here for what looks to be the same dispute.

More generally, the broader guideline discussion at VPP seems worthwhile for clarification of the 99.99%+ of wiki outside of any individual subject, as evidence by participation and various consensus of all others with no involvement in any sport. At least that was true until the turn noted above. I've commented in brief about bringing drama from elsewhere before; the advice applies widely and IMO needs no elaboration. Agent00f (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with Hasteur, and this is a bit out of venue. Here, the result was JJR and the person who brought up the issue, Dmcq being banned from editing WP:SS, a partial boomerang of sorts. It wasn't about the content of any edits or MMA specifically, only the principal of editing a policy you are temporarily "involved" with. Dragging up other editor's unrelated actions in this particular ANI report isn't useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The link is rather direct given Hasteur's comments are the reason why previous MMA drama was specifically roped into this where it only produced unhelpful confusion. I'm merely suggesting that we can minimize future outbreaks of the same by similarly minimizing such behavior. Agent00f (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• NOTICE I have opened up an WP:AN discussion on the sanctions imposed in this ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Independent review of Xenos2008's block and ultimatum

Moved back to original thread on WP:AN. – Fut.Perf. ☼

Possible paid advocacy/socking

Classified ad here shows potential for paid editing for author Jon Gordon. The job was awarded to an Elance contractor. Today (the 27th of May) an article was created forJon Gordon by an account that was created on the same day. Well written but I'm not sure meets notability. Also, the Elance contractor has completed Wikipedia jobs as late as June 23rd 2011, but the account that created the article for Jon Gordon is new. Maybe abusing more than one account? Editor has been notified of discussion. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Note This Elance contractor was also hired to write an article for Sahpreem A. King. Evidence hereLawrenceDuncan (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen several conversations on paid editing, but there is no consensus that it violates any policy here. I don't like it, but I don't run the place, so not sure what we can do at ANI. If you suspect sockpuppeting (which admittedly, looks like an interesting possibility), WP:SPI would be the venue to connect those two via a Checkuser, and ask for a check for sleepers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• If the articles are compliant with Wikipedia policies or the mercenary is actively seeking help making their articles compliant, there need be no action taken. If neither, the articles should be deleted and the mercenary dealt with. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well-written articles on subjects not previously covered? Oh noes! The Garbage Skow (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Aren't they required to disclose the COI? I'm fine with the person being paid, but my understanding is that they have to disclose this obvious conflict of interest. (Obviously, if he's also a sockpuppet, that's another matter entirely)JoelWhy (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• As far as I know editors are only encouraged to disclose a COI. Fair assessments. Appreciate the input. I will not post COI related issues here in the future. and based on Elance evidence, I will request a SPI. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ahhh, you are correct. It's just "advisable to disclose your employer on your userpage so that others will be aware that you may exhibit a bias."JoelWhy (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that what's happenning here is that an established editor is doing paid editing under alternative accounts. As I understand it, paid editing is currently allowed, but frowned on by many. Failure to disclose a conflict of interest is discouraged, but also allowed. Using multiple accounts is not necessarily either sock puppetry or forbidden. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry does not specifically settle the question of whether the use of multiple accounts to manage conflict of interest or paid editing counts as sock puppetry. The only relevant item under "inappropriate uses" is "avoiding scrutiny". One might assume that the established editor is using alternative accounts in order to avoid tarring their main account with the opprobrium of paid editing, and using separate accounts to prevent other editors from detecting a pattern in contributions. They might simply be using the alternative accounts to track the work done for different customers, but that in itself would not be a barrier to disclosure. Under "legitimate uses" (which "avoiding scrutiny" specifically defers to), the only applicable section is "privacy", which is aimed at preventing Wikipedia editing from having real-life consequences. Here, the hypothetical paid editor might be trying to prevent their real life employment from affecting their Wikipedia reputation.

In summary, while the information above does suggest that multiple accounts are being used, I think you need to establish that they're likely being used inappropriately before calling for an SPI. Bovlb (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think that this archived SPI involving the paid editor in question suggests inappropriate use of multiple accounts. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for that link. So for articles recently created by that suite of accounts we appear to have Jon Gordon, Sahpreem A. King, Laura Stack, Dianna Booher, and National Speakers Association. All of the articles seems well enough written given the reliable information available, although some are arguably of marginal notability under our current guidelines. Laura Stack was deleted for lack of notability. The multiple accounts removed the COI tag from that article, giving the appearance of broader support. If they're the same user then that's clear socking. The SPI checkuser concluded they were unrelated, but HelloAnnyong blocked the socks anyway "Per behavioral evidence". In particular, the main account Bamanh27 was never blocked and the creation of a new account is therefore not block evasion. Bamanh27 has not edited since 2011-07-18, so there is no new "broad support" socking. SunLover77 appears to be refraining from removing COI tags and is also making improvements to other articles.

So it seems that this user has learnt from the past and is now making a good faith effort to work with us, balancing the good of the encyclopedia against the desires of their employers. That's a good result, isn't it? Of course it would be better if the editor declared their interest (maybe a "started as paid article" template on the talk page), but I can understand editors wanting to avoid knee-jerk reactions (paid → delete & ban). Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Paid editing is a completely slippery slope - remember, these guys' goal isn't truly to improve Wikipedia, it's to further their own interests. I have seen items cited to a source where the contention is absent, citations presented as newspaper citations when they are actually press releases in the comments section of newspaper, and even completely fabricated references - all for the sake of sneaking it past new page patrollers and those at AFC, harming Wikipedia in the process. These articles should be treated with extreme prejudice - their creators not interested in Wikipedia, they're interested in that pay-cheque, and abusing a charity project funded by donations and supported by volunteers is fair game for getting it. WilliamH (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious editing of population figures by 46.19.99.6

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

---

The IP user 46.19.99.6 (talk · contribs) has been making a prodigious number of edits lately — mostly to population figures for ethnic Armenians and Georgians in various countries. None of these changes appear to be sourced, and I suspect they are simply random vandalism. I don't have time right now to fix the problem, but I'm reporting it here in hopes that someone else can. I've put an ANI-notice on the IP's talk page. — Richwales 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits like this, this and this change numbers from something matching the inline ref to a new number which I could charitably call "made up" or "impossible to reconcile with sources". Sometimes I wish we could semiprotect all demographics... meanwhile this change breaks an infobox whilst trying to reallocate Gao from Mali to Azawad. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

They've been doing it for quite a while. This edit on 7 January sneakily changed a date from 1996 to 1976. The source says 1996. Is it practical to clean up all these errors? bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this something that could be nuked? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Their latest edits, today, seem to be a little odd but it's not actually inserting false numbers so I'm not going to demand a block or whatever. Instead of templating I've left a personal message on the talkpage.

I'm no admin, but... doesn't nuking deal with pages rather than edits? In this case they've generally made subtle tweaks to established pages. Clicking "undo" manually might work but in many cases it'll conflict with later changes by others. They've done under 200 edits. It may have to be a tedious manual job... bobrayner (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody else is gullible enough to volunteer to go through the contribs list and fix any false numbers, I'll do it later today whenever I have spare time. bobrayner (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

All fixed. As well as fake demographic data, the editor also added a lot of twin cities &c although this seems to have been enabled by us having lots of overlapping flag-waving lists of twin cities which rarely bother with sources. The warnings should be sufficient; if they repeat this behaviour in future I'd argue that a swift ban is appropriate. Any other queries/comments/complaints or can we close this section? bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• No sooner had I closed this, than the editor came back and added 40000 Armenians to Pakistan. Sources say no such thing; see [14] [15] [16] [17] etc. The Diaspora Ministry (yes, it exists) likes to aggrandise Armenian populations overseas but they don't even mention Pakistan. [18] [19]. I think a block would be appropriate, for a long-term pattern of adding made-up stuff to en.wikipedia, ignoring warnings. bobrayner (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure

I have a somewhat complicated situation that I could use some help resolving. User:Notahelix, a new editor, contributed an article Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure, a topic which is of legitimate historical interest but would be considered a fringe theory today. The article has NPOV and COI issues which are extensive but fixable. However, when other editors and I began to edit the article to fix the NPOV issues, Notahelix responded on the article talk page with incivil remarks and personal attacks. Furthermore, he seems to have misunderstood Wikipedia's copyright policies on submissions, as he has tried to remove the article's text and is now making borderline legal threats. I have done my best to be civil and explain our policies to him, but this has not helped and I would like help from editors more experienced with this sort of situation. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't remotely know enough about the subject matter to really get involved, but I will say that Ohiostandard has left a very helpful comment on the editor's talk page, and suggest that we try to use the very same talk page to resolve this. The editor doesn't understand the policy here and is obviously livid at the moment. Dealing with it here is probably not the best solution (although bringing it here was fine). I would ask for one or two more to work with him on his talk page and try to resolve the issues, particularly of civility, in a calm, rational way. He has never been blocked, started here just a few days ago, so lets be careful to not WP:BITE the newcomer, yet we still need to address the incivility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I just removed a link from his userpage to the article in question. I also note that he redirects to User talk:Voice of 5-23 without providing a multiple account rational on either, which is problematic. It appears our friend has a great many misunderstandings of policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• The editor was advised to change his username, on the ground that User:Notahelix was promotional, and he put through a request to do so. Perhaps due to a misunderstanding he re-created the User:Notahelix account later on 23 May and went on using that one. So now he is the owner of two accounts. So long as he remains logged in as Notahelix, he is probably not seeing messages left at User talk:Voice of 5-23. I have undone the talk page redirect so that messages can once again be left at User talk:Notahelix, and left a new notice for his other account. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• He did reply to a comment here [20] so he was aware of at least some of the messages, and since his talk page redirected to that talk page, I'm guessing he did see the messages. Now what about the incivility? I guess we wait and see if your new message gets his attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notahelix has clarified on the article talk page that he was somehow unaware that contributing to Wikipedia involved irrevocably granting Creative Commons/GFDL licenses for it. He's mad that his article is being changed and is demanding that it be removed. Is this an appropriate demand? To whom should he make his case? Should I advise him to start an AfD, or is one of the other noticeboards the appropriate venue? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not an appropriate demand. In between the edit window and the save page button is the clear statement: By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.. It is literally impossible to miss. If he somehow did, there's no reasonable way it could be made any clearer; that's just how the cookie crumbles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We might be able to WP:CSD#G7 it, and honestly I don't think we'd be losing much. T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The number of edits by User:Antony-22 make G7 inapplicable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and AFD would likely keep it. I think we have answered the question regarding suitability if he is unwilling to contribute under CC, as he appears to have a great misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. I've also removed the redirect from the Voice user page to the article for cross space linking. 2nd time I've had to do this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• My gut instinct is telling me to delete this (or stubify, whatever), and let Antony (or someone else) rebuild something neutral should they so wish. Notahelix doesn't seem like the type who can be easily reasoned with, and I think the article will need a complete rewrite from scratch if it's going to vaguely conform with policy. Per Notahelix's posts on the talkpage, such a rewrite is obviously going to cause huge drama, and he clearly regrets posting his little thesis here in the first place. I think the minimal-drama course of action is actually to delete, while making it clear to him that we retain the copyright should anyone wish to use parts of it later. None of the CSD criteria really apply, so this would be something of an IAR use of admin buttons, but if people are OK with this I'll go ahead and do it. Moreschi (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • We retain the license, not the copyright, but otherwise agreed. CSD or not, this whole thing is best treated with WP:TNT. T. Canens (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopedia won't explode if this article has to be sent to AfD instead of being speedily deleted. While the editor's attitude leaves much to be desired, the content of the article is not without interest. Somebody neutral could conceivably clean it up and include a few sentences about this issue somewhere in another article. An AfD might facilitate that. The discussion at Talk:Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure shows a hint of progress. If any of the material is rewritten and kept, there is a chance that this editor's work will not be mentioned in the result, but that's how content normally evolves. If he is the actual person whose work is prominently mentioned in the article, he is published but not cited a whole lot. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

He does seemed to have humbled himself a bit with his last comment, so I'd like to see how this plays out a little longer. It's possible that he won't want it deleted. I'm willing to edit it to bring it up to standard; I've already had a pass at the first half of the article, which is about the notable historical work, and the second half which focuses on the more recent fringe work is probably going to mostly disappear. If it is deleted, though, I'm unlikely to have the time to rewrite it from scratch anytime soon. I think the best course right now would be to explain to him what happens if his article stays up, and get a clear answer back on whether he wants it deleted (which may or may not happen, and may involve either AfD or IAR). Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So much for humble. I've warned him on the article talk page about NPA. I'm afraid this is just going to devolve into another "specialist who insists they don't have to follow the rules" issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've given them a warning on their talk page, too. I was tempted to just go ahead and block becasue it's becoming more and more obvious he's WP:NOTHERE, but I want to give him one last chance to have Ohiostandard's latest commentary, maybe, just maybe, take root. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad time to discover we lack a policy or essay named WP:POMPOUS... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm starting to feel a little uncomfortable. I think by now we've given him enough chances. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Voice hasn't responded yet. Discussion has moved on to reliability of the sources. I expect a bit of a backlash once we start hacking out the non-RS bits of the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

... aaaand there's the other shoe. At least he's not making personal attacks, but very aggressive in an WP:OWN manner. Trying to talk him down myself... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oversight needed, erase personal information

| Revdel'ed. Nothing to see here. --Rschen7754 04:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)}}  New request added, but not for oversight, at 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

At Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council, please make the following personal information invisible to non-admins:

• Revision as of 20:24, May 28, 2012, 209.6.69.227
• Revision as of 03:14, May 28, 2012, 209.6.69.227

And my own removal: [21]

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Drawing further attention to it is not the best option. If it were me, I would take it to a trusted admin, behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're at the wrong place, bud. File an oversight request via email pbp 03:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack, don't be a fool. Binksternet is not a "bud" and he knows this shit well enough. Bink, I took care of it; please check to see if I got the right ones. And leave a note for the IP, if you haven't already, that this can't be done and will lead to a block for outing. Bugs, you're right, but we all know ANI is probably the quickest way. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. Your quick response gladdened me. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't know that. I've found using the oversight form to be very quick, and seeing as you're not on the list I'm wondering what the basis of your opinion is? Nobody Ent 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet is asking to Censor information that proves Binksternet provides FALSE information. The information Binksternet removed was with regard to a FAKE newspaper that B asserted was "(Credibility check okay on The Rochester Citizen news. Replace ALEC blog response with WaPo brief summary. Adding Cronon refs and text.) " I have no objection to personal information being removed, once it is agreed that it IS personal information. HOWEVER, information that the Rochester Citizen is in fact NOT a newspaper, but someone's personal attack blog run out of their attic, and thus cannot be used as a WP:RS involved proof, which is ample, that it is NOT a newspaper. I was not "outing" a WP editor, and logically I was only "outing" a person if everything that proves it is NOT a newspaper is accepted as fact. You cannot "out" a WP:RS newspaper. Everything that is being removed was information about an alleged newspaper. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Baloney. I am simply trying to clean up after you. You were putting personal information onto the talk page including the address where someone lives. This is not allowed, so don't do it again. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Information" doesn't need to include address and number of bedrooms. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Address is the address of the Rochester Citizen, and on the website of that same blog you allege is a newspaper. The fact that it is a residential area that does not allow businesses, including newspapers, and that it is the host site of activism that you allege it is objectively and with editorial oversight (in a newspaper of one) reporting on as a WP:RS merely proves that it is not a WP:RS.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a line between evaluating the reliability of a source and conducting aggressively inappropriate opposition research. You crossed that line several miles ago. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the address of the "Rochester Citizen" is a private residence, then it (the Rochester Citizen) is not a reliable source unless the article is written by a recognized expert in the field, regardless of whether it is also the address of an editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the newspaper is indeed being run by a single person from their house, then posting the address here is utterly inappropriate. If posting the address is appropriate, that means it's a legitmate business, Q.E.D. You can't have it both ways. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A business being legitimate does not necessarily qualify it as a reliable source. Meanwhile, if the blog page stated its street address, it could be fair game. But it appears that it does not, and that the IP went fishing for it, which is not quite the same thing. As the street address was an individual's home rather than an office building, it's not appropriate to be posting it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that "legitimate" is being used to mean different things. The Rochester Citizen is put forward as a significant newspaper by both the person that it is and the WP editors warring to get it used as a WP:RS. It is the name of a blog, but of a blog that claims NOT to be a blog, but a newspaper. Legitimate newspaper, no, legitimate corporate shell for the blog, with a published corporate address and phone that just happen to also be the address and phone of the unnamed blogger, yes. Posting of the address is appropriate because the address is the address that is SELF-identified as the address of a newspaper. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Where on the guy's website does he give his address? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-listed on the Rochester Citizen page is the address of the Rochester Citizen http://therochestercitizen.com/index0.htm?twindow=YellowPage&smenu=83&mad=No&sname=target_yellowpage.asp , the address, publicly posted on the website in question, that was posted on WP. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• New request: Three editors besides myself have commented about how hard the ALEC talk page is to follow. That's due almost entirely to our IP 209.x friend's apparent contempt for talk page norms, as documented in a section of that page. (link/snapshot) As long as this is here, I'd like to ask if someone would have a friendly chat with 209.6.69.227? There's really no reason he should be permitted to keep interfering with everyone else's ability to easily communicate with each other on the page, just for the hell of it. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it correct that they removed Binksternet's comments? If they do so on a fairly regular basis, or if they continue to do that, that's blockable. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I recommend not leaping in with both feet. Binksternet was removing the talkpage comments of the person without an account, citing BLP grounds before the accountless person started posting people's street addresses. It came up at the BLP noticeboard. The simple truth is that they've now both used the undo tool on each other's talk page edits, reverting rather than refactoring.

      The immediate problem is that the accountless person seems incapable of critiquing a source without lobbing personal insults in public at its author. Binksternet's response was to revert rather than refactor. For someone who is a party to the talk page dispute, it's possibly a wise course of action to pick reversion over refactoring the other party's contributions. However, refactoring to edit the thing that needs editing is usually far better than the blunt instrument of using the undo tool to remove entire comments of the other party just to (to pick an example) reinsert a talk page section heading.

      Lionelt trod that middle ground of refactoring the talk page to take out the insults, and the accountless person proceeded to negate any good that that might have done by getting even more personal in the next (now revision deleted) edit.

      Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes, twice, and he's done so before.  ( ← please note these diffs present a different matter than Uncle G has responded to above. )

• 18:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• 19:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There are details, though, and I know ANI hates details. Sorry for that, but it's hard to grasp exactly what these two diffs are about, just from reviewing the talk page (permalink) since it's so "choppy" because of the IP's shenanigans.

A field guide to the talk-page behaviour of the wild anon

As brief an explanation as possible: Because of a previous tangle over editing others' talk page contributions, 209.x decided he wouldn't respond in any talk page section I'd created to introduce a new topic, but would just create a new section himself whenever he wanted to reply to or rebut some point I'd made. In the instance that the two diffs above apply to, I'd first created a level 2 section labeled Leadership structure tables restored to explain that I'd restored a "bold" deletion of some tables that had been in the article for a couple of months. Then, before anyone else had replied there, 209.x created a competing level 2 section on the same topic, immediately beneath it, that he labelled, Long Tables, lists of names, instead of narrative ; delete or replace, and if so, with what? Binksternet thought that was pointy, deleted the redundant level 2 header, which effectively joined 209.x's comment back to the original section I'd created, and left a comment documenting what he'd done. That brings us up to the two diffs I presented initially: Those are 209.x restoring his competing level 2 heading, and deleting the comment Binksternet had left, twice, after Binksternet had twice removed 209's redundant heading. Sorry it's this complicated; I've actually left out a few details. If you're a masochist, this intro should allow you to make better sense of the mess in all its sordid splendour by looking at this talk page section, and comparing it to the competing section that 209.x created, immediately beneath it, and which he later re-named. I should also mention that he later restored Binksternet's comment, but retained his redundant heading/section. No one else ever responded there, btw; the section is just noise on the talk page, except for his own comments there, which actually apply to the preceding, original section. The details aren't really that important, imo, but the result is: The talk page has become unnecessarily hard to use and follow because of these kinds of petty disruptions, along with his steadfast refusal to indent, and a couple of other pleasantries. IP 209.x is a very experienced user ( he set up archiving on the page in a single edit ) and we generally expect better from experienced users.

I'm not asking anyone to block 209.6.69.227 over the preceding, or any of the rest of it that I haven't documented here. I'd just like the talk page to be able to be used for the purpose it was intended, without all the games. He hasn't listened to any other editor's polite requests to knock that off, but maybe he'll listen to an admin. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The 209.xx IP editor is going to end up blocked or otherwise restricted eventually, because s/he has made it virtually impossible to use the talkpage, to have a sane policy-based discussion, or to edit the article effectively. The question is how much time and editorial goodwill will be sapped before the inevitable comes to pass. In general, we expect limitless forbearance in dealing with this sort of combative, agenda-driven editing, and then we wonder why we have problems with burnout and retaining good editors. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. My favorite internet experiences are ones in which a proactive administration acts on its own to limit access to bothersome participants. A few warnings for the cleverer ones and then the gate comes crashing down. The noise is not worth keeping—the signal is the thing. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with preventing the IP from editing there; unless someone can persuade me within the next several hours, I'm probably going to block the IP for disruption, and I have no problem with further sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Northern Lights. I do not see a case for disruption, though I do see a case for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My edits have been scrupulously concerned with facts and arguments. There are an extreme number of posts that address or insult editors, instead of addressing facts and issues. I assure you that this is disruptive, but that my posts are not among that category. I have collected every post that attacks or mostly addresses an editor not an article, and provide them here for your convenience. Used the collapse template because the personal attack list of posts is long

Must also bear in mind the many outside calls to vandalize Wikipedia, as well, much like this one [[22]]; much partisan advocacy, from outside WP, to promote and disseminate info not on ALEC, with NPOV, but on people's pet boycott projects.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgot this one, where WP editor claiming to have searched and geolocated my IP to K Street, Washington, and thus proving I am a Lobbyist. "and it has since been deleted here here and here by some beltway person with an IP address of 209.6.69.227 "--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To similarly ease the determination of an Administrator, I have taken the remainder of the Talk page, without the personal attacks, personal comments, personal disparagement, focus on editor not article, and posted it here. I have helpfully marked all my edits. Please find a single one that disparages a person, is not constructive, or deals with anything but the facts and the reliability of Wikipedia.

--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the IP's entire copy-pastes of content from the talk page, as it comprised more than a third of this page's content. IP editor, use diffs in the future rather than copying and pasting stuff right from the talk page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that wall of text was an excellent illustration of the problem. But thanks for removing it. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Would just add that we shouldn't take the bait re the IP's attempt to steer this into a broad debate about incivility on the talk page. Lord knows one can find loads of snarkiness there − with an abundance of the ridiculing comments coming from the IP, btw − but it's not about that. --OhioStandard (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ryulong; diffs aren't really applicable. I think the best way to demonstrate problems or lack thereof is to edit well and thereby provide the whole record in a way that any Admin can scan and immediately see where the problem is and is not. I believe (unless your removal of my edits was during the fix of markup and disrupted this) that my very cursory first pass achieved that. Very often, the first step in good edit is to organize like elements. I think it would be unreasonable to expect any Admin to sort out from the mess that is the Talk page, since it is poorly organised, and full of chaff, and a bit of a rambling mess. I merely sorted it into 1) antagonistic personal comments, personal attacks, addressing the editor not the article, 2) long single-source essays or major Google search dumps, which though not obviously antagonistic, seriously impair the readability of the page 3) edits that address an issue, even if badly (and was very tolerant in that regard toward other editors) The page as a whole is about one third of each category. I am not represented in category 2, almost not represented in category 1, and a precise, factual and to the point contributor to category 3. If you only read category 3, the category I contribute to, it doesn't read badly as a Talk page. I fail to see how that qualifies as disruptive.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's quite enough of that. I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for various disruption, and should it resume I'll block for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Refusal to indent as intentional disruption

( Note: Section header added by Ohiostandard at 16:08, 30 May 2012 UTC but no objection to a revert per rtp. )

Thanks, Blade. Let's hope the block gets IP 209.6.69.227's attention. But can I ask if there's an expectation that 209.x will stop posting by default at flush left, and conform to normal indentation practices, once his block expires? I know wp:indent isn't a policy, but I've always understood that was only because we don't want it to be used to bite newcomers who don't know any better. 209's refusal to indent is probably half of what makes the ALEC talk page so hard to use and follow where IP 209.x has touched it.

And as a corollary question to admins generally if you all won't mind: Are any of you willing to consider blocking experienced users (only) just for consistently refusing to indent, after being politely asked to, when it looks like they're just trying to be a dick? --OhioStandard (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Experienced users should know that there's more than one tool in the toolbox. Just as every article problem isn't fixed with the deletion tool and every content problem isn't fixed with the undo tool, every talk page problem isn't fixed with the blocking tool. Just WikiGnome the proper list markup in with the edit tool. This is a wiki, and we can refactor discussions for legibility, quietly and without fuss. Collect already pointed this out, a day ago, albeit in the middle of a paragraph. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course one tries refactoring. But an experienced editor who has already refused a polite request to start indenting always reverts such a refactor, in my experience. Our wp:refactor guide gives him the right to do so, without recourse, since it says, necessarily, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." IP 209.x did revert, in fact, the one time I tried an indentation refactor, as I documented in the third paragraph of the section you refer me to.

Certain experienced editors do use this technique, in particular contexts, of always posting at flush left to either add prominence to their own posts, to disrupt discussion that might produce a result they don't want, or both. Or they do it just to troll, I suppose, too. I'm not just talking about the occasional mistake we all make from time to time. I'm talking about a deliberate flouting of the expected norm for threaded discussion, simply because someone can, and I want to know if there's any effective way to address that when it happens? --OhioStandard (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The refusal to indent is just a symptom, not the underlying problem. The problem is that the IP doesn't listen to anyone else, acknowledge or engage with anyone's concerns, or make any effort to facilitate a productive discussion. If he started indenting his posts perfectly (or if we did it for him), we'd have fixed one superficial manifestation of the problem, but the underlying issue would still remain. If an editor shows zero interest in or ability at productive discussion, then proper indenting is the least of the concerns. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree it's just a symptom, but its a real impediment to me and my ADD brethren. In neuropsych tests my tribe always has more difficulty ignoring salient but irrelevant visual stimuli than normals, and the same is almost certainly true here, re the constant left-margin posts. My own eyes saccade to flush left posts all the time, even though they're not the ones I'm trying to read.

Even for people whose brains don't work like that, though, constant flush left posts make it impossible, or very difficult, anyway, to choose or understand who a reply is intended to address. Each new flush left post effectively acts like a new, randomly located level 3 heading, if you stop and think about it, in its impact on thread continuity.--OhioStandard (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Stalker account

I'd appreciate it if someone would take care of Ywreuv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which apparently exists largely or entirely for reverting my edits. User has been warned and removed the warning. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas has given him a final, final warning. If he does it again I'll block him indef pronto. Moreschi (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish, though, that Viriditas would have been more formal in their warning. This account has other problems, soapboxing not being the least of them. One wonders if their POV is not a kind of conversion therapy, given the user's user page, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it being some sort of homebrew conversion therapy but it certainly is a textbook illustration of reaction formation. Fortunately for the rest of us, WP is not the place to be acting out the fundamental dysfunctions within one's psyche. Thanks Viriditas and Moreschi for addressing this with speed and strength. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Having read the user page several times now, I'm having a hard time believing it. It really does sound like a role-playing account. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Or the editor could genuinely mean what he says, which is quite possible. That being said, I echo Drmies - it's not so much that you could have been more formal in your warning, it'd be tough to be less formal. I can't imagine anyone taking that to be an official warning from an admin so much as Roscelese calling in the thugs for an attempt at intimidation. Ravenswing 18:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I consider myself fairly proficient in recognizing user behavior on Wikipedia, and nothing about this user page rings true. I think it is obvious that this a throwaway account used to harass Roscelese. The user does not require a more formal warning, they require an indefinite block for disruption. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

user:Archivesharer

Archivesharer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User is a WP:SPA and subject of a sockpuppet investigation [23]. Edits suggest conflict of interest; more importantly, user impugns actions and motives of editors with whom they disagree, accusing them of character assassination, and makes veiled threats of lawsuits, or at the least, encourages the article's subject to consider such actions. [24], [25], [26], [27]. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Editor is also guilty of crimes against English and logic. I looked at the diffs you provided and find them difficult to understand--probably because there are a few basic misunderstandings displayed in them of a complete failure to understand how this joint works. I am somewhat hesitant to block; I hope that CU evidence will have some bearing on the matter. Another admin may disagree and think that the edits by Archivesharer themselves are disruptive or threatening enough to block. Then again, if Michael de la Force is deleted the problem might go away, but there can be no SNOW keep now unless the lone dissenting vote is stricken for whatever reason. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Mostly it's WP:GRAPES--a prolonged rant of "if they take my article away then the whole place sucks." The AFD rationale is sensible, and the reaction to it is becoming more strident. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I am very close to blocking the account for the duration of the AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      • See also the comment here, here is a team now looking at all of the remarks by editors and how things have been handled which are untrue that has been coming from the Wikipedia editors., which has not been redacted - this is clearly intended to produce a chilling effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I have weighed in at the AfD and have tried to make the editor's layout conform to regular standards. I signed for them. I have tried to read all their comments, and strained both my Fowler muscles. They also removed some of my words at the AfD, which another editor reverted. In short, I guess I am a bit involved. Bushranger (et al.), any time you want to put a stop to this, that would be great--with a block or a premature SNOWy close of the AfD. I'd ask Moreschi, but their neutrality in closing AfDs was impugned on this very page. ;) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Heh. Well, I've looked things over, and I've gone ahead and closed the AfD as delete. No !votes to keep, combined with the apparent desire of the subject not to have a page, made that a fairly easy decision; I suspect the disruption from the user in question here will shortly vanish as they're an SPA. If they don't, of couse, more drastic action might need to be taken. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Well done, Ranger. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I go away for the evening to find DRAMA has unfolded. Thanks to all to helped deal with it. There was some seriously dubious activity (or plain trolling) coming from that account, hopefully the deletion of the article will prevent any further action being necessary. Cheers! Яehevkor ✉ 01:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• That would be nice. However, there have been persistent attempts to remove all traces of the AFD process, including erasures of user's talk pages [28], [29], and [30]. I'm hoping the SPI proceeds; even then, other accounts may still emerge with the same intent. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• (Same user as previous 99 account) I'm asking yet again for further action re: this account and its socks, as requested both here and at SPI. The intent to expunge all remnants of the AFD discussion from user pages has no apparent boundaries. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• • To continue using subject's name without their permission relating to an action which has already taken place is disingenuous; especially in the context an item supposedly “proposed” but in reality is complete. If not disingenuous, it is malicious and potentially libelous. Your community has already taken into account subject’s desire to have not be a part of or included in Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. It is clearly noted and was taken into consideration at articles for deletion. So, please respect that desire fully and remove subject’s name from the pages of Wikipedia permanently. Many of your editors prove quite poor in this matter as well. You appear a sensible editor, perhaps you could advise.

Disruption is continuing, user is now refactoring other's talk page comments to remove this name. No idea why; article's already gone. N419BH 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And they were already pointed to WP:RTV and stated their intention to use it. I've given them a final final warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And they've replied back saying the issue will not be resolved until all mention of this individual is removed from Wikipedia. N419BH 19:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted, what more needs to be done? There's an AfD there sure but there's nothing defamatory in it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparrently all mention of this specific person needs to be removed from Wikipedia. N419BH 19:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment -- Thank you for removing the subject's name from his family's disambiguation page, etc. To be clear, what has been requested is that all referenced names and/or links on user talk pages, etc. etc., be removed as they relate to subject, contain, and/or make use and reference to subject's name. The subject has requested not to be included in Wikipedia. That request has been honored by Wikipedia already. But, numerous links and mention of subject's name clearly remain active on various pages. We know exactly where all the links are located, if that can be of assistance to the community. Thank you for your understanding and assistance.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivesharer (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this train coming for days. Now there's this [31], offered with a straight face, at the same time that the user says that they'd never dream of making threats. Someone, please, attend to this, because if this drags on I'll request page protection, as needed, for the pages that these accounts persist in refactoring and vandalizing. Which, oddly, only brings more attention to the subject this user is trying to expunge. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, have the refactorings, with removal of the specific AFD title, been approved? [32]. Is this necessary to protect someone's privacy? There was no problem, privacy-wise, for the months that a vanity article existed here. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply -- Don't take it as a threat 99. No threat intended. If the subject does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject should not be included in Wikipedia, right? There are no threats. It is just a team of journalists explaining their position through my account to your team of editors. The goal is to be friendly and to resolve the matter soon so that all can get on with their respective business. We are all in the same basic business; varied, yes! But, we all maintain quite similar infrastructures. Archivesharer (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I think your and associated accounts' edits make clear that your goal is very different from those which Wikipedia attempts to adhere to. But I'm not sure what 'we' you're referring to; I think you're operating as a sockpuppet, and suspect there's but one of you causing the disruptions here, based on unhappiness over the removal of an article that was promotional in intent, and didn't approach encyclopedic or basic journalistic standards of quality. Shall we revisit the AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force? Because this ought to have ended there..... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't take it as a threat 99. No threat intended. If the subject does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject should not be included in Wikipedia, right? There are no threats. It is just a team of journalists explaining their position through my account to your team of editors. The goal is to be friendly and to resolve the matter soon so that all can get on with their respective business. We are all in the same basic business; varied, yes! But, we all maintain quite similar infrastructures.

• • You are entitled to your beliefs, albeit them inaccurate in this instance. I trust this debate will go on for long time to come if they cannot be resolved now. I intend to make a visit to Mr. Bacon and see what advice he may lend. He seemed to be able to resolve the matter, ultimately. That debate took more than the simple suggestion you have referred to. Archivesharer (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment -- If the subject requests not to be included in your project, why do you insist on using the subject's name? Is that encyclopedic behavior? Please do not replace my duplicated comment it was a error.

Who is Mr Bacon? Reading between the lines it sounds like some kind of veiled legal threat. And "team of journalists explaining their position through my account"? Are you saying this account is shared, as the name implies? Are you aware this is expressly forbidden per Wikipedia:Username policy#Sharing accounts? I find it ironic, that reading the original article, it was clear in least in my eyes that it was written from the perspective of someone with a conflict of interest. It's interesting now that someone with just the same conflict is now engaging in a witch hunt against the editors who tried to address the article's many issues, then see it deleted (which is apparently a deletion you agree with). No one here actually wrote that article. I can propose the AfD be blanked, as a courtesy. But to remove every mention of the subject from Wikipedia, you are not likely to see that happen. Яehevkor ✉ 20:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User is referring to billionaire Louis Bacon suing Wikipedia re this Huffington Post story [33] titled "Billionaire Louis Bacon Wins Wikipedia Defamation Suit, Will Go After Names" and this Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/In the news article "US billionaire obtains UK court order to reveal Wikipedians' identity". *(I see that the account has now been blocked.) Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This is, essentially, trolling by Archivesharer. The horseshit (excuse me) about Columbia University looking into this, the references that we're associated with the Enquirer are whole-cloth delusions [34], [35]. But on they go.... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Reply: Not horseshit 99. Matters of fact! Do you know who the subject's wife is? Do you know where she works? Do you know who the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of LEADERS Magazine is? He was one of the two original people who took what was the New York Enquirer moved their offices to Lantana, Florida along with the late Generoso Pope. They changed the name to the National Enquirer, and subsequently made the paper the number two bestselling item in the supermarkets next to milk. He also recruited the subject directly to work for LEADERS Magazine over eighteen years ago. These are realities. They are not editorial opinions. They are facts. Wikipedia may have a few of the details, not sure. Check it out -- it is all out there, too, if you actually know where to look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivesharer (talk • contribs) 20:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Archivesharer (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Simply because Mr de la Force is not notable enough for an article it does not follow that all references to him must be removed from the site. That's an especially nonsensical argument for removing the discussions which led to the article's deletion. Further attempts to remove his name would be disruptive, and should lead to a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• This has gone on long enough; it's clear that regardless of whether or not this is serious or trolling, the disruptive editing and legal threats (with accompanying wikilawyering over how they're not "threats") are going to continue, as a WP:IDHT attitude has been taken to the repeated explanations and requests to stop the disruption (clearly they're unaware of the Striesand effect). Accordingly, per WP:NLT, Archivesharer has been indefinitly blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles

This deletion debate seems (to me at least) to be getting out of hand. It seems that all the arguments one way or the other are already on the table and I would recommend an early closure. There are accusations of some pretty nasty gaming and I fear that leaving the debate to run its normal course will lead to more disruption, and further deterioration of otherwise good editors' behaviour, without adding anything of value to help the closing admin make a decision. WaggersTALK 15:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that was getting out of hand. Closed, although I am sure that this will wind up at DRV. Feelings and agendas seem to be running high. Moreschi (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the attacks on the keep voters are pretty bad in that discussion. And, yeah, it probably should go to DRV, 6 deletes to 5 keeps, with the closer's statement sounding like a vote itself? Consensus does not make. Silverseren^C 18:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The vote count is irrelevant, it doesn't mean it was close; Keep or delete is on the strength of the arguments and not the count, Moreschi is correct to weigh up the arguments per WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CLOSE: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the administrator's own views about what is the most appropriate policy...He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate...He is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument."

As for the closer's closing statement: "Clearly such scholarship exists, but it does not seem extensive enough to support the burden this article would place on it." The extensiveness of the scholarship was not discussed by the voters, so that means this is his opinion. "I am sceptical this could be seriously improved, particularly given the inevitable drama involved in using the traditionally geographical term "British Isles" (itself rather loaded) in a political context." Again, opinion. This is not a neutral closing decision and it is very obviously not so. And, finally, a question, does Moreschi have any connection to the British Isles debate? Silverseren^C 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Scholarship was discussed in the AfD. The closer must weigh up to the other issues raised. IRWolfie- (talk)

Thank you for your neutral observation, Silver seren. I know little of this matter, but having read the AfD I can only thank Moreschi. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The article author and I are talking this over on my talkpage, and I think we're getting somewhere. I've expanded on my reasoning there somewhat, and we're talking about the best ways to recreate (since we both feel there is something here to be preserved and expanded upon). Based on the balance of the arguments presented I felt the ayes had the best of it, based on the very clear issues of bias and (more importantly) unclear scope that were raised. And no, I obviously have no connection to the politics of the British Isles debate, being neither an Irish nationalist (the people who really object to the term), nor an Ulster Unionist or whatever. Had I a dog in this fight, I would not have closed the AfD. Moreschi (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  Hi. Thanks again for the discussion and explanation of your position. I'm sorry that you saw the scope as unclear; I guess my thought was, the scope would be a summary of *all* political relationships/interactions between the countries in the archipelago, focusing on the multilateral ones, and linking out to the detailed articles when necessary (e.g. like Anglo-Irish relations). In any case, I've listed for DRV (see below), so hope to hear yours and other's thoughts - and especially, if kept deleted, what might a re-born version look like that would be more acceptable? --KarlB (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Politics in the British Isles

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KarlB (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Some other topic

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE VALID COMMENTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivesharer (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Deleting INvalid comments, however, is quite acceptable. Ravenswing 18:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Block Review

A short time ago, I noticed an odd edit to to my Bot userpage marking it as "inactive". As I have (I believe) a positive history with User:Rcsprinter123, I left a rather glib comment before investigating further. While waiting for a response, I looked through their contributions, and noted a whack of similar edits using AWB to a whole bunch of Bot userpages. As this was using a semi-automated tool, I chose to block for '60 hours, in part due to the block log, but for the purpose of getting such edits to stop ASAP.

There has been no sign of an approved BRFA for these edits to bot pages, and I would be extremely willing to unblock with the condition they be reversed, and that more care is taken with future such edits (as a minimum, check both the bot AND the owner's recent contributions).

Again, I am willing to unblock with those conditions, and indeed, the editor themself has not even posted an unblock. However, extensive discussion has taken place on the editor's talkpage - and although I can agree with some points, I am not convinced that I have not done the right things to have prevented the disruption using a semi-automated tool. They are, after all, responsible for those edits.

This is not any form of retribution for the edit to my Bot - that would be childish, and irresponsible - that edit merely drew my attention to a perceived wide swath of disruption.

I of course welcome a review. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your link to "glib comment" appears to point to a diff after you blocked the editor who had edited your bot page. Where did you attempt to discuss this with the other editor? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My bad ... fixed! Very sorry for that! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, as an AWB user myself, I know it's very easy to "ignore" an incoming talkpage message while AWB'ing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. It stops you from editing until you've viewed your talkpage. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 15:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

3 minutes from "glib comment" (a WTF) to block, after he marked your bot inactive. NB, he did reply to your "glib comment", but that was ignored. No warning that the behaviour might lead to a block, no explicit request to stop the behaviour. I've stated my displeasure with this block on the talk page, as have 7 other editors. Bad block. Worm^TT(talk) 21:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

NB, Rcsprinter has been unblocked by The Earwig Worm^TT(talk) 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A pretty bad unblock, considering this discussion is underway. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I wasn't aware that a discussion was underway. I was writing a comment on his talkpage regarding the unblock and saved it just after this discussion started. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that no one actually informed Rcsprinter that this was going on (looking at you Bwilkins), I don't think it's reasonable to assume The Earwig should have noticed this thread... Worm^TT(talk) 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So, he'll be happy to fix it then :-) The jurisprudence was rather loudly proclaimed on this very board some time ago that such unblocks should not occur (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and fantastic WP:AGF Worm. Bravo. Applause. The snotty prefix to the ANI notice there was oh so classy while I'm in the middle of typing a rather long, custom notification. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. probably over the top. just going get a cup of tea. Worm^TT(talk) 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think blocking 4 minutes after the comment you left on his page was a poor choice. I think if I was in this situation, I would have handled it a bit differently. Did you consider just asking him to stop edits like this first?--Rockfang (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As already stated, since they were being done using AWB, I know how easy it can be to ignore such talkpage messages while AWB'ing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bwilkins, chill. It's clear that you were/are upset by the marking of your bot, and I'm sure RCsprinter regrets that, but blocking him almost immediately and then defending the block the way you are here (which, at least to my eyes, is "rather pugnaciously") isn't helping. The block was questioned substantially on Rcsprinter's talk, and I think it's great that you're here for a block review rather than just looking away, but now is the time to back away a little and let uninvolved people actually discuss the block - and the subsequent unblock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice AGF on you too :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• • This is how wheel wars happen, folks. First, it looks like the bot tagging was likely not the best. Next, I think Bwilkins got a bit quick to block, but finally, unblocking him without first talking to Bwilkins and allowing him to undo his own block was just as hasty. The whole room seems a bit trigger happy today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's highly discussed on the editor's talkpage, actually. I just disagreed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Honstly, having viewed this from the outside I think that both you and Worm are too emotionally involved in this one. Specifically, emotional involvement-which is causing the flareup between the two of you. You are highly involved because your bot was tagged, Worm is highly involved because Rcsprinter graduated from his adoption program. At this point, I believe that what was done is done, the issues have been stated, and Earwig has resolved it. Rcsprinter has been made fully aware of problems his editing has caused and will hopefully refrain from making similar ones in the future, or seek consensus/approval first. At this point, I think the best thing to do is to drop the issue. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• He had been given plenty of chance to undo his own block already (as he's just acknowledged). At any rate, I Support the unblock for the reasons already given by others here, and at more length on the editor's talkpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wheel warring would be re-instating the block, which as far as I've seen, has not actually received any support despite the number of editors who have commented. I'm now sitting here with a cup of tea, realising that I even got my heckles up over the debacle, something I don't do very often. Worm^TT(talk) 21:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw the talk on the page. Without laboring the point, my previous comments still apply. Only an hour had passed, more discussion, here or there, wouldn't have brought down Wikipedia before unblocking. I just think there was too much haste all around. Ryan seems to have the best solution: moving on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you're probably right. I'm certainly going to step back from the situation, I don't believe I'm doing any good here. Worm^TT(talk) 22:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You know folks, I brought this here as a good faith review. Instead, I've been accused of being "emotionally involved" (over an edit to a user page? Seriously?) "pugnacious", otherwise insulted both here and elsewhere. Meanwhile, I've been trying to deal with other Wikipedia issues (and unrelated insults), including trying to get AWB to undo the previous edits to bot pages by the editor so that indeed, that aspect was properly dealt with. Nice good faith everyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I can't speak for anyone else, but I took your actions in the best of faith. That doesn't mean I would have done the same thing, on the same timetable, but I certainly didn't question your faith, or the faith of those that reverted your action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

    See also Assume the assumption of good faith (subsection: "What 'Bad Faith' Is NOT", "getting too emotionally involved in an article or discussion"). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I actually don't see much wrong with BWilkins' block, to be honest. It's usually the best way of getting the attention of someone making dubious edits using automation or semi-automation. Let's face it, it used to be a scramble to see who could wear the badge of "honour" for blocking Betacommand. Having said that, it's also obvious that Rcs understands the problem, so I don't think any more action is required here. Probably best to close now? Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  I would just like to make one final comment: while I can understand blocking to get someone's attention when they are not responding to your messages, this is not the case here; Rcsprinter replied just two minutes after the original message and two minutes before he was blocked. Personally, I would have asked him to stop (which I'm sure he would have complied with) before straight-out blocking him. The "block first, ask questions later" attitude only works with users who clearly aren't here to contribute positively, and any cleanup effort saved by blocking earlier is negated by these unnecessary drama-filled discussions. Regardless, what's done is done, and I hope we can move on from here. — The Earwig ^(talk) 00:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who supported me. None of this was very fair and shouldn't have happened on a routine task. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 15:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone closes this...

...I'd be curious to know if Rcsprinter123 is planning to undo any of the erroneous automated edits. 'Cause I'm still waiting for him to undo erroneous automated edits I reported to him over a month ago. 28bytes (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain that these current ones were erroneous, I'd be expecting him to start a discussion on the matter in the appropriate place. As for the ones you asked him to sort a month ago, I'm hoping this message might spur him on to fix them. Worm^TT(talk) 10:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Pope

There is an anonymous IP that is trying to argue that Nero was a Catholic Pope because both Nero and early Popes used the title Pontifex Maximus. The title Pontifex Maximus predates Jesus by several hundred years and was used to describe the Emperors before it was transferred in use to the early church. I would like somebody to take a look at the discussion and determine if this SPA and another [IP should be blocked/warned/etc... and the discussion closed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is merely a content dispute, and an insignificant one at that. The two SPA accounts have confined themselves entirely to the talk page and there is no disruption happening, so I think this can be safely ignored by administrators. Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have closed the discussion as a clear waste of time, but I don't think blocks are needed for the moment. If he persists, then we have a lot of time to start brandishing our banhammers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Salvio did the right thing... it needed to be closed... by somebody uninvolved. The issue is a non-issue being spurned by a troll.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering Nero blamed the Christians for the fire, he wasn't much of a "Catholic Pope". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wowpedia vs. Template:Wowwiki

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

---

At some point various users went through Warcraft articles and either changed Template:Wowwiki to Template:Wowpedia links or added Template:Wowpedia links and removed Template:Wowwiki from external links and other sections. Although this was blatant vandalism, as with many topics that no admin really cares about at Wikipedia, nothing was done and restoring the WoWWiki links was either reverted or undid without any question as if that were okay. I'd like some admin to tell users to stop removing WoWWiki links.

Wowpedia was a fork of WoWWiki formed by a bunch of disgruntled (perhaps rightfully so) admins, but WoWWiki did not go away or get closed down. However, several Wowpedia users started vandalizing WoWWiki and probably going through Wikipedia and changing all the WoWWiki links to Wowpedia links.

I'd just like to see a ruling by a credible Wikipedia admin that removing Wowwiki links was not the right thing to do. If the ruling is that WoWWiki links aren't notable or whatever using the various bureaucratic mechanisms, I won't revisit this issue and just let all the WoWWiki links get removed, but until then, I will periodically start adding them back.

And no, I won't do this from a logged in account. If that makes a difference, then I please tell me why. --71.141.246.140 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wowpedia is generally regarded as the main Warcraft wiki these days. It's officially linked to by Blizzard on numerous pages and the reasons for the split to begin with, based on what I've read, were fairly well justified. It's true that wowwiki is still around but it's not nearly as active or up-to-date as wowpedia. This is all largely irrelevant to what is essentially a process decision, but I'd be in favour of replacing the wowwiki links with wowpedia if that question is asked at any point. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm against the adding of WoWWiki to articles, which this IP user did. I reverted him explaining in my edit summary "Blizzard links to Wowpedia so that's the only wiki that counts" but they then reverted me, and added them back in. [36] More input here please. Any possible reason to link to a less active less complete wiki? Anyone can produce a wiki on anything, that doesn't make it notable enough to link to. Does it provide any possible information the other one doesn't? And if you have to choose, wouldn't you choose the one that was the most complete AND had the company that makes these games linking to? Dream Focus 01:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds to me like a content dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to opine as I have been a member of both sites. The content fork was due to the fact that wowwiki was going to enable extra advertising and require a change of template. The powers that be for the site decided that they would rather content fork (as is their right) and stay with comfortable ways. It's been observed that with the leadership went the tallent for editing/writing. Wowwiki has atrophied and is now out of date. Wowpedia is fairly up to date and keeps decent integrety. I would endorse the removal of Wowwiki from articles as the content fork ensured that anything wiki had, pedia has. Hasteur (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• IP OP, It's usually a good thing to open a new discussion (not glom onto one that was over a year old) to see if a new consensus has been established. That you are choosing to stir up trouble deliberately on an IP address suggests that if you did this your registered account, it would be highly discouraged. This says to me that there's some sort of conflict of interest or you are wanting to avoid scrutiny. To help you I've proposed deprecating the template at Template talk:Wowwiki#Deprecating the template to see if there is a consensus to keep using this template as an authoritative external link. Hasteur (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm totally uninvolved with either WoW wiki, but a little bit of background info may be useful to people trying to sort this out. When Wikia switched over to their Oasis/New Wikia Look skin from the previous Monaco skin, there was an insurgence (this is not hyperbole) among Wikia users. A sizable number of them left Wikia and moved "their" wikis to non-Wikia hosting. However, Wikia kept the domains and desysopped the insurgent users. Now, because of Wikia's prominence, the first googlehits are usually going to be for the Wikia wikis, and many non-Wikia editors in turn have taken to "aggressive advertising". I don't know the specifics of WoWpedia/WoWwiki, but any Wikia-hosted wiki vs non-Wikia-hosted wiki dispute can be like stepping into a hornet's nest. McJEFF ^(talk) 03:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I just read up on some more info on this at Wikia#Domain_and_skin_assimilation and...yeah, I definitely support the Anti-Wikia Alliance. Silverseren^C 04:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question When did WoW become primarily a Warcraft reference? When I saw the header, I figured it was this guy come back to life. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Um...many, many years ago. You're behind the times, man. :P Silverseren^C 04:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nyttend can't be serious, can he? I mean, it sounds like he's been living with wolves for the last decade... :-) Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Ogdoadic Tradition

Requesting review of my decline of the speedy tag on Ogdoadic Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article had been tagged with {{db-spam}}. I removed the tag as my view is that the article does not meet the WP:CSD#G11 criteria - it is not overtly promotional and is written from a NPOV. The user who had tagged it then appropriately proceeded to tag it with {{prod}}. I have taken no stance on the content of the article beyond stating that I do not believe it meets G11 criteria. However, on my talk page, the user has also disputed my interpretation of the article as not meeting the speedy criteria. Their view is that the article is "pure promotional fluff for a tiny group's pseudohistory."[37]

I have no issue with the article being deleted if consensus is that I misinterpreted the limited scope of G11. The user has also claimed that the article also meets WP:CSD#G3 criteria. I have no comment on that criteria at this time; if consensus supports deleting under that criteria, feel free to delete it (although I believe at this point, that discussion would be better served by going through AfD). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• The article appears to be well written, using encyclopedic language and quite a few citations, which appear, at first glance, to be from reliable sources. If this is a "promotional fluff" piece, the author went to quite a lot of trouble to make it appear otherwise. Clearly, it was not a valid candidate for speedy. Ya done good. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know about that. It's promoting the Ordo Aurum Solis organization, and many of the statements are questionable. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I had glanced at the CSD, but lacked the time to think about it much. Looking more closely, I can't see how it is a hoax, either. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow how this place has changed since I last bothered to be more active. God help Wikipedia if you people can't identify an article so obviously based on involved sources and misused primary sources. I'm not about to be disruptive to make a point as I know better, but if THAT is good sourcing and clearly not promotional by consensus I could have a field day making fluff pieces for my pet interests..... which means tons of other people can AND WILL. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC) @JoeSperrazza: G3 is more than hoaxes. It is blatant and obvious misinformation as well. If you don't think an article whose sole purpose is to support the claim of a fringe esoteric group being the true transmission of an ancient occult religious lineage fits that bill... --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say that it's "obviously"? Being unfamiliar with this field of study, I am not sufficiently aware of the sources to say that it's obviously misinformation, and the only reason we speedy delete something as misinformation is if it's so blatant that anyone (even people unfamiliar with the topic) can see that it's a hoax. We also don't speedy delete something as spam when it's either straight history or a non-blatant hoax. You're free to go with the PROD, and I'm definitely not going to remove it, but I see no reason to delete this article under either of the criteria you cite or under any of the other criteria. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I just don't understand what's so obvious about the "hoax". JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am dumbstruck at how things have changed since I last bothered with deletion. I can also hardly believe that no one here is able to see the problem with the topic and sourcing but for that it's been made clear. Let me break it down:

• The article is a telling of supposed history capstoned with the claim that a fringe esoteric group is its modern surviving heir
• Most of the article is uncited
• Most of the cites are to a tiny fringe group's website and occult books by its members
• The only 2 outside sources are used to support limited claims that say nothing about the main topic
• The writings of a 3rd century philosopher are used to support text about 14th Century activities, including extraordinary claims about the first Medici ruler

If putting it out there like that doesn't make it clear as crystal then nothing will. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Having only had a minute to look at this, I am leaning towards agreement with the IP. There does appear to be some funny business going on here with the sources and the topic as a coatrack for an organization. Unfortunately, neither this noticeboard nor the prod tag are an appropriate way to deal with the problem. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that "hoax" is not a helpful label with fringey stuff like this; it's very hard for us to distinguish between (a) outlandish fringey things made up by the editor, and (b) outlandish fringey things which an editor actually believes in - only the former is truly a hoax, but both are content problems which we need to get rid of. Anyway, apart from the hoaxiness, the text has a rather promotional feel (which is often a hallmark of an editor who came here to spread The Truth). Llewellyn Worldwide looks a little promotional too. bobrayner (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Llewellyn Worldwide is run by Carl L. Weschcke, a former "grand master" of Ordo Aurum Solis [38]. --92.4.177.142 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the IP believes this is a hoax... however it sounds more like a modern organization that exists, but is making a dubious claim as to its historical longevity. That's not so much a hoax as bending the facts to suit their purposes (which is not uncommon with new "ancient" religions). It's also not promotional in tone. Neither G3 nor G11 apply here, but it probably wouldn't survive an AfD. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The User:203.17.156.240 (blocked), Peter Carl Fabergé, homophobic vandalism and blocking duration.

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

Peter Carl Fabergé (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The edits [39], [40], [41] and [42], by the User:203.17.156.240 (blocked), at Peter Carl Fabergé, all being homophobic vandalism, may require deletion. (and are mere 31 hours of blocking sufficiently enough?) I thank you. — KC9TV 04:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the page was under attack, courtesy of Google. There's more gay comments in the history, but since this isn't a BLP, there's no great harm done except to my view of humanity. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tell me about it! A lot of IPs, I say! I am still trying to go through them, myself, but I am not an administrator. Well, don't you nerds use Google any more? — KC9TV 05:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• There's really no point in blocking the IPs after the fact: they are not likely to disrupt that article--just juvenile spur-of-the-moment vandalism, possibly pushed by 4chan or something like that. I've blocked all the throwaway accounts, I think. On the bright side, a lot of legitimate editors have worked to improve the article--there's the silver lining. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

99.231.172.215 - disruptive edits related to Asia

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 2 months by The Blade of the Northern Lights and Caderousse blocked as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole in reponse to a CU

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

This IP was blocked for a month by Elockid for disruptive editing and as the returning ip sock of an (unidentified) banned editor. He has now resumed editing making edits similar to those that precipitated the first block. He left this message on Jimbo's talk page [43] and had this to say about Elockid on his own talk page.[44] The Blade of the Northern Lights already commented on Jimbo's talk page about his disruptive editing.[45] Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be quite right. Apart from the minor matter that the first diff should be [this, the IP in question was blocked by Elockid for "block evasion", although I can see no reason to suspect that and no message was left on the IP talk page. I presume Elockid wrote the wrong reason into the block log -- perhaps like Northern lights and Mathsci he disagreed with some of the editor's contributions. Mathsci also seems confused about the difference between blocked and banned, there is no reason to believe that the IP is a banned user either. Perhaps Mathsci should take the usual route to deal with his content dispute with this editor -- the instructions at the top of this page may help him. Caderousse (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a legitimate content dispute and an obvious attempt to foist an Indian hagiography onto us. Accordingly, I'm blocking the IP for 2 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Caderousse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account created in April 2009, was unused until 2012, when it created a stub on the church where I've already said on WP that I play the organ. It is now trolling here. Elockid is an experienced checkuser and often blocks without listing the puppetmaster. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

My suspicions that this is Echigo mole are confirmed by these edits[46][47] to Beyond Vaudeville which just repeat edits that the community banned editor Echigo mole made as an ipsock [48] 94.197.232.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) having trolled about me on an arbitrator's page with this edit.[49] Mathsci (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@Caderousse: my block reason was intended. I have very strong suspicion to believe that the IP is a banned user. For me, the heavy POV pushing through edit warring, the MO, and the racist comments were pretty much a dead giveaway to who this sockpuppeteer is. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus (film)

Edit war going on over at Prometheus (film), an article about a new film set to hit theaters this weekend. Edit war seems to be over the inclusion of a nearly 1,000-word plot summary (WP:FILMPLOT sets limits of 400–700 words). The summary has been inserted & removed about 4 times today. I'm uninvolved (not from the article entirely, but from this dispute) & intentionally not reading it since I plan to see the film this weekend & don't want to spoil the story for myself. In my opinion, however, the constant reverting seems disruptive to the article. In my experience, when articles about new-release films like this one experience edit-warring over plot summaries, semi-protection is often invoked. Full protection is sometimes applied if the involved parties are auto-confirmed. In any case, some action should be taken to reduce the disruption. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why we can't just have an auto-protect bot that detects edit warring, reverts to the last good version other than the competing versions, and protects the page. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

just how do you expect a bot to detect what's the last good version? DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

By Assuming Direct Control... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this something AN/I needs to be involved with, as opposed to WP:DRN or WP:RPP? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing

• samuraiantiqueworld (talk · contribs)

I noticed this user being quite rude to another and left them this note which included my pointing them at the username policy, as their user page clearly identifies them as "The owners of samuraiantiqueworld", which would be

• http://www.samuraiantiqueworld.com/

They promptly reverted my note, citing WP:OUTING, which it is not. I also called it absurd and left them a formal warning, which they also removed stating "With your history you should know better. Better read it WP:OUTING". I'm fka User:Jack Merridew. I have never before seen this user, yet in a matter of minutes they know my history. This leads me to believe that this is someone I have encountered before under some other name. Given the issues in play in that thread and in their recent editing, I'm thinking this is User:ItsLassieTime. They've also just warned me on my talk page and seem to have pasted the whole outing policy there ;)

• Diff of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
• Diff of User talk:Br'er Rabbit

Bumping this to ANI since I've been accused of OUTING. Will notify the user next. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Notified them, and they removed that, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"Running To Mommy" without a SPI, and yet with an identical thread on UAA? It happens to the best of us, I guess. Any decent diffs to tie this account to ILT or one of their many socks? Behaviorally, of course, since the CU evidence is wicked stale... Doc talk 07:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Been expecting you Doc ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thing is, Doc, the UAA thread is about the username and is a valid issue there. The complaint here is of false accusations of outing and we all know that ANI is a proper place for that issue to be raised. I was hoping you'd be able to comment on the issues Jack raises without the personalisations such as "Running To Mommy" which is clearly designed to insult, and diminishes your argument. You can interact better than that and we both know it. As we all accept that any CU evidence will be stale, there would be no point in asking for an SPI; the administrators here are being asked to consider the possibility that Samuraiantiqueworld may be a ban-evading account on the basis of their recent editing. No doubt that suggestion could be elaborated upon, but why not just ask without wrapping it up in baggage? --RexxS (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you want to interpret what I wrote that way, that's your business. Stick to the topic at hand. These things are bigger than individual editors. Doc talk 09:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Doc that there's been no outing. SAW does sound rather on the quackish side to me, as well, though. And although I'm unaware of the origin of the apparent antipathy, and might very well think differently if I were aware of it, my read of Doc's comment is pretty much the same as that of RexxS. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, FFS - so I alluded to the "Run To Mommy" concept. I'm hardly the first to do this. Was this some sort of "personal attack"? You want diffs? You think I'm "harassing" someone by making that comment? Unreal... Doc talk 09:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you're trolling me, Doc; I'm why you're in this thread ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt. This is AN/I. Welcome back to it. Doc talk 09:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt, yourself; that's just more trolling in your part, given that I've used that for several recent edit summaries. It's gadflies such as you that make this board a cesspit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Moar personal attacks, eh? Gee... that's not so nice. Do you treat your "wiki-friends" this way, too? I won't reciprocate. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This statement by Br'er Rabbit clearly shows an attempt to identify me in violation of WP:OUTING: "The text of your userpage makes it quite clear that you 'are' http://www.samuraiantiqueworld.com/" As per WP:OUTING:

text of wp:outing that was pasted here by SAW collapsed by Ohiostandard at 09:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by Oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you simply regurgitating the entire OUTING policy here? Note the "unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information" part; and your choice of username seems pretty suspect. He did not "out" you according to the policy. Doc talk 08:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I offered SAW a bit of WP:CLUE (link), but their PA would seem to indicate they are not WP:HERE with the best of intentions. I'm content in having tried, but .... Chedzilla (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bluntly, the username sounds like a magazine. I have no idea if it is, or isn't, but if you use the same username offsite for another purpose, well then, you can't complain when someone links the two, especially if the name sounds corporate. Is there really any issue here?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Having reviewed this at UAA and then come here ... clearly there's no outing issue where a possible conflict of interest or sockpuppetry is being identified; a long time ago I was part of a brief discussion of possibly amending the wording to allow for that. As it is the policy, if applied strictly, makes that very difficult.

But since this is "outing" an account as controlled by a business as opposed to a person, that policy doesn't apply. To me.

I am hesitant to block for a username vio for two reasons: no direct connection demonstrated between the site and this account, and the fact that they've edited since 2010 without anyone raising this issue (which could be what mistakenly led them to believe WP:OUTING applied). But their other behavior may make that irrelevant. Daniel Case (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel, it only takes a few moments to look at the site http://www.samuraiantiqueworld.com/ to see that it's a business located in New Orleans which sells antique Japanese armour and weapons - and has a lot of images. An example of one of those images is on Wikipedia and Commons: File:Kusari katabira.JPG; source=samuraiantiqueworld.com; author, uploader and copyright holder = User:Samuraiantiqueworld. I am not sure what you are looking for to demonstrate a direct connection between the site and this account, but it seems rather clear-cut to me. Having said that, I must admit I'm less concerned about Samuraiantiqueworld advertising his business and more about him being so bloody rude to respected, good-faith editors like Ched. --RexxS (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the username is clearly a violation, though their account probably shouldn't be called purely promotional (but I haven't delved too deeply in their history). Drmies (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That image link does make the connection. But, upon further review, I'm still not going for a username block right away. I have often argued at UAA that a name identical with a business is not blockable per se; I like (well, actually, I don't like) to see edits that indicate an explicit intent to promote that business before I block (and this happens a lot more than you may realize if you're not a UAA regular). As I've always said, what if someone logs on with the name "Consolidated Amalgamated Widget Corp." or something of that sort and proceeds to make useful and productive edits, or at least edits that could be seen that way when assuming good faith, to our articles about, say, gardening or poker? Or even similar edits to our articles about widget making that do not even reference the named concern but simply reflect the account holder's expertise in that area (if an account with the name "HousesForSaleUK" were created and made sourced contributions to the articles on English property law and procedure, I would argue against blocking it). I would say that situation exists here, as many of the edits do relate to armor, sometimes Samurai armor, and equestrian equipment (granted, in what I've been able to review so far I haven't seen any evidence of explictly promotional edits, but I haven't delved into much so that's hardly the final word).

And since the name does not include the domain (under which, even famously username-lenient Rspeer agrees, promotional intent is unambiguous since the account name is itself a URL that can be copied and pasted, indicating an intent to use the username to drive traffic to that site), there is less ground for a block on sight.

Things are further complicated by the fact that this account, regardless of the circumstances under which it was created, has been editing apparently without other incident for over two years now. It's a little late for us to all suddenly decide to block on a username basis.

If we truly believe this username is problematic, assuming the account is not blocked for other reasons in the meantime, I suggest that we first ask SAW to consider changing it, then open a username RfC, weighing all these considerations. If the consensus there were to be "disallow", then and only then could we block if SAW insists on using it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• The issue of the username seems nailed down; it is a direct violation of the policy. This user has far more edits to Commons, and seems to have released a fair number of images of Samurai armour. They would all be tagged with the domain name of their business which will result in anyone searching the net for Samurai armour to be presented with links to their site. That's how Google works, how SEO works, why the policy proscribes domain names as usernames; it's /why/ they're using this username.
• I didn't suggest that they be blocked, I suggested that they could avoid being blocked by changing their username. Rather than reply in any way, they attacked me on one of the points I made in my initial post to them.
• "Them". The user page refers to the "owners" (plural) of "samuraiantiqueworld" which would seem to mean both the account and the website. Username policy also requires one person be operating an account, not multiple owners. This opens the possibility that all that image work has been delegated to an employee or contractor (which would mostly be a commons concern).
• User:ItsLassieTime; User:Samuraiantiqueworld knows something of "my history". I know that ILT has given equine topics shit for years. Spidey-sense suggested ILT, or door number three ;)
• Getting back to the /other/ issues, we have a user who was quite rude to User:Ched Davis and User:Montanabw, and has been the root of a lot of drama related to the articles Saddle, Stirrup, and New Forest pony. See the recent history of the first two, the now closed thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Forest pony/archive1. I had edited New Forest pony some days ago after seeing a comment by User:ThatPeskyCommoner and was watching the FAC, and I again saw this user mentioned on User talk:Montanabw, which I also have watched. Samuraiantiqueworld lit into Stirrup, Stirrup, and FAC:New Forest pony causing much agitation to Montanabw and on the RSN page, which resulted in User:Dana boomer being dragged in to defend some of the sources.
• The username is problematic, but the issue of attacking others is needful, as are the attacks on articles and their sources.
• Hope that helps, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you always this paranoid? All anyone has to do to find out your "history" is to go to your user page

User:Br'er Rabbit and click on the Jack Merridew link...duhh (locked/This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.) as for your actions...I have NEVER had any interaction with you on Wikipedia, you attacked me because I was "rude" to your friends? How high school is that, cant they defend themselves without your involvement? I have a right to question the validity of any reference on the proper notice board, that is not considered to be an "attack", as for my editing and User:Montanabw, twice recently administrators have reverted Montanabw's edits in my favor and that is the root of the problem, some people just cant stand being wrong, its an "ownership" issue which has been notice by other editors.. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop adding personal comments into guideline talk pages

In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Yesterday I posted a comment to the In ictu oculi's talk page requesting that User:In ictu oculi ("Iio") stop creating new inappropriate sections and to stop placing personal comments on inappropriate talk pages (such as the talk pages of articles and guidelines). This was in response to this edit.

As can be seen Iio did not respond in a positive way to my request, but continued to make similar comments in similar places.[50] Could some third party administrator please explain to Iio that guideline and article talk places are inappropriate venues to make unsubstantiated comments such as:[51]

It suddenly occurs to me this morning that PBS and MakeSense64 are not refusing to do this out of stubborness or game-playing but simply because they can't. They don't know any language with diacritics, so I might as well be demanding they give an opinion on cuneiform or heiroglyphics.

And then after my request to stop:[52]

Please, don't take this question "personal", you deleted the diacritics section here, but do you speak/read any language which has diacritics? Which one(s)?

As an aside: I did not "deleted the diacritics section" I changed the content. Iio often makes summary statements like this about my actions and others without providing diffs, that in my case are often falsehoods and as Iio does this to me, I suspect Iio makes similar false summary statements about others (but I have not checked) and this is another form of malicious personal attack.

Since I posted my last message to Iio's talk page stating that I would be bringing this issue to an ANI,[53] Iio modified the section somewhat. In response another editor has pointed out that Iio "IIO. You are continuing your pattern of starting new sections (below other topics), in what is an ongoing discussion. Please stop doing that.".[54]. This lead Iio to delete the whole section (before moving it). So that means that the only way to see the section is through the history of the article!

A major problem, which Iio's modus operandi, is that it takes lots of effort to respond to these types of snide asides and creation of new sections about the same topic and these tactics distracts from building a consensus on the talk pages of articles and guidelines about the content of the article or guideline under discussion.

The fact that Iio has made changes removing the specific section I complained about since I posted a statement that I would bring this ANI, may be seen as a coincidence or it can be seen as an admission of wrong doing, either way I think that an uninvolved administrator should warn Iio that recent posts have been out of bounds. --PBS (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Philip, everyone
It's not a coincidence. Of course not. An editor was upset with my comments on the Talk page and I went and reviewed them, and I found out that I was in the wrong. I stand by restoring the removed diacritics section on April 24, but I don't stand by the comments I made yesterday. I had missed one very important thing - that after repeated requests to discuss the changes to MOSPN in relation to article reality at en.wikipedia.org, I selected Lech Wałęsa (due to the page's history), and Philip said some way up the page (May 14 I think) that he was in fact willing to discuss François Hollande as an example, but unfortunately I missed it and only saw Napoleon, which comes under monarchy.

Mea culpa. I hadn't been paying attention properly. The original removal of the diacritics section was back before 24 April when I restored it, and discussion didn't seem to be getting anywhere and what with other edits being made there, I had pretty well given up on it and was only dropping in and giving it half an eye, while noting further changes to MOSPN. And that's probably wrong. Rightly or wrong, perhaps wrongly, I drew the impression that the MOS pages are pretty much a sandbox and a lot easier to make changes there with little relation to en.wikipedia.org reality than in actual article space... so stopped giving the changes full attention, with the result of missing Philip's willingness signalled May 14 to actually discuss the changes in relation to real article space. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The topic (ie. diacritics in personal names) could probably use a widely-advertised RfC. The problem with MOS talk page discussions like that is that a few people with strong opinions end up aguing among themselves and generate huge walls of text that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion.

In ictu oculi, you should try to make sure to focus on the content of comments instead of the person making them. Using speculations of a user's language skills to question their competence is not very productive and the discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. Jafeluv (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Javeluv, you're correct in both of those comments, certainly in the 2nd. However we have just had a form of RfC at WT:BLP which I initiated following a comment by Mike Cline on the no consensus close at BLP Talk:Stephane Huet, I invited all who had commented on BLP diacritics related RMs in the 30 days preceding (91 for, 10 against, of which 20 for and 8 against turned up for the discussion). It is partly because we had just had an exhaustive dicussion at WT:BLP that I was disheartened by removal of the content of diacritics section (since 2009) which had been one of the few clear bits of MOSPN guidance in the WT:BLP discussion.

Having said that, I'm sorry about what I know does appear like "using speculations of a user's language skills to question their competence" but was honestly not the intention, and I have apologised for it appearing that way several times now. I was stuck. On the one hand are editors who apparently do not recognise the reality of where en.wikipedia.org's 4,000,000 articles are (at least that section that touch on Europe and Latin America), and I was floundering around ineptly for ways to explain the gap between the way some editors apparently believe en.wp is, and the way the same Latin-alphabet zone articles appear to those editors active in that article space who can look in e.g. category:Polish politicians and immediately see the one article that sticks out like a sore thumb because it is "misspelled" (I put "misspelled" in quotation marks because I know that many editors do not view e.g. "Francois Mitterand" as a misspelling but as a valid alternative spelling.) My comment looks asenine, I know, but I was trying to identify a shared foreign language where we could focus.... I really don't know what else I can say. Yes I've been tetchy and short with PBS, more than he deserves. But underneath that is the feeling that MOSPN is fine as it has been since 2009, it would be better if it was just left alone, or, as I have invited PBS to do, do as I did and invite 100 editors to a RfC (for which I will take a break). Then make changes to MOSPN once there is a wider consensus. NB I'm not justifying my grumpiness to PBS. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Iio why is it that if your removal was no coincidence, then you knew that you postings were not constructive then why did you repeat you behaviour during the 24 hours after I complained and before I announced that I was going to post an ANI?

I read what you have written here and wonder how genuine you contrition is because you have again ignored some of my first posting to this ANI and repeated the same baseless accusation ("The original removal of the diacritics section was back before 24 April when I restored it") without a diff to back it up. What you mean is that you reverted edits to the section that several people had discussed on the talk page and made to the section:

My first edit to the guideline was made on the 22 April after I had announced on the talk page on the at 17:39 on 20 April that I was going to make this edit, and after no comment against the proposed edit was made on the guidelines talk page (diff).

Edits to the article:

• diff edit by PBS at 09:16 on 22 April
• diff edit by Kwamikagami on 22 April
• diff revert by Iio 02:33, 23 April 2012‎
• diff edit by PBS 23 April
• This was followed by edits by Kauffner (21:17, 23 April 2012‎) Boson (23:05, 23 April 2012‎) and Ohms law (04:03, 26 April 2012‎) making this diff
• diff edit by Iio on27 April 2012‎

So at no point was the section removed and you made your edit on the 23rd not the 24th as stated. Iio why is it that you persist in making inaccurate summaries events which if you were to back them up with diffs would be obvious to everyone including you. Is it deliberate strategy or just carelessness? Either way it makes building a consensus much more difficult and it causes conversations to balloon as people try to get you to correct your misinformation and irrelevant personal comments, presenting non involved editors with a tangle of comments, much of it from you that is just plain wrong or off topic.

It is really time that you corrected you behaviour before this escalates any further, because at the moment:

• the personal comments
• the creation of new sections about something that is already being discussed on the talk page. (Another example from the WP:AT talk page there was and is an active section called Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Questionable phrasing: Ambiguous or inaccurate but instead of placing your comments there you chose to start a new section which was disruptive because the arguments already presented had to be presented again and the conversation about the same sentence is now split over two sections resulting in more bloat and difficulty for editors new to the conversation to follow the thread).
• And comments containing false statements (because of the lack of diffs)

is disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have indented the last comment by by Iio by one more as it was made after my posting to make it clear where Iio's comment ends and mine starts and to indicate it was made after my posting (which Iio has chosen to ignore). I have highlighted Iio's interaction with me because I am most familiar with that. However Iio interaction with me (the personal comments, the creation of new sections and false statements) is behaviour that Iio shows to many editors with whom Iio disagrees and I am willing to provide sample diffs if requested. Therefore the statement by Iio "I really don't know what else I can say. Yes I've been tetchy and short with PBS, more than he deserves" shows that Iio does not understand it is not just Iios behaviour towards me that I am highlighting but a general tendency to using the same tactics with other editors with whom Iio disagrees. -- PBS (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Philip

I did start a new section at the bottom of the page on Talk, but as requested above I moved up to the middle of the page.

The diacritics section of MOSPN (status quo since 2009) was removed 09:12, 22 April 2012, then I restored it 02:33, 23 April 2012. I have not added content to MOSPN, I have simply restored to status quo, as other visitors to the page have done. In fact I never touched the page before reverting the removal of the diacritics section. Further the diacritics section of MOSPN goes back further than 2009. The section "For example, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős" was already there in 2005 when you made your first edit to the diacritics section MOSPN. I'm not making any point there, simply that "For example, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős" has been in MOSPN since 2005 and has possibly had some influence on the fact that en.wikipedia.org articles are from around 2006 onwards effectively all but universally with full Latin-alphabet European spelling as editors have raised the MOS in articles they create or edit to the level of Britannica. As far as I can tell the tiny number of the 3.96 million articles that in 2012 don't follow the 2005 MOSPN are around 100~150 max, mainly ice-hockey stubs (i.e. 120~150 of 890,000 BLPs), but for the sake of argument let's say it is 396, or even 3,960, that's still only 1 in 1,000. If we wind that back and say "only 10% of the 3.96 million articles relate to non-Anglo modern Europe and LatAm in any way and can have diacritics, it's still 3,960 of 396,000, 1 in 100. The point I'm making is that at this stage MOSPN won't make any difference, en.wikipedia.org is already at "For example, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős" 2005-2012 whether in the future Paul Erdős is an example in MOSPN or not.

I'm repeat that I'm genuinely sorry to have been short, grumpy, tetchy, with you sorry to have made the language comment. If you want me to stay out of MOS talk I'll do so. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

See my comments above. Your diffs do not show that the section was deleted, and the qualification in brackets is misleading. However that is by the by, and most of the rest of the paragraph is irrelevant as this is ANI it is not the place to discuss the content of the guidelines (it just muddies the waters in the opposite direction). This is a place to discuss editorial behaviour. It is no up to me (an involved editor) to dictate whether you should or should not "stay out of MOS talk" pages, it is up to you and editors not involved in the dispute to decide that. -- PBS (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Iio has been on my watchlist for several months. I have been involved on the Talk page on MOSPN. I started a new section there, to discuss some of the problems that Mike Cline had expressed very well here:[55]. Iio got involved, but from the very beginning his contributions consisted mainly of minor (and later not so minor) obstructions. He started an unnecesary new section [56], for which he was warned [57]. When it became clear that more editor input would be welcome, I put an "under discussion" tag on the section, which was promptly removed by Iio [58] and he offered this explanation on the Talk page: [59].

He makes edits like this one: [60], which inserts text in between earlier comments and thus almost impossible to see who has said what and when.

And he doesn't shy away from making accusation without offering diffs. Here he accuses me of edit-warring, without showing any diffs: [61]. When I posted a standard AGF warning template on his User Talk, he copied it right back in the MOSPN Talk page, once again creating unnecessary obstruction and repeating his accusations of edit-warring:[62]. Next he accused me and another editor of "disruptions" on another Talk page [63]. I asked him multiple times to show diffs or remove his accusations, to which he grudgingly agreed after trying to worm out of it in every possible way, also on my User Talk.

I could go on to cite diffs, but this is probably more than enough already. To put this in perspective I would like to end by pointing to this conversation he had with an admin a few weeks ago: [64]. He talks about 10 editors he considers disruptive and should be "closed down". The admin responded by explaining Iio that he was moving on shaky ground: [65].

This begs the question whether Iio's behaviour towards me and some other editors is nothing but his method of "closing down" editors he considers disruptive.

Nothing suggests to me that Iio is trying to find a concensus to improve that page, all he seems to be interested in is keeping it status quo (stonewalling).

He seems to be operating solely from a strongly held belief that all names on wp should be changed to Chicago MOS spelling. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure question

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

---

I would appreciate if someone could clarify if this AfD was correctly ended as a non-admin closure [66]. From what I've seen on this website, I was under the impression that non-admin closures could only be done if there was no call to Delete an article. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only was the NAC improper, but neither was the result. Non-notable company: delete was the only possible outcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

fixed my post (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the NAC was proper but the result was incorrect? You say delete was the only possible outcome, but the result was no consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was a typo s/proper/improper/. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. 3 comments in 26 days isn't a consensus. Nobody Ent 11:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

...and as such, it's one of those times where the closing admin carefully looks at the article, the 3 arguments provided. The only keep argument is weak when the actual ref's are looked at, and as such the two delete ones - well-grounded in policy - are the consensus. Re-opened the AFD and closed accordingly. I fear the original NAC closer was thinking this is a !vote (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

or relists as two administrators actually did. Nobody Ent 11:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If there are comments here that I should hold off for a while, of course I will. I believe I'm exercising caution and a quick look through my edits should reveal that I'm not simply blasting through closing things here, there and everywhere. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. You recently relisted one where policy-based consensus was horrifically obvious. AFD is not a vote, you need to look at the "evidence" and weigh based on policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm well aware that it's not a !vote. Please feel free to check through some of my other closes and you should find some which demonstrate I don't close based on !votes. -- Trevj (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Horrifically? Then why didn't the two previous admin's close it?? There's an 80 something article Afd backlog and you're going to slam an editor trying to clear it? Nobody Ent 11:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect BWilkins is referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryse Selit, also discussed at User talk:Trevj#Talkback. -- Trevj (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right -- but it's doesn't change my opinion. Horrific is things like plane crashes and that event Godwin's law refers to, not Afd discussions. It's just a website. Nobody Ent 12:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The NAC close was correct. One delete and one keep equals no consensus. That and a NAC can never close as delete. The NAC was fine.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Except it's not a simple !vote, of course. -- Trevj (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Unless someone takes Clampco Sistemi to WP:DELREV or something, only admins are going to be able to assess the refs in the article as it was. -- Trevj (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Two delete !votes including the nominator, and a single keep which just said "I say it's fine" - no rationale, no nothing. I might have relisted it if it was on its first week but after this amount of time, with no-one actually saying anything worthwhile in the article's defence, it's an obvious delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I use to make WP:NPASR closes before I became an admin and I would very rarely do it when there was a "delete" !vote unless that "delete" !vote was completely out in left field. I would not have touched this one because the 1 "delete" !vote was grounded in policy, the 1 "keep" !vote was from the article's creator and aside from bolding the word "keep", he didn't make any argument at all. It was almost a chewbacca !vote. Gmenta, on the outside chance that you are reading this, I'm sorry but your argument was basically "because I said so" which is not a rationale for keeping or deleting --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To cite one WP:NPASR case which has recently been drawn to my attention (albeit with some actual discussion), how about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Savage (film producer)? Does anyone here think that should have been closed as delete rather than no consensus? -- Trevj (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Am I missing something? Why is it being described as a non-admin closure? Bwilkins (talk · contribs) is an admin. This was a perfectly routine AfD closure. Anyone who disagrees, can raise the matter at DRV - providing they have extra evidence of notability! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, you're missing the history. -- Trevj (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a NAC to no consensus originally, BWilkins over-ruled the NAC and changed it to delete, hence the discussion.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 12:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that WP:NACD states Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. Therefore, over-ruling a close may not have been the correct procedure - whereas just reverting it does seem to be. -- Trevj (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing there that would stop an admin, if he believed the close to be incorrect, re-opening it, then immediately closing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I might add that under different circumstances, I may have had a more thorough search for references myself and contributed them to the discussion (if the search were successful) or !voted delete (if not). But in this case, we're in week 3 with plenty of time for others to have already !voted regarding refs... no consensus seemed appropriate IMHO. Would we really be having all this drama if the no consensus close had been made by an admin? -- Trevj (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Trevj's non-admin No Consensus closure was an acceptable action. It was overridden as Delete by an admin, perfectly within policy and acceptable. Nothing improper was done, an admin simply overrode a good faith NAC using his best judgement under WP:NPASR. This is how the system is supposed to work, it isn't a bug, according to my reading of WP:NACD, as he basically reopened and reclosed the AFD in one action. Since there are no bad faith actions by anyone involved, ANI is the wrong forum. WP:REFUND is the proper forum if someone disagrees with the outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the closer, should s/he be insistent in closing, should probably have taken a better look at the references beforehand to see which !votes, if any, were correct in accordance to policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-admins should not touch a deletion discussion unless it is absolutely crystal-clear that it is a keep. IIRC, I have closed only one myself, when some git nominated a Beatles song for deletion. They can't close delete for obvious reasons, and it shouldn't really be up to them to determine non-consensus. NC at that Clampco Sistemi AfD was a poorly thought out and ultimately wrong call. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I have no comment as to the wisdom of either close since that is beyond the scope of ANI. My point is that no actions appear to be in bad faith or a violation of policy, so ANI is an improper place to discuss it. If the non-admin feels it was truly a mistake, WP:DRV is another option, but nothing that anyone has done requires immediate action by another admin, thus this needs to be closed at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I would add that I personally have no problem with a non-admin closing as no consensus or merge, as the bit doesn't bestow extra wisdom. It is bold, but I encourage boldness. An admin is free to override when they feel it is necessary, and we have two venues designed to deal with "mistakes" if the non-admin thinks one was made. ANI simply isn't one of those two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't just re-open the discussion, he re-opened and closed it,which goes further than the instructions on NAC state:

Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. f this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought.

This AFD was NAC closed. Then , on request reviewed by the admin , which I agree, is supported by NAC. He re-opened it, again NAC says that can happen, no problem. He then turned around and closed it which goes further than the stated policy. Shouldn't he have simply re-opened it ? KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 13:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) OK. We all make mistakes. Thanks for what has proved to be a useful and informative discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Once opened, he simply chose to reclose it, something any admin can do. That he reopened it didn't taint the situation or make him "involved". Technically, another editor could have reopened and reclosed as "keep" in a bold move, although I don't recommend that in most circumstances. The admin should be free to reopen and close any AFD he feels was made in error, that is pretty much the role of an admin, after all. Again, there are two venues to take the issue to. Even though I am an admin, if Bwilkins felt it was necessary to revert me and change the close, I would have taken it to his talk page, then if I was unsatisfied with his answer, I would take it to WP:DRV, which is specifically setup for this. But to clearly answer your point, I believe it is acceptable for an admin to do what Bwilkins did. As to whether the article should be "keep", "no consensus" or "delete", I have no opinion, I'm only saying that he acted properly. It might not be common, but I think the act of overriding another editor in this way is proper. The two should simply discuss it, outside of ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:Assalatu

User:Assalatu a new WP:SPA added a long, unsourced section to the top of the Makera Assada article (diff = [67]) accusing the writer of "liable" (I assume he means libel) and ending in:

... is by this write up disputing the history of one Muhammadu Andi and other disparaging remarks made by the author of the fake history of Makeran Assada rock. A law suit against the author cannot be ruled out.

This text also appears on his user page. I reverted his entire addition to the article, but he has just added it back again.
I know nothing about Makera Assada, so have no idea if his claims have any truth, but his additions are clearly contrary to WP:NLT
Arjayay (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since no one had commented about this on his talk page, except to give notice of this ANI, I have left a message. I suggest waiting a short period to see if he will fix the problem. If he edits anything other than addressing this issue, then I would block on the spot. If he doesn't reply reasonably soon, a block is likely warranted. I don't want to jump the gun, he is a new editor, but the weak threat isn't acceptable. If another admin feels other actions are needed, I will not be offended. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note that this message is also found in his sandbox, [68]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I have indef blocked the user, in particular for this edit that led to an IP sock block, that appears to have been made while logged out, to avoid scrutiny. Any admin is free to review or unblock if he recants and makes it clear he has no intention of suing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse indef. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

196.25.207.14 made a legal threat here and I reverted the page blanking. I'm not sure of the procedure for this sort of stuff so I'm letting the admins sort it. Rcsprinter (orate) 16:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Batman Homosexual Section

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

---

I read the article's policy and it reads no original research. I emailed DC comics and they read that Batman is not a homosexual or will never be one. That section is technically original research and there should be no original research on the article so have it removed. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no claims on the Batman article (or the related Wikipedia article) that DC Comics ever intended it - it was research by others (but not WP:OR), as per the links. It's a "cultural significance' concept, that is valid for the article. That said, this is a content issue, and not a matter for Administrators (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Editor/IP reverting against consensus, refusal to communicate, potential socking

• Juanmramirez2012 (talk · contribs)
• 99.33.2.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• O'Hare International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The above user and IP have performed a nearly identical edit to the above article on, by my count, ten different occasions over the last couple of weeks. These edits have been rejected and reverted by at least five different editors, myself included, because they are unsourced and non-notable/no claim of notability provided. The IP has had the reasons why the edit is not acceptable explained on the talk page, yet the same IP continues to make the same edit without discussion. This has become disruptive and it appears the IP plans to continue making the edit until something is done to prevent them from doing so.

Diffs:

Juanmramirez2012: [69] [70] [71]

99.33.2.216: [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]

Notification is being provided now. N419BH 17:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of STiki tool

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

---

Michael Barboz (talk · contribs) is a new user who has gotten his hands on the STiki tool, and is reverting large batches of edits as vandalism, when the majority of the edits are not vandalism. Some are honest mistakes, and some are legitimate improvements. I have tried addressing the issue, but he chose to delete my comments on his talk page rather than address them. I believe a 24-hour block to allow him to cool down and read the policies would be a good idea. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A specific example of misusing the tool is [79] where the user reverted an edit that was an actual grammar improvement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have left a warning on their talk page; I'd rather not block just yet, but if they continue like this, I'll do it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

i have gave up using 'STiki' for now. ~=Michael Barboz (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Has anyone else lost their gadgets?

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

---

I have no gadgets. No twinkle, nuffing. Help! Egg Centric 17:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

They came back. Did anyone lose their gadgets? Egg Centric 17:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mine are currently nonfunctional. N419BH 18:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Additionally, Special:Gadgets doesn't show any gadgets, and the gadget check-box info in my preferences is gone. — Richwales 18:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

See village pump.--Chip123456 (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User Gwern disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point

See Gwern (talk · contribs) 's experiment here http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#sins-of-omission-experiment-2

While working anonymously, eg. 140.142.16.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Gwern has been randomly deleting external links, then waiting a month to see if they are put back. When the randomly chosen external links are not put back, the "editors of a page" are told they "failed": "rv test of editors for this page; you failed. see http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#sins-of-omission-experiment-2)". The point of all this nonsense is that WP:EL is wrong or evil or something.

Editors should be banned from this type of behavior, per Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The last edit from that IP was a month ago, and I believe this was discussed previously here. Are there any more recent edits which show the removal of external links? -Scottywong| speak _ 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find the prior discussion in the archives. What was the result? Telling a few hundred or more editors they "failed" is rather uncivil. I would have thought an apology would have been more appropriate rather than self-satisfied snark. It makes it seem like Gwen intends more of this kind of thing --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any previous discussion of this either; I thought I had seen something along these lines recently, but I could be wrong. I have to admit that this is somewhat concerning to me. It could be reasonably argued that it is intentional vandalism, as well as running an unapproved bot. Both of these are potentially blockable offenses. I'd be interested to know if any other similar "experiments" have been run by Gwern since May 1. -Scottywong| speak _ 19:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwern's block log seems to indicate that something similar took place in 2007. This is probably why Gwern decided to remove the links anonymously this time. -Scottywong| talk _ 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_105#Blocked_or_Banned --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwern repeatedly referred to the edits as "vandalism", both on Jimbo's talk page and on the WikiEN-l mailing list (where Gwern mocked others' input and ignored multiple requests to terminate the unauthorized experiment). —David Levy 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It was previously discussed, yes. To be clear: The experiment is over. All the test edits have been reverted. I have no ongoing experiments (except I plan to check in a month how many of my cleanup reversions were themselves reverted, since it would be quite ironic if my cleanup was reverted at a higher rate than the original vandalism/test edits!). I currently have no plans for future experiments since these 3 were quite time-consuming and I feel I have made my point beyond a reasonable doubt. No bots have been involved at any point, Scottywong to the contrary, just tabbed browsing; and even if a bot had been involved, it would only be an issue if it were a fully automated bot - unless policy has changed yet again. (My 2007 blocks involved no experiments but ill-considered editing projects.) Finally, as a former admin, I would remind current admins that blocking is "preventive, not punitive".

As for my edit summaries, they are correct. The edits were designed in advance to be a test of whether page maintainers could discern quality edits from random deletions. And only 3% could. --Gwern (contribs) 19:27 30 May 2012 (GMT)

This is insulting because, at the moment, there are exactly three (3) active editors watching over at least 4,000 articles in WikiProject Motorcycling. Insulting them, particularly the third who only was just recruited in the last few weeks and might not stick around if things get any more uncivil, is not helpful. This deletion removed a reliable source that could have been used to improve an article that could sorely need some improvement. Making it harder to expand and improve articles is vandalism.

A block is called for here unless plausible assurance can be given that nothing even remotely like this will never happen again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO an indefinite block would be entirely justified as a preventive measure. Gwern's assurances that they "currently have no plans for future experiments" is entirely unreassuring, as plans can change. If Gwern would make a cast-iron commitment never to do anything similar again I would reconsider my view about a block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Too bad for that Wikiproject. But I wonder how a subject as popular and well-documented in the real world as motorcycles could have just 3 editors? Perhaps you should focus on that instead of what possible impact my edit summary might have on their tender feelings.

As for your assurance: no such reliable assurance could possibly be given or received in a pseudonymous unenforceable medium like the Internet, my upholding it or breaking it would be impossible to verify, you are either foolish for thinking that it is possible or posturing for moral high ground, and your threatened alternative would do absolutely nothing to stop me if I were hypothetically to decide to break an assurance. Give me a break. I'm reminded of a dialogue I read somewhere - "did you do X?" "No." "Really?" "Err, if I lied to you the first time, what makes you think I would tell the truth the second time?"

This goes for Dent-Brown as well - what is a cast-iron commitment? Don't give me adjectives, tell me what would actually work. You can't, because such a thing has never existed on Wikipedia, and never will, or else Arbcom would use it all the time. --Gwern (contribs) 19:53 30 May 2012 (GMT)

There are a bunch of code samples on your external website which suggest that this might have been automated editing, but I haven't reviewed them enough to be sure. For the time being, I'll AGF that it was not automated. I personally believe that your experiment was terrifically short-sighted, and only proves that there are a lot of articles out there that aren't on any active editors' watchlists. I could have told you that without going through with the experiment. If I believed that you intend to perform a similar experiment in the future, you would already be blocked (and it would be preventative).

To be crystal clear: Do not intentionally remove legitimate content or otherwise vandalize Wikipedia articles (even temporarily) for any purpose (even for a good faith experiment) without discussing it first and getting permission. Any evidence that you're continuing similar experiments will likely result in an immediate block. I'm currently searching through the toolserver database to ensure that similar edits were not made by other accounts or IP's. -Scottywong| gab _ 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

My answer to Gwern's question is very simple. I assume good faith on your part and that you are a man (great assumption there) of your word. I ask you to say, here and now, that you won't ever conduct an experiment like that again. If you won't make that commitment I'll respect you for your honesty, and stand by my recommendation to block. If you do make that commitment I shall trust you. Are you saying you are not as good as your word? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is perfect. I'm willing to bet an indefinite block would do the trick. Yes, you could try to evade it with sockpuppets, but that's been tried many times before, and sooner or later the sockmasters give up and we win. Clearly your lack of any remorse indicates that a block is what policy demands. "Don't block me because I'll evade with sockupppets" is not a reason not to block you. It only compounds the need for an indefinite block. (And don't lecture me on how I ought to be spending my limited time maintaining 4,000+ awful stubs created by rabid inclusionists. I work from a list of priorities and let the rest wait until things get better.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, your rude "you failed" edit summary and above comments erase any doubt that your goal was to manufacture a specific outcome reflecting your personal biases, not to gather useful data. Given the criticisms your "experiment" drew when it was ongoing, I agree with Dennis Bratland that "an apology would have been more appropriate rather than self-satisfied snark".

That blocking is "preventive, not punitive" doesn't mean that we mustn't block an account simply because its owner isn't currently engaged in misconduct. You "currently have no plans for future experiments", but you could change your mind tomorrow.

Do you agree not to perform such experiments without prior authorization from either the Wikipedia editing community or the Wikimedia Foundation? If not, I would support an indefinite block (intended to prevent further disruption) until you do. Responses to the effect of "it doesn't matter, as I might be lying" constitute an acknowledgement that the community has no reason to trust you. (I'd like to believe otherwise, but you're practically begging us not to.)

Also note that your use of an anonymous proxy IP address is irrelevant (contrary to comments that you made when a block was proposed during the experiment). "You won't stop me anyway" isn't a valid argument; we don't accommodate or reward such evasion. —David Levy 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. Either give a good-faith assurance that this behavior will not be repeated, or be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've confirmed that no other experiment edits were made outside of the two IP's used in the experiment, or later than May 1st. However, I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable if Gwern gave assurances that this will not happen again. -Scottywong| comment _ 21:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger closing merge discussions

This concerns TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), who has taking it upon himself to close merge discussions on Barack Obama on Twitter, Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, and Rihanna on Twitter. The first two articles are his, the Rihanna one is one he is involved with. There is a backstory at the DYK nominations for the first two, Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama on Twitter and Template:Did you know nominations/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, where he's been trying to bully me: I don't want these articles on the front page, since I think they make a mockery of the (encyclo-)pedia part in Wikipedia, and says I should bring them to AfD. I don't wish to bring them to AfD, and proposed that the Obama and Kutcher articles be merged into their respective main articles (Dr. Blofeld proposed that the Rihanna one, now also at AfD, be merged into List of Twitter users). Tony thinks it's quite alright to deny me a merge discussion and has, on Talk:Barack Obama, struck out the discussion, and on Talk:Ashton Kutcher removed it altogether (I have reverted that one, not the Obama discussion, where he didn't have the heart, I suppose, to delete other editors' comments). What I find puzzling is the statement he made on Talk:Barack Obama, "There is nothing in Barack Obama on Twitter that belongs at Barack Obama." Does that not mean that the Obama on Twitter account has nothing to do with Obama?

I do not see how it is his place to strike out, remove, and close such discussions. They are made in good faith, and Tony is obviously involved with them, since he proposed them at DYK. In fact, I don't see how anyone should remove them since they are not intended to disrupt Wikipedia. His dictum, that they should all be proposed at AfD, is without merit: not all these X on Twitter articles are the same (see the Afd for the Rihanna one), and an earlier AfD for Justin Bieber on Twitter (yes, it exists) ended in keep. I have asked him on his talk page to undo himself or I would take it to ANI, which he hasn't responded to, but from his subsequent comment on my talk page I gather he has not changed his mind. Tony is not listening to me and I find his insults to my intelligence on the two DYK nominations and his attempts to bully me and a few other editors to be distasteful. Moreover, his trying to find an "out of process" argument and his actions are out of line. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm about to go offline for a nap and a beer tasting event. Please tweet me if my presence is required. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There are 5 Foo on Twitter pages on WP. If we want to set a policy regarding whether they should exist a discussion on deleting, merging, keeping or redirecting these needs to be held in one location. WP:AFD is the proper location. In order to keep 5 different agreements from being reached, I am trying to encourage a single discussion at WP:AFD. Starting 5 discussions in five locations (three were already started when I started taking action) is not proper process. It is really simple there is a new type of article that we need to determine if we want. In order to come to a proper resolution we need to consolidate discussion. I am doing my best to achieve a proper consensus on obviously related topics. P.S. I am not trying to Bully, I am trying to encourage the proper discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • P.S. I was unaware that there have already been AFDs on these with articles being kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I can't find the Bieber AFD. Where is it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I was wrong; it was a merger discussion. It's on the talk page. Now please explain why a merge discussion can't take place here. You keep talking about policy; I am not interested in a policy discussion since such a thing won't happen and if it does, it won't lead anywhere. "Should we have X on Twitter?" "Depends on the sources for X on Twitter"--that stands to reason. And if a merge discussion cannot take place, please cite chapter and verse of the rules that says it can't. You have yet to cite policy for your statement, in bold, "THIS Discussion is closed as incorrect process". Drmies (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Insisting that a Merge discussion take place at AFD is absurd. I will happily close an article at AFD as "speedy keep" any nomination that requests a merge in the actual nomination as an improper use of venue. We try to avoid AFD by improving articles, or if there is a larger issue that makes a stand alone article not in the best interest, by discussing merging them. If we can't logically merge them, then AFD is the last resort, not the first. We should always try the least destructive and disruptive method first. Regardless of how involved an editor is, I don't see any policy based reason to slam the door shut on a reasonable request to discuss a merge. The policies at WP:AFD clearly say that a merge discussion should take place instead of AFD if it is possible. This seems highly irregular and improper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Invalid close(s), should be reverted. Nobody Ent 20:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. I did not know we were suppose to discuss merge before AFD. However, a merge is not going to happen. Feel free to Open at Obama and Kutcher (I don't think the content at either is important enough to be in the main bio).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• P.S. Justin Bieber on Twitter and Lady Gaga on Twitter are at WP:GAC now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the venue, if the first two articles are his, as the OP states, by no means should he be closing discussions about them... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Would it be better to RFC the idea of Foo on Twitter as a larger merge consideration, rather than have all these different discussions? I know we need a merge discussion, just not sure of the proper venue. And yes, Bushranger, you are spot on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • We should have one discussion of whether RSed Foo on Twitter articles should exist on WP and then if an individual article can achieve WP:GNG it should be kept, IMO. Personally, I believe it should be at AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside, there is no room for any moar content at Barack Obama. I had to go there on the 18th and strip out half a dozen citation templates as the page was busted at the bottom again. Right now it is 7500 bytes away from the transclusion limit. -- Dianna (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Tony, As I explained, AFD is an improper venue if you are initiating for the purpose of merge. The D in AFD is deletion. Merge discussions must be on talk pages of some kind, either of individual articles or via RFC or similar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wow. I can't wait for Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook. Or perhaps Monty Python on Youtube? It should be trivial to find a handful of worthless online media reports about these to satisfy our WP:GNG criteria. Oh joy.. --Conti|✉ 21:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm going ahead and closing the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama per WP:SNOW. Whatever happens to the content there's zero chance that it will be accepted as part of the Obama article. We have enough drama on that page as it is without silly process stuff spilling over from elsewhere. There are a number of other articles specifically about Obama's public image, his campaign strategy, etc., that would be far better candidates for discussing his social media presence. Incidentally, I have no dog in this fight but it seems reasonable to carry on a centralized discussion about [person] on [social network] articles so as to come up with some consistent standards for notability. On the other hand, it's also within the bounds of reason to carry on 5 separate discussions when there are only 5 articles in question. Both approaches work so choosing one or another looks like a matter of respecting process and consensus. No need to get all worked up about this! Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wow :O All of these look like inappropriate spinout articles. They should be reincorporated into the main subject articles or deleted. As for the subject of this topic, Tony is clearly involved here and should not be closing those discussions. ThemFromSpace 22:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Malarious being extremely rude to everyone and edit warring at template Liverpool FC

Resolved

 – User blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Malarious will not stop being rude to everyone in his edit summary, he calls everyone idiots and swears, and is in an edit war over the liverpool template, also I may have lost it with him I am sorry but I couldn't tolerate his behaviour--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, outside the civility issues (calling other users "pedantic bastards", "idiot" and "twat"), it looks like User:Malarious is up to 7RR, while everyone else has stayed at 3RR or less. I think that's block-worthy right there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR and gave a strongly worded message about civility. I feel comfortable saying this should be this user's final chance, as they have behaved this way in the past. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was entering a 3RR report, but it was a touch tedious filling in 8 diffs for the form. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would trust his comments on how to phrase things regarding football teams.

Oh wait, Malarious? Not heard of him, sorry. As you were. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoosh, right over my head. o.o — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations at Alex Pierson

• 208.124.163.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can someone block this IP, or (once again) semi-protect the Alex Pierson page? The IP has been adding the same uncited allegations against this news anchor since December of last year. Should be a wholly uncontroversial request, btw, since the IP has never shown up on any talk page, i.e. this is not a content dispute. Thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done. As this is a low-profile WP:BLP subject to repeated inappropriate editing by IPs, I'm comfortable semi-protecting it indefinitely, although I'd also be fine with another admin reducing the length of semi-protection to a finite term if they prefer. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --OhioStandard (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA

Alexander the great is greek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can someone with more patience than I explain to this person why their childish nonsense is childish nonsense, again? I've just had to revert some annoying silliness that's really well over the line as far as WP:COMPETENCE is concerned. Alternatively kickbanning is good too...Moreschi (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Done

(actually I think banning makes much more sense than reasoning with such silliness) Egg Centric 22:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA at Sharron Angle

User:CorinnaHubbard arrive just about three days ago and has been POV-editing at Sharron Angle since then to promote the article subject's politics, edit warring with three of four editors, myself included, to keep her changes in the article. She has ignored multiple warnings and made no attempts to communicate. Block requested. There's surely 3RR violations involved, but untangling the complex set of edits for that board will take hours (or at least take me hours), and the NPOV, BLP, and general edit warring issues should be enough to act on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)