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

Attacks on wikipedian and BLP subject

User:ShowTimeAgain is a WP:SPA, edit warring to insert attacks and soap boxing against the Wikipedian and BLP subject William M. Connolley User:William M. Connolley : [1], [2] [3][4] (milder but still focussed on Connolley: [5][6]). The editor believes himself to be defending a deceased non-notable climate change denial scientist [7]: "If you'd care to read the reason why this file was uploaded, you'd realize this was the only way to defend the reputation of Professor Leroux against an unjust attack. ". Considering the accounts attacks on Connolley and knowledge of wikipedia, it seems a likely WP:DUCK as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• CU found no links[8], but it isn't magic pixie dust and can't rule out meatpupptry. I do see some disruptive behavior, let me take a closer look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Pointy behavior like adding to an AFD talk page after it closes[9], likely meatpuppetry at that AFD (I did the SPI investigation, BTW, which is still open). His combative and single purpose intent is obvious here [10], as well as his soapboxing at the AFD itself. (first link). Like most SPAs, he isn't here to build an encyclopedia, that is certain. Many SPAs serve a worthwhile purpose, and just have a single interest, thus pose no problem. This editor doesn't appear to be one of them. The question is: has he passed the threshold for WP:DE? If he hasn't, it is certainly within his sight, if not his crosshairs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI header states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Not seeing that on User_talk:ShowTimeAgain. Suggest this be closed pending completion of that step. Nobody Ent 13:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically, Nobody Ent is right. I suppose I worked the SPI and saw all the disruption that was taking place, including likely meatpupptry, leading me to conclude a positive resolution isn't very likely, but that is just my opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"he isn't here to build an encyclopedia," if true, is a facial case for an indefinite block. Furthermore, a cursory glance over the edits suggests that Wikipedia is being abused by this editor as a battleground. --Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to say Prima facie? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. May have been getting something confused with facial challenge. Somewhere between per se and presumption.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be pointless Bureaucracy. It's self evident that an editor shouldn't go around attacking other editors (which constitutes about half his edits). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur -- we have the {{uw-npa}} series specifically to point this out to users on their talk page.

The thought occurs to me that inviting a new user to ANI for attacking other editors is like putting someone in a prison in the US, at least -- just as likely to learn better ways of attacking other editors as they are to be rehabilitated. Nobody Ent 13:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If the rule to discuss at a talk page before posting at ANI is "pointless Bureaucracy", let's amend the rule. While it may be "evident" to regulars that one shouldn't attack, but different places have different rules, so I suggest it is not "self evident".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Marcel Leroux is notable, and new citations from paywalled French newspapers have been found to further support his notability. User:IRWolfie- is a participant in this singling out scientists skeptical of some aspect of global warming for non-notability claims, and in the case of Marcel Leroux initiated the attack with either a bad faith or incompetent google scholar search.

Regarding the dismissive "pointy behavior" characterization above, it should be noted that User:ShowTimeAgain has "respected" the prohibition on editing the closed deletion article itself, despite a precipitous closing of the deletion discussion by User:WilyD while work was still being done.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that editing the talk page of a closed discussion is just as pointy as adding to the closed discussion. It is closed. I also agree that you shouldn't have been dragged into an SPA tag, but none of that changes the fact that there is a battleground mentality at work with ShowtimeAgain/Showtimenow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that sticking to the talk page is showing respect, and if anything makes it clear that you should always have a battleground mentality when WMC is involved, it is the fact that he was in a revert war on the talk page.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but after the close is putting it there where no one will see it, which is pointless, or WP:POINTy. Taking it to the talk page of the editor or another venue is the proper response. As to the article or merits of the AFD, I have no clue and not interested. My focus is on behavior. And now I see that a large amount of off-wiki canvassing took place against Connolly, which appears to be ShowTime's "enemy", so to speak. When SPAs take a battlefield mentality, as demonstrated by the totality of edits (and not the validity of any argument), then it becomes a problem for all of us. It is entirely possible to be 100% right on the merits of an argument, but to be so disruptive in how you present them that you get blocked. I see it regularly. It isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see User:StillStanding-247's behavior over the last 2 months to prove this point. Search these archives for one of his 15 or so visits to this board. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was surprised at the precipitous closing of the deletion page, the talk page is the first place I went to look for a discussion of what was going on. Even experienced users like myself, aren't necessarily experienced at page deletions, and a different talk page standards once they are closed. I was far more shocked that someone was reverted on a talk page than that someone was posting on one. I had only seen reverting on talk pages before when vandalism or namecalling vitriol was involved.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm, the closing notice even mentions that discussion should take place on the talk page:

"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page."

--Africangenesis (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

AFD talk pages are for procedural issues, which is why it is pointless to use them. Like it says, DRV or the article talk page if it had been kept. There is a laundry list of places off-wiki that this AFD was canvassed at, leading to this whole mess and the SPI investigation. Again, my concern is behavioral, in particular, ShowTimeAgain's behavior. I have no idea if they are the one that spammed the canvassing off wiki, but they have maintained a battleground attitude ON wiki, and that needs to stop if they expect to stick around. It is fine to disagree, we all do, but Show's comments indicate he has trouble not being "disagreeable" at times. Several have noted this and brought it to his attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving a final note of sort on his talk page. If he continues to act in a disruptive way to make points, he is likely going to be blocked. Hopefully he will be wise and consider this, and find a way to contribute without the drama, soapboxing and grandstanding. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I just read this and wish to contribute, while I still can: IRWolfie is mistaken. My knowledge of Wikipedia's process is "beginner" and it is obvious: it took me a while to even manage to upload the image of the certificate. I even accidentally duplicated it. Notwithstanding how to include a link in the conversation. So much for knowledge...
• Connolley's reputation as a Wikipedia editor had reached beyond Wikipedia and it is fair knowledge to anyone watching the climate debate. His bursting in the deletion discussion with inflammatory "delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)" accusations were not an aggressive characterization perhaps? No ANI there. I argued that IRW and WMC had little knowledge of Leroux's works and WMC acknowledged having not read Leroux. He should. When in good faith I showed proof of Leroux's title as Chevalier de l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques, its authenticity was immediately rebuked. Is that the attitude of people wishing to see information shared in a free encyclopedia or is it the attitude of people with an agenda?
• As for my interventions: Did I go on modifying pages from those I disagree scientifically with? No. I posted on talk pages as I promptly discovered that the conversations were moved over various multiple pages. Aren't these talk pages for discussion? I had not intervened on Wikipedia for a long time as there was no need for me to. But the reputation of Prof. Leroux had to be defended against what became, especially after WMC's intervention and his endless hunt to delete every bit of Leroux on En.wikipedia, including the Palmes certificate used in other pages, a clear biased process. Notability was an excuse. Opinion was the reason, as adequate Google search results by another poster have demonstrated, the notability of Marcel Leroux is among the 1% of scientists [11].
• I notice in this discussion that IRW is advocating a swift banning process against me. No surprise. To me this confirms that the Leroux deletion was a premeditated action and that these two editors hoped for a quick, eventless deletion of the Leroux page. Tough luck. On a final note, I have made my point so anyone can read our exchanges and draw their own conclusions.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Only two have brought editing complaints to Show's attention on his talk page, and one of those was IRWolfie. I doubt there is any harm in putting the notice on Show's page, he shouldn't sweat it. Show and Lucy are vindicated. I've made an open and shut case for reversing this totally unnecessary deletion at WilyD's talk page. Did IRWolfie, WMC and even WilyD really not know what the real criteria was for academic notability? Why should this deletion and an injustice to this scientist's memory, have been allowed to go through in peace? [12]--Africangenesis (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• As the person who did the investigation, I completely understand why IRWolfie brought it to SPI, it did look very suspicious (with the exception of Africangenesis, not sure why he was in there). I will vouch for that. One new user. One user who hasn't edited in over SIX YEARS, magically show up? Coincidence? Maybe, but the amount of canvassing off wiki combined with those coincidences certainly does qualify for someone at SPI to look at it. And I did. And no one is blocked. And I did find ShowTimeAgain's old account from 2010 (which isn't a problem since they aren't both being used at the same time). Now, I've left Show a message, and the best thing anyone can do is help him understand how things work here a bit better, so his actions don't look as disruptive. He came here and it looks like he did in good faith. I don't want to block him and don't expect to. I was hoping to get his attention, which it seems I did, and hopefully he will tread a little less aggressively in the future so we can avoid ANI and the like. Just back the tone up a little, try to cooperate more, ask questions instead of accusing people, and you will be fine, Show. This is expected from all of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, I created this profile in order to defend against the Leroux page deletion attempt in September 2012 as I thought my original handle from 2010 was not working anymore. So much again for my supposed knowledge. Since you investigated, you therefore know that my first ever contribution to wiki in December 2007 had nothing to do with climate. It however involved someone of immense talent that may be lesser known to the masses. Since my 2010 interventions, there have been many improvements to Leroux page which I did not object to. I came here in good faith and informed, about Leroux's work and publications. Africagenesis was even more informed than I was, and more computer literate (easy...). I was also informed about some of those who worked and pushed for this deletion, who seem to enjoy total immunity despite serious incidents[13]. I have no quarrel with you and find your demands reasonable in an environment of good faith, which in this particular case, on this subject was not the case [14]. Again, a properly executed Google search reveals another picture of Leroux's notability [15].

• I will leave the discussion of whether or not he is notable or not up to you and the other editors who are involved. At ANI (here), we just deal with short term issues like behavior, not content. Admins shouldn't decide content, interested editors should. You can take the deletion to WP:DRV if you so choose, but it is something I'm not familiar enough to have an opinion on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• As I've also closed the SPI with no action, feel free to archive this. I'm thinking we are done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• There was canvassing here, and possibly elsewhere. Which is presumably why it looks like socking, but isn't. WilyD 08:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

DRV and canvassing

• It seems Africangenesis intends to go to DRV. Can an uninvolved admin semi-protect it if this occurs to stall some of the canvassing issues of the last deletion discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• You cannot at the same time complain about not finding new water sources and criticize efforts to making other people who could contribute aware of what's going on here and potentially help finding new data. Unless your agenda is definitive suppression.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying. Did you notify people about the discussion off wikipedia? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me restate: why would you want to restrict the flow of information if it can improve the page? Isn't that what wikipedia is all about?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Addendum: That's what I understood from your post. Could you explain further what "admin semi-protect" means and why it may be relevant to this discussion? Others obviously have seen what happened, even suggesting article deletions (see comment section) and not the least because of this [16]ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a tact admission by ShowTimeAgain of off-wiki canvassing of the worst type (canvassing people of a specific viewpoint in order to stack a discussion). In combination with the general battleground mentality and attacks against WMC, I'm inclined to think that this editor is simply not understanding how collaborative editing works and may not be working in the best interests of the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You must mean tacit? What is "the project"? If the project is a permanent deletion of the Marcel Leroux page regardless of information, indeed I do contest this approach and shall work with any wikipedian (?) to revert this decision. If "the project" is to bring a wide range of information pertaining to Marcel Leroux, then I believe to have done my part as demonstrated (certificate, precisions on OMM). Africagenesis has done also a significant amount of work. I have cleared any misunderstanding with Dennis Brown regarding battleground mentality. Now how collaborative is "admin semi-protect"? That is why I requested IRWolfie to clarify what he meant in order not to misinterpret him. As for WMC anyone can read his blog and draw conclusions. BTW I did not recall your contribution to the subject at hand. Did I miss it with so many lines of questions and answers? Thanks.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

ShowTimeAgain, On Wikipedia we expect editors to try to work, however they can, for the advancement of the encylopedia as a whole, colloquially called "the project." Editors who are persistently distracted by personal, petty, or single topic disputes are not welcome here. You appear to be such an editor, and in response to concerns about your behavior to run back to the Marcel Leroux article, which suggests you are not getting it. Most, probably all of us reading this thread have no idea who Leroux is, nor do we care. It helps maintain our objectivity. I am inclined to block you since you are not both willing and able to edit collaboratively for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Please show cause otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what the project is. May I point out you just told me you have no idea who Leroux was. But I do and this is precisely why I edited on his page not someone else's and tried to understand precisely how Wikipedia works. I imagine that knowledgeable editors contribute on the pages they have specific knowledge to share, as the best way to improve the encyclopedia. That is why I refrain to edit where I have nothing to bring.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many ways you could choose to improve the encyclopedia. If however, your sole contribution is on Leroux, and you have otherwise shownyourself to be misusing wikipedia as a place to wage idealogical or personal war, well, you won't be much of a loss, will you? --Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I modestly did not dare to think these fields could require my help. Thanks for pointing them out. I think I'll get more involved now that you invited me to discover them. One has to learn and start as a beginner in every field.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• What is DRV? Would this semi-protect be the salting thing that WMC was asking for?--Africangenesis (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI WP:DRV ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's deletion review as you have indicated here: User talk:WilyD#Formal request to reverse your decision on Marcel Leroux as recommended before requesting deletion review. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review is exactly where it needs to go, and yes, I would support semi-protection and consider it not preemptive, since we already have a history of off-wiki canvassing to demonstrate it would be necessary to prevent further disruption. I would also remind ShowTimeAgain that my backing off of a block wasn't an agreement of his actions, only allowing you some extra rope since you are new-ish. If your only objective to being here is to maintain/restore that one article, it will likely be a short career. Most of the editors here really don't care about him one way or another, but we do care about disruptive acts, which causes us to stop editing articles and have to deal with the disruption, a non-optimal use of our time. If any admin this it is obvious that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia and instead to protect one article at any cost, you can expect to be blocked. Off-site canvassing alone is enough to get you blocked because it is stacking the deck and a form of bias, which isn't tolerated in a neutrally written encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In case it isn't abundantly clear, I am an administrator, and I am still strongly considering placing the block that Dennis Brown has decided not to.--Tznkai (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a Rennaissance man, I just edited on a painter, is that far enough from climate?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Do your best to comply with Wikipedia policies and norms and you'll go far. My suggestion is spending time getting your feet wet around here before returning to climate-Tznkai (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I should start with spelling Renaissance perhapsShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Africangenesis is persisting with the battlefield mentality:

• User talk:Africangenesis#ARBCC sanctions and NPA: "I notice that you edit war on the same page, edit other climate pages and are chummy with Schulz, and that is just the first 50 contributions. And you are a quick swooper on the page. Recuse yourself.-"
• Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Oreskes is gone due to mischaracterization and NOR: "OK, I'm calling time on the intellectually honest bone in the body test on this one. The clock is starting on the rest of the crew",
• [17]: "If you are going edit scientific articles, it helps to have some scientific literacy, to be able to read the literature. You apparently aren't willing to perform the due diligence even after your revert has been called into question, that should should have done before your reverted. Now that you know you were wrong, are you failing to reverse your revert, because you think I am wrong, or for tactical reasons?"

IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• • [18]. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are actually making an arbitration enforcement request, you'll want to file at AE. If this is just a standard complaint, let me look into it.--Tznkai (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth
Marcel Leroux on other Wikipedias:

French Wikipedia:

• Marcel Leroux   (Edit history, What links here)
• Lengthy article (about 2,000 words). Created in 2006; about 115 edits by a range of IPs and users.
• A little controversy on talk page, Discussion:Marcel Leroux   (Edit history,What links here)
• No wiki-dramas sufficient to make it to Wikipedia-space pages like our WP:ANI.
• Unsuccessful deletion attempt in 2009: Discussion:Marcel Leroux/Suppression   (Edit history,What links here)
  • Substantial expansion since the AfD closed (57 edits by 26 users)
• ShowTimeNow, using 3 accounts, has been an uncontroversial editor on fr.wikipedia:
  • ShowtimeNow (talk,edits),  ShowtimeNow2 (talk,  edits), ShowtimeNowAgain (talk,edits)

Spanish Wikipedia:

• Marcel Leroux (Edit history)
• No article talk page. Created this year by a high-volume (100k+ edits) editor in one big edit. Possibly a translation of the English article. Little activity since.

Looking at the French article, I'd say you could make a good case for the restoration and retention of the English-language article.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• And now more canvassing by User:Lucy Skywalker: see the comment at [19]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm best off posting this at enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989 and DrKiernan

• User talk:Fry1989#Request and (I think):
  • User talk:DrKiernan#Your absolute insistence on GDR flag and coat with gold instead of black
• User:Fry1989/Unblock conditions and
• Fry1989's block log

DrKiernan is well known to be rather mild; Fry1989 not so much. Fry's talk popped up on my watchlist and he's in it pretty hot and heavy with DrKiernan; called him a troll, on commons, for example. This seems to be about fictitious flags, which Fry does rather a lot of. I had some dispute with him about a made-up image of a coat of arms some six months ago, which is why his page is on my watch. The talk is pretty messy and will have rolled along while I've been typing this. I think Fry's unblock needs reconsidering. I've seen very little constructive participation from him. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done anything on Wikipedia that broke my editing restrictions, I've barely made 30 edits this past week alone and none of them had anything to do with Drkiernan or pages he has worked on. Everything he is complaining about happened on Commons (how can my English Wikipedia restrictions apply to Commons???? That's not even stated on my restrictions page, it's ridiculous!), and is filled with half-truths and assumptions. He blames me for "following him around". I haven't done anything of the sort. The fact I came across those files is easily explained because I go through the daily upload logs, The files aren't even Drkiernan's. All I did was remove a fictitious tag from those three files which Drkiernan added, and I only did that once on each file. I haven't even touched them since!!! Trajan is the one who removed Drkiernan's tags a further two times, which is when Drkiernan nominated them for deletion on Commons. I was completely unaware of this until Trajan came to my talk page and ASKED me to give input in the DR. I have only posted in the DR once, give my view, and haven't gone back since. I do not understand what I have done that could possibly be worthy of a block, nevermind an indef block. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In my view, I think it's rather bad form to bring a dispute from some other Wiki project over here to the English Wikipedia, and then for DrKiernan and Br'er Rabbit, who are fully aware of Fry1989's temperament, to fan the flames to goad Fry1989 into violating his unblock restrictions. That's how it appears to me. I would support an interaction ban on all parties. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I just wanted to make a tentative comment. Fry1989 notified me about the problem he was having on his talk page. While looking there, this topic was opened by Br'er Rabbit, whose involvement puzzles me a bit, but no matter. I was involved in the unblock conditions (listed above), but there was extensive discussion with User:Amatulic, and I've notified him of this topic. I won't comment much on the merits of DrKiernan's complaint at this time, and I'm not sure what DrKiernan seeks at this point as he didn't open this topic. My brief comment is that DrKiernan was asking Fry to leave him alone at Commons. Br'er Rabbit inflamed things. Fry felt pushed. DrKiernan got more forceful because he didn't get the response he wanted, and here we are.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Now responding to Amatulic's comment, I fully agree with everything he said except I haven't yet decided whether an interaction ban is needed. Depends on other comments here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Br'er Rabbit won't even answer my repeated requests for what he thinks I have done to deserve an indeff block. "Long-term problematic"? What is that supposed to mean? What "problems" have I caused here since my unblock? I've been following my restrictions as laid out on my restrictions page to the letter. I haven't gotten into revert wars, I haven't flamed people, I haven't followed anybody around, I haven't done ANYTHING! But somehow he thinks he can support me being indeff blocked without even stating why! So what if I called Drkiernan a troll on Commons? First off, that was my personal opinion after being asked by another user to participate in a deletion request. Second, it was on Commons!! My restrictions have nothing to do with Commons, this is completely a Commons matter if it's an issue at all! Also, I came here not too long ago myself asking for an interaction ban between me and Drkiernan because of the constant spats we have had for 2 long years. He and I can't get along so I try to avoid him the best I can. Yes, I went to his talk page, about an issue on Commons, but he is doing the same now. I used language which is a bit strong, but when you look at the actual full sentences, I didn't call him anything, I didn't attack him. I have followed my restrictions very clearly. I do not deserve this witch hunt. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at it this way; your prior indefs were warranted and I don't see the benefit of them having been reversed. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd missed the whole unblock discussion in August, so I was surprised to see Fry1989 editing at all. And I see him calling DrKiernan a troll and being quite belligerent, including addling the threading on his talk. I see the separation between en:wp and Commons as pretty thin; images go there, are used here. I don't think I had much to do with whatever got Fry dinged in August; I saw it go by, but don't think I even commented. The Rwanda thing was more like February, and I don't think I've had any conflict with Fry since. FWIW, DrKiernan is probably off for the night, so best to see what he has to say tomorrow. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you why I put my replies that way was to answer him and you separately, and that the reason I reverted you (once) is because I felt like you were disrupting me by moving my replies around??? There was absolutely no malicious intent behind it, but you keep trying to assert that there was. From the beginning of that you have accused me of disruption, when I told you twice before now why I did it. Stop accusing me of malicious intent which I don't have! Fry1989 ^eh? 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And the "Rwanda thing"? That's been over and done with for half a year, I don't even know why you would bring it up. It resolved itself ages ago, way before my unblock discussion in August even came about, and it wasn't even brought up in August, it has nothing to do with this. It feels like you're brining up past issues just to make me look worse and worse to get rid of me. Maybe not, but it sure feels that way right now. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have come here atleast two times over the years about Drkiernan. The second time I asked for an interaction ban, I don't remember what I wanted the first time, but both times when I tried pointing out how he pushes me, and is rude to me, and orders me to do things for him when he's capable of doing them himself, they are ignored. I never got help. But whenever he complains about me, I always end up with threats of blocks and bans and restrictions and everything else. You people ignored my cries for help, and this is what happens when you do that. I don't want anything to do with him, but we keep rubbing shoulders here and there every few months and then this kind of nonsense comes about. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I already outlined on your talk how your move of my post away from DrKiernan's (to whom I was replying) was inappropriate because it changed the context of things. That you don't get it goes a ways towards explaining things. You are aware that DrKiernan is well respected on this project, right? Right? Calling him a troll, anywhere, is absurd, and far from civil. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read my post again. I didn't say anything on whether the way I posted my replies, or the subsequent revert of your change, was wrong or right. All I said is that you are accusing me of doing it maliciously and with the intent to disrupt when that absolutely isn't the case, I told you why I did it, please STOP accusing me of doing it maliciously! So what if it was (in your opinion) wrong? Doing something wrong doesn't always translate to deliberate malicious intent. You don't like the way I arranged my replies? Fine I'm sorry. But stop this attack on my intentions when I've made clear they were anything but what you accuse them of being. As for whether or not Drkiernan is well-respected here, that doesn't factor into how he interacts with me, or how I interact with him. That's between me and him, not how others view him. Just because someone is widely respected, doesn't mean they're above the capability of mistreating someone else. He has been rude to me for years. He's ordered me to change files and do other tasks for him which he is perfectly capable of doing himself. What right does he have to order me around to do things? And yet people like you seem to think that it ok, but that when I get tired of being pushed around, I'm the one with all the blame. Protect the bully, punish the victim, it's an old story I'm very aquainted with. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've not used the word "malicious", but you have, repeatedly. And calling DrKiernan a "bully" is just silly; especially coming from a bully in victim's clothing ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm so glad this is humourous to you. You have continuously accused me to doing my replies (and the single subsequent revert) with the intent to disrupt. That means you think I did it maliciously, whether you said the word or not. I've also made no attempts to shy away from the fact that I've been very rude to him, but you have to acknowledge that he has done the same and more. This website is littered with him commanding me to do things for him so he'll "accept them" and "allow them" on articles. Those Greek monograms for example, many times he ordered me to change them to blue so he would "allow them" on articles. Why do I have to do that for him? He showed in the past he was capable of doing it himself, he had no other problem with the files except their colour, so why couldn't he change them himself? Instead it was a further attempt to bully me into submission, "change these files or I won't allow you to add them to their rightful articles" like I'm some worker to be stepped on. Yes I've been rude as hell to him at times, but you completely ignore that it has been in response to TWO YEARS of unsolicited pushing around by him. He followed my edits to pages he had nothing to do with, and then passed judgement. He told me to change files for him. He has called me names. He has done so much to me, but somehow because I can't take it anymore, I'm the bully, I'm the one that needs to be blocked. I CAME HERE TWICE asking for help and you people ignored it. You don't think I'm not aware that he and I don't get along??? It takes two to tango and you make excuses for his steps in the dance. Disgusting. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The background seems to be this - User:Fry1989/Unblock conditions :

• "Civility requirements (in effect for 6 months after the current block expires): ... All communications must refrain from commenting on individual editors, except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages ... Fry1989 agrees that the requirements listed above constitute best practices that should be followed at all times, and that the durations above refer to the period in which a violation will result in the resumption of an indefinite block." (my emphasis)

Unblock conditions were agreed in August 2012. --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Break

• I want Br'er Rabbit and Fry to stop arguing with each other. If DrKiernan does not come here and tell us what he wants to do, this topic should be closed. This is not the right forum to have Fry's unblock and the conditions of his unblock reviewed (see Br'er Rabbit saying "your prior indefs were warranted and I don't see the benefit of them having been reversed"). As for whether Fry has violated the conditions, neither I nor Amatulic believes he has, or if he has (I haven't read every one of Fry's remarks on his talk page or here), it's only because he's been goaded into it. So, Br'er Rabbit and Fry - stop posting here. Fry, if Br'er Rabbit won't stop, ignore him. That's my advice and my position at this juncture.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Then what is the right forum to report breaches of Fry's unblock agreement? --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the right forum to report a breach. I'm saying this is not the right forum to have the unblock and agreement reviewed. I'm also saying that that is what I think Br'er Rabbit really wants. Finally, I'm saying that if someone believes that Fry should be sanctioned for breaching the agreement, someone other than Br'er Rabbit needs to step up and say so, but the bickering between Br'er Rabbit and Fry should stop. And another finally, I'm going off-wiki now, so I won't be able to respond to anything until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I should stop posting here? When Fry's got about six times the verbiage going as I do? And note that I didn't bother replying to his last above the {{od}}. And another note; I already suggested awaiting DrKienan's commenting. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You've raised the issue to the community, the back and fort just clouds the issue. Nobody Ent 01:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's just make sure a couple of things are clear here. First, from what I've read above, I'm not seeing many allegations that Fry1989 has violated his unblock conditions, or has been disruptive in any other way, in his edits over the past few weeks on English Wikipedia. If I am wrong about that then would someone please post specific diffs.

I gather the main (alleged) problems are on Commons. In general, we don't sanction an editor on English Wikipedia for misconduct on another project. That is not, however, an absolute rule; in extreme cases of harassment and the like, editors have been banned from En-WP for misconduct on another project, on another non-wiki website, via e-mail, or offline. The key words there, however, are "extreme cases." What's been described above doesn't sound yet like an extreme case.

That being said, if the situation is as it's been described, then Fry1989 should clean up his act on Commons, rather than risk sanctions there, or here, or anywhere. I have no role or participation on Commons and don't plan to read through the edits there, but if Fry1989 called DrKiernan a "troll" on Commons, he should apologize and not do it again. DrKiernan is the farthest thing from a troll on English Wikipedia, and unless he has a personality transplant each time he logs off of English WP and onto Commons, he isn't a troll there either. An attitude of "I can call you what I want there and you can't do anything about it here and neener neener neener" isn't going to impress anyone on either project.

And I agree that at this point we can see if DrKiernan wants to take this further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to an interaction ban between myself and Drkiernan (something I've already asked for before and it was ignored) or myself and Br'er Rabbit. I don't even understand why my talkpage was in his watchlist anyways, going through the entire history from 2009 to present, this is the first time he's ever posted there (unless he had a previous account or previous account name). Fry1989 ^eh? 01:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To include commons? Nobody Ent 01:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue on Commons is cloudy. The files in question were not Drkiernan's, and the files' uploader asked me personally to give my input on the DR for his files that Drkiernan initiated. Drkiernan does not often comes to Commons (from my observation anyways), but I would be open to that extending to Commons if people feel it's necessary. I already try and avoid him here, the only real issue on Commons was that today I self-admittedly called him a troll. Was it nice? No. Was it out of line? Of course. But again you have to understand that I have over 2 years of interaction with this user and it has almost always been unpleasant. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd seen these before coming here; now collected and per Brad's request.

• "Fry1989 shall abide by WP:1RR, one revert per article per 24 hour period, with exception allowed for reverting obvious, unambiguous vandalism and spam."
• "Fry1989 must explain each revert (excepting reverts of vandalism and spam) on the associated article talk page."
• These are all reverts that went undiscussed on talk; many are not even clearly revert if you just go by edit summary:
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg

net revert:

• diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg

actually a full revert back to Fry in May other than bot edits to interwiki links:

• diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg

And no posts to the talk page since June.

• diff of Flag of Cambodia

No posts to the talk page in a year.

Seems Road signs in New Zealand is "my [Fry's] article":

• diff of Road signs in New Zealand

No actual talk on the talk page ever.

I didn't goad him into any of this; I only found it by looking, which is the purpose of having brought this to ANI. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur violations of unblock conditions linked by RexxS have been violated. Nobody Ent 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well first of all the New Zealand Road Signs article is not literally "mine" (though I called it that because I worked VERY VERY hard on uploading all those signs and making the article), but if Br'er Rabbit would pay deeper attention, he would find that the article has been under repeated vandalism by a user called Jermboy (that's what I know him by anyways) and that Pharaoh of the Wizards also reverted this user several times on my behalf for the vandalism. He is a known sockpuppet who has access to dozens of IPs and creates fake accounts all the time too. He repeatedly added duplicate signs, removed ones, or added onces from other countries, I wasn't the only one reverting him on there, and I believe my restrictions exclude obvious vandalism. So let's cross off the New Zealand one right off the bat. As for Luxembourg, that's a complicated issue but to put it simply, there was already a discussion about what arms to use on the page, and it was only recently (in the past week) changed several times by an anonymous IP address. I still gave clear edit summaries instead of blank ones. Now for Cambodia, my edit summary was clear there too, I said the file that JamVT added is up for speedy deletion (not by myself) on Commons, this was true. It's because it has no source for it's copyright status and it will probably go. It was appropriate to revert back to the long-standing SVG file of the Cambodian flag. I'm sorry, I didn't explain my reverts on the talk pages of these articles, I messed up on that, but when you look at the purpose behind those reverts, it's clear they were in good faith and valid. Now yes, not explaining them on the talk pages is a breach, but it was a mind-slip and certainly not worthy of an indeff block and review of restrictions. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, can you please quote me where you feel I broke the civility restriction? I have not called anybody anything (on Wikipedia), the only place and time I have done so was once, today on Commons. Again that would make it a Commons issue. Any language I have used here on Wikipedia regarding other users has been under a qualifier of choice, the action they choose to take over another which directly affects me. For example, when I said today on my talk page that if Drkiernan was to choose to continue believing that I'm following him around (something he accused me of which is not true), when I gave a clear and reasonable explanation of how I came across the files on Commons, that would be out of his own insecurity. I didn't call him insecure, I didn't call him anything. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is not a content dispute over the order that two images appear in a gallery (an incredibly large gallery;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not about the order of the images! Look at the actual changes that user made, he duplicated images. New Zealand requires all their pedestrian-related signs to be fluroescent green. They used to be yellow. I have the fluoro green ones in the current gallery, and the old yellow ones under "retired signs". In THIS edit he duplicated them so that the fluoro green ones were in BOTH the current section and the retired signs section, removing the old yellow ones from the article all together. That was beyond obvious vandalism. Or what about this one where he duplicated the "cyclists take care on tracks" sign. There is a yellow one and a fluoro one, in that edit he made them both fluoro removing the yellow one from the article all together. None of these changes were constructive, they were vandalism! Fry1989 ^eh? 02:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are old; August.

• anon changes the order of two images
• you revert it, calling it vandalism

That's not obvious vandalism, and it wasn't discussed on talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the history of that article and go through all the changes that user made, 99% of them are vandalism. Is moving two signs around in their order vandalism? No. But that article had been vandalized by that IP so many times I reverted that change blindly without looking at it's substance because of everything else that was done. It should be noted, the IP's now blocked for a year because of this, so clearly others felt I was right, cause I'm the one who asked for it to be blocked and I posted everything it did as evidence. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I won't be replying to Br'er Rabbit anymore. He's splitting hairs instead of looking at the bigger picture, and is on a crusade to get me indeffed, he made that clear when he said he'll support such a penalty on my talk page, and in this edit summary. He wants me gone and that's all he cares about. I don't understand it, I don't even remember the last time he and I interacted on anything, certainly not my talk page as he hasn't posted there since I created my account in 2009. He's taking the place of judge, jury and executioner and trying to get you all to go along with it. If he posts something and others want me to explain it, ask me and I'll reply to you, but my replies to him are done with. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on the diffs provided by Br'er Rabbit and the admissions by Fry, I see no choice but to block Fry indefinitely for breaching his unblock conditions. The conditions, which were crafted by Amatulic, Fry, and me, were extraordinarily clear. Other than leaving a little wiggle room for what constitutes "vandalism" or "spam", no interpretation is required. And the consequence of a breach is just as clear: a violation results in an indefinite block. Fry can request an unblock if he wishes and it may be considered, but I don't see that he's entitled not to be blocked in the first instance. And the duration is not flexible. I am prepared to block him, or another admin may do so. I won't take any action until others respond, but that's my view.

One thing to add. Br'er Rabbit's comment that finding these violations was his "purpose" in bringing this here is preposterous on its face. He stated his purpose when he first posted. He said that Fry's "unblock needs reconsidering", and his other comments concerned the troll comment at Commons. However, my disapproval of Br'er Rabbit's conduct doesn't change my conclusion that an indefinite block should be imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't there please be any other option? What about a self-imposed period away, I can go away and come back. I screwed by by not posting my reasonings on the talk page, but that was a minor mess up. Half the things Br'er Rabbit brings up are misconstrued by him. I don't do very much here, I've made a minor slip up but I haven't actually done anything bad here or in bad faith. I haven't had any revert wars, I haven't gotten in fights, and I haven't attacked people. These are the issues I had which got me in trouble and I've stayed away from these actions. Please. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How can you block me when I haven't done anything bad here???? I didn't break my civility restrictions or my edit/revert restrictions, all I did wa mess up by forgetting to post a reasoning on a talk page, but when you look at the actual reverts they were 100% reasonable and right so there's not even an issue with their validity. This is insane that you would grant the desire of someone whose only purpose is to get rid of a good user who he's never even talked to in three years (three years I've had an account here and today is the first day he has ever posted on it! check the history). I've created articles, I've given hundred of hours of my life to this project and uploaded thousands of files to better this project. I did NOTHING wrong! Fry1989 ^eh? 05:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Fry, I'm not happy about recommending an indefinite block. I suggest you back away from saying you did "nothing wrong" as that's not correct. Your best course is to apologize for the breaches, explain that you failed to monitor your edits in light of your unblock conditions, and that you will try very hard in the future not to let it happen again. That kind of statement may get you unblocked later, even though it's unlikely to prevent you from being blocked now. You appear to be willing to stay away for a while, so why not do that, return after a reasonable period (not too short in my view) and make your request. An indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent block, although I can't predict what will happen if you make an unblock request in the future. In any event, others besides me need to weigh in at this point, and I need to go to bed. Take a deep breath and try not to post anything here that you may later regret.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I did say in my initial post that "Fry's unblock needs reconsidering", which re-blocking amounts to. I then said a bit later that "the purpose of having brought this to ANI" was looking for diff; my meaning in the second was that the purpose of such threads is to get more eyes looking at the record, which few seem to have done. So I dredged up what I'd been glossing over with popups and had the diffs together before seeing Brad's request for diff. Fry as been at DrKiernan's page both apologising and offering a deal; help kill this thread in return for a promise to stop attacking him. diff of User talk:DrKiernan, diff of User talk:DrKiernan. Let's see what DrKiernan has to say, especially about Fry's commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional achievements of arms. Fry makes flags and COA up and that's pretty dodgy. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've not fully examined the discussion above, but all I've done is to ask Fry to avoid me from his own choice. I've not asked anyone else (administrators included) for anything else.

This wouldn't have blown up at all if Fry had avoided 3 insignificant files that were not in use anywhere on any article page on any project and were never in danger of being deleted at all until he popped up to randomly undo my categorization of them. I really don't think that it is too much to ask him to refrain from undoing harmless actions on relatively trivial issues.

I would, however, like someone to remind him not to talk about editors outside of the noticeboards. DrKiernan (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to make it easier for anyone else reading this topic, DrKiernan is referring to two posts Fry made to DrKiernan's talk page in September, which DrKiernan complained of on Fry's talk page in October (the exchange that led to ANI): (1) "no faith" in "due process" & "incredibly childish"; and (2) "stop being lazy telling me I have to do your job for you".

If I understand DrKiernan properly, he is not asking for Fry to be blocked for violating any unblock condition. Instead, he'd like Fry to leave him alone and he'd like Fry to be reminded of the two civility bullets in Fry's unblock conditions, which include the requirement that Fry be civil on talk pages and that Fry not comment on individual editors except on some noticeboards. As for the civility issues, I'd personally like to avoid a discussion as to whether Fry's comments on DrKiernan's talk page were uncivil as I think what DrKiernan is asking for is far less than the block that could be rightfully imposed on Fry. As alluded to earlier, Fry has apologized for calling DrKiernan a troll on Commons and had promised to "never attack [DrKiernan] again". However, in my view, that's less than what DrKiernan wants. He essentially wants a one-way interaction ban so that Fry will just leave him alone. I'm not sure if DrKiernan is asking for that ban to apply to Commons as well, nor do I know how that would work. But what I'm geting to, in my usual long-winded way, is an alternative proposal that does not include a block. I'm just struggling with the terms of the proposal. Perhaps DrKiernan could help in crafting one that the community could then discuss/vote on.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, DrKiernan is mild. You've already agreed that violations of the unblock terms have occurred and that restoration of the indef is appropriate. That DrKiernan is willing to overlook the violations does not change the fact that right off the 30 day block, Fry returned to form. That, too, is why I brought this here. Look at the block log, again; this is a pattern that is not changing. Look at Flag of Rwanda; Fry stuck that OR flag back in there after consensus on the talk went against it. Even if that is a fair representation of a flag the President of Rwanda uses, the article is not about the president's personal flag, it's about the country's flag (which is quite different). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As you already know, I'm not happy with the role you played in this. However, I don't dispute your right to request a block. I'm just exploring an alternative based on DrKiernan's post. I'd like to hear more from DrKiernan on this issue. I'd also like to hear more from Amatulic. And of course others may weigh in.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not missing your hostility, I've been ignoring it as not relevant. I noted a recurrent issue that you and Amatulic are responsible for and brought it here for review, so I too am looking for others to opine. I believe you and I have bumped somewhere before but am not recalling what it was about; you remember? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be away for a day or two, will reply more fully later. For now, my original comment will have to stand as it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear above, but I haven't asked for a formal ban or any extra community sanctions, and (I hope this doesn't come across as rude, it isn't meant as such) I'm not that interested in helping to determine any. I would like Fry to adhere to the current restrictions, which means not talking about editors on user talk pages, and to wikipedia policies and guidelines, which means not attacking anyone anywhere. I'm asking him as a personal favor to avoid me voluntarily. The only community discussion I've started is at commons [20]. DrKiernan (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I know I said what I posted below was my final statement, but I realllly feel I need to say this. Drkiernan, I am sorry I attacked you on Commons. I am also sorry you feel I attacked you earlier on your Wikipedia page. You haven't answered my apology on your page, and I don't know whether you believe it or not, but I really was not trying to find or follow you there. You may not believe my explanation for coming across the files, but it's the truth, it could have been any other user and I still would have come across them cause they were new uploads. I am trying to follow my restrictions, I've admitted that I slipped up on not posting reasonings, and I admit I have a bit of a grudge against you for past issues, but not one that's strong enough to stalk you for trouble. The evidence below however is very strong that another person here IS holding grudge for over 6 months and won't let go it it, against me. That is what a real "issue" with another user looks like. Anyhow, this is my last post here until I am contacted with a decision and outcome of this. Goodbye everyone. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I do believe your explanation of how you came across the files. DrKiernan (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actual proposal

I prefer to wait for Amatulic's return before closing this discussion, with or without action, but I thought I'd start the ball rolling:

1. Fry1989 is reminded that he must pay closer attention to the conditions of his August 2012 unblock agreement whenever editing.
2. Fry1989 is advised that compliance with the civility conditions of his unblock agreement may be construed broadly.
3. The following is added as a bullet point at the bottom of the August 2012 unblock agreement: "Fry1989 is indefinitely banned from interacting with User:DrKiernan on Wikipedia or on Commons except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages. This ban was added in October 2012 based on [this discussion at WP:ANI].

The link to this discussion can be added once it has been archived and has a permanent home.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A couple of comments about my own proposal. First, Amatulic proposed an interaction ban between Fry and DrKiernan. I've proposed a 1-way ban, partly because DrKiernan didn't say he was amenable to a 2-way ban. I don't know if 1-way bans are ever imposed, and it seems problematic to me. Example: DrKiernan (not banned) goes to Fry's talk page and says x and asks Fry to explain himself. Fry can't do that without violating the ban. Maybe DrKiernan would care to comment on this issue. Second, regardless of what kind of ban it is, I wasn't sure about the duration, so I wrote indefinite, thinking (a) why would they ever want to talk to each again anyway and (b) Fry could always request a change if for some reason they became more friendly.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that given the profuse apology made by Fry1989 above at 18:59, 8 October 2012, these additional sanctions are unnecessary at this time. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

you're merely here to undermine me due. shoo ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving this is just another WP:GAME for you. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The game is called rabbit shoos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think point 3 will fly, partly because of what Newyorkbrad said above and partly because it would have to be hedged about with caveats to cover issues like the one you raised. I don't think it's worth our time and effort at this point to determine what all those caveats might be. DrKiernan (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, DrKiernan. I'm waiting for Amatulic's comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you and Amatulic need to recuse from closing this (comment, sure). You two unblocked Fry w/terms and are now seeking to give him a pass on having broken them. Better someone uninvolved review the breach. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My final statement

First a reply to Bbb23. What I meant when I said I did nothing wrong is that I did nothing harmful to wikipedia. Yes, I did wrong by not explaining my revisions on the articles' talk pages, that was a slip and I'm sorry. I agreed to do it and I haven't done it. But everything else on my restrictions list I did obey.

Secondly however, I want to point out that I now know who Br'er Rabbit is and why he is so dead-set on having me blocked. He used to be Alarbus (some of you may already know this so sorry if it's old news, but I just realized it). He and I had a bitter disagreement on Talk: Flag of Rwanda about the inclusion of the presidential flag of Rwanda. I was blocked for uncivility, but Alarbus was later blocked for socking. When I my block expired, I posted "it's not over" on his talk page (unaware that he had also been blocked during my time away), because I had over 10 new sources. That comment was removed by Diannaa under Alarbus' request through email with a rather colourful metaphor as Diannaa put it in their edit summary. After that issue however, I continued with my sources on the article's talk page, and eventually got an email from the Rwandan Embassy to the US confirming it being the President's flag, and it's been left on the article from May to now October, 6 months. Alarbus (or should I now say "Br'er Rabbit") obviously7 hasn't let go of this spat because today he just removed the flag again saying the article isn't about the President's flag (despite plenty of other national flag articles including their presidential variants), and because in his very first post on my talk page yesterday he already had decided that I need to be indeffed. He obviously is not just trying to get rid of me for any reason, but because he still holds a grudge over the Rwanda issue. He doesn't even care about the facts, for example above he says that I create the "dodgy coats of arms and flags] and that the DR was mine. It's already been made extremely clear here those files were made by Trajan, and that my only involvement in the DR is after he asked me to give my opinion.

I ask the admins here to look into this because it's plainly obvious that Alarbus/Br'er Rabbit hasn't let go, he even brought up the Rwanda flag dispute here yesterday! He instantly said I need to be indeffed on my page, coming there looking for the slightest sign of trouble, because he had it in his watchlist (self-admittedly) under his new user name, and Drkiernan never asked him to come to my page. He was LOOKING for trouble, any excuse to bring this here. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A word of advice: do not try to play the victim here, it will not win you any favours. I very strongly recommend that you strike the entirety of the second and third paragraphs in your post above, otherwise you risk giving the impression that you have a battleground mentality which is not a good look and won't help your case. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? It's not like Br'er hasn't hounded others before. He has a history of that. Check with ArbCom. I don't know if Fry1989's timeline is accurate, but it's not out of left field that he is being hounded/goaded in this case. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, I at least partly agree with both of you. I think many people know about Jack's history, although it is hard to follow (so many different accounts). Assuming Fry is right about the history concerning Fry and Jack, Fry's comments may be relevant to Jack's motives. However, they are not particularly relevant to any action that might be taken here. Generally, it's not a good idea to jump on one's accuser unless one is contradicting an allegation. Casting aspersions, even if valid, isn't usually productive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"I had some dispute with him about a made-up image of a coat of arms some six months ago" in Br'er opening argument brings that issue into the discussion, doesn't it? Tijfo098 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I kick small children, too :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Tijfo098, all the more reason why Fry should not respond like this. It only pours fuel onto the fire, a lesson I personally learned in this place not all that long ago. If Fry has a grievance, the correct way to raise it is not in an AN/I case about his own behaviour, it makes him look defensive and unwilling to admit his own weaknesses, neither of which are likely to impress any passing admin that might feel inclined to impose a block. IMO he would be best advised to cop it on the chin, admit his own breach of his unblock conditions, promise to do better in the future and drop the stick about the real or imagined misbehaviour of others. With his history he should not be raising such issues any time soon, if the things he complains about are real then the alleged perpetrator will undoubtedly cross swords with some other editor and may well end up here on the receiving end of his or her own AN/I case. Anyway, I believe Fry would be best advised to avoid the editor(s) with whom he is having trouble, even if that is hard for him, at least that way he may be able to remain here - if he gets blocked then he won't be able to edit here at all. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I've seen plenty of cases on ANI where both the editor who started the thread and the one reported were sanctioned. WP:BOOMERANG, Unclean hands, and all that. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

run along; you've a history with me. you're just trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Care to share our history here? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a halt (ideally voluntary) to interaction between Rabbit and Fry? Seems like a good idea given the above. --Nouniquenames 05:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Given some recent posts in this thread and the one above it, it's unlikely such measure to work out on purely voluntary basis, at least from one side. A formal WP:IBAN should be enacted between Br'er and Fry. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. In an ideal world, that wouldn't be necessary, but neither would this board (as there would only be kittens, rainbows, and happiness to report). --Nouniquenames 16:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If independent people think I should retract my statement about Br'er Rabbit, I will. It wasn't my intent to change the focus from me or else I wouldn't have apologized for and acknowledged my actions as well (twice). But I do think Br'er Rabbit's motives are fishy, considering he had me in his watchlist under his new user name that I've never interacted with, instantly decided I needed to be indeffed (edit summary and first reply on my talk page he said so), he brought up a six month old and long forgotten dispute about Rwanda here all by himself (per the link), and then later went to the article to remove the image again after it's been there for 6 months uncontested and sourced (since reverted by Anonmoos, another user I don't usually "get along with", but we have a decent "working relationship"). Just my opinion. I did what I did, but I don't think that excuses others from scrutiny. Anyhow, I'll move on. Still awaiting a conclusion and outcome. When that has arrived, I'll come back to face it. I will look at this page periodically so nobody has to come get me. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I already said above way before this I have no objection to an interaction ban between Br'er Rabbit and myself (and actually would welcome it). Fry1989 ^eh? 18:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

but we haven't been interacting since February other than my noticing you calling DrKiernan a troll and violating your unblock terms, which is why we're here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly true, and that was under your previous account, which is why I find it so odd that you are here now. I've never had anything to do with your Br'er Rabbit account, it's talk page, articles you've edited under it, anything. Did I do what I did? Absolutely, but it doesn't explain to me why you're the one here. In any case, your claims that I "create" (emphasis on create, as in "I am in the current practice of doing) fake coats of arms and flags is patently false. if you look at my flags gallery on Commons, the last fictional flag I uploaded was back in 2009 (every other flag on there is either a proposal, or sourced), and I've already marked them as fictional and have never tried to put them on any pages/articles. For my coat of arms gallery, everything there is sourced, there's not a single fictional or proposed coat of arms. So I would be very thankful if you would not only lower your "concerns" (which are completely unfounded), but stop claiming I'm doing something I haven't. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrap up proposal

I don't know the backstory, but for whatever reason Fy1989 was unblocked with Sword of Damocles unblock conditions. They're in at least technical violation with reverts such as [21] in which they failed to post to the talk page as required. A few days have passed and no admin has felt the breach egregious enough to impose an additional sanction. Fry has attempted to deflect attention from their behavior by bringing up the Rabbit's history, but that's not news to many of us, and not really on point. The question is raised above if there can be a one way interaction ban -- there absolutely can be -- I've been operating with self-imposed double secret interaction bans with multiple editors for years. If you don't wish to interact with someone, don't interact with them.

I recommend we just close this with no formal changes to the current conditions or sanctions other than a warning to Fry that they need scrupulously follow both the spirit and letter of their unblock conditions going forward. Nobody Ent 09:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire

On 25 September, Binksternet started a discussion thread about Belchfire (talk · contribs) on User talk:TParis (see "Ignoring sanctions on US political articles"). At the time, major concerns about Belchfire's behavior were raised with administrator TParis. In the discussion, it was shown that Belchfire had received at least three major warnings from administrators about his battlefield behavior and edit warring. TParis said he was on vacation playing the new WoW expansion and couldn't be bothered to deal with the problem.[22] Shortly after the thread ended on the 26th of September, Belchfire disappeared two days later, on the 28th. Today, Belchfire returned, engaging in the same exact behavior that has not yet been dealt with as requested by Binksternet back in September. To make matters worse, Belchfire appears to be gaming the system, reverting to the edits of a SPA IP (User:71.97.130.211) on political positions of Mitt Romney and violating the spirit of general sanctions by engaging in edit warring,[23] and coincidentally, doing the same thing on the same day on homosexual agenda, reverting to a version created by another SPA, this time a registered account (User:BacktoWiki).[24] This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely. Is Belchfire here to build an encyclopedia or to play games? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This complaint is nonsensical:

• A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever.
• When I edit an article, I'm not responsible for the contribution history of previous editors. Ever.
• Even if I was responsible for those contribution histories, neither of the editors cited by Viriditas meet the criteria of WP:SPA.
• Supposing just for the sake of the argument that they were SPAs, that doesn't mean it's against policy to revert to their version of an article, because there's no policy against being an SPA.
• All that remains is (supposedly) "odd behavior", which isn't much of a complaint. And there is no policy against "odd behavior".

I humbly suggest that Viriditas stop wasting everybody's time unless/until he has a real issue for admins to deal with. The only battlefield behavior here is this trumped up, fictitious ANI thread that he's started. G'day. Belchfire-TALK 00:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I maintain, using the above examples, that you are deliberately engaging in disruptive behavior. An enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem has been collected by other editors/admins, so there is no need for me to repeat it here. You are basically a "revert-only" account at this point who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts which effectively increases the 3RR count by adding additional reverts into the mix. I'm asking for action to be taken based on Binksternet's original request from 25 September.[25] Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Viriditas is hardly "wasting everybody's time." After looking into the links provided, I see that Belchfire has been warned numerous times and appears to me to have serious issues, starting with systemic vios of WP:TEND, and I call for remedial action to hereby come into consideration including a full topic ban for any political subjects. Clearly this has gone on far too long. And for the record I am utterly uninvolved with any of this. Jusdafax 00:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is someone accusing BF of sockpuppettry?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruption is more like it. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. For clarity, I do not accuse Belchfire of socking. Jusdafax 02:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is an ongoing problem that needs to be stopped, but Belchfire has given every indication that he is unwilling to stop his behavior. Far too often he has been reverting other editors on a drive-by basis on multiple articles—not engaging the other editors on the talk page to build toward consensus. He just throws a wrench in the works as he drives by. At WP:DISRUPT we see that Belchfire's pattern is identified under "Signs of disruptive editing". Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's a content dispute that has no place at ANI. Also, the originator of the complaint did not make a good faith effort to resolve the issue elsewhere, which is required per the bolded verbiage at the top of this page (only 22 minutes passed between a message on my Talk page that the initiation of this section). This entire thing is motivated solely by partisan politics. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• There is no "content" under dispute in this report, only your continuing bad behavior. As for attempting to resolve it, the diffs show that you've been warned many, many times. At this point, we need administrator action. We are far past the point of trying to resolve it. Been there, done that, now we need action. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

BF has had issues inte past, mostly with civility, but since being warned he has been much more civil. Where is he refusing to discuss?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a discussion when there is something to discuss. There is nothing to discuss here; this is simply a politically-motivated content dispute - not an ANI-worthy complaint. Viriditas knows better. Belchfire-TALK 02:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no content under discussion in this thread, only your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The links Veriditas posted above, highlighted "enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem," indicate there is plenty to discuss, as I see it. In my view to deny that is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I respectfully suggest Belchfire take this matter a bit more seriously, because up to this point they are doing themself a disservice. Binksternet and Veriditas raise troubling points that arguably merit community oversight and sanctions. This is the place to discuss that. Calling their complaints "partisan politics" reveals a battleground mentality on Belchfire's part. Jusdafax 02:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. But the initial complaint by OP makes it seem like they are accusing BF of puppettry. This needs clarification.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever." LOL! Someone needs to review what is considered edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was sticking in my craw as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How so? Care to explain how both Belchfire and Collect are wrong on this point? Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of warnings is to change behavior and if that is not effective then the next logical step is sanctions. I believe we have reached that point and would support a topic ban on political articles. Also, I find his comment on edit warring disturbing, since he has been blocked twice recently for edit-warring. It shows an unwillingness to follow the spirit of policy, and avoid sanctions by following the letter. TFD (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no editorial misbehaviour warranting this section - it is clearly a matter of disputes between ed\itors on content matters, and this is not the place to rule on content matters. Further, it is dictum that "edit war" does, indeed, require more than a single edit. I would further note that the editors who seem most aggreieved have been involved in precisely analogous behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no content dispute under discussion here, nor have I been involved. In fact, I have made a total of zero edits to the articles named in this dispute:[26][27][28][29] This discussion is about Belchfire's edit warring (which does not require more than a single edit) and battlefield behavior which has resulted in multiple warnings, all of which have been ignored. At this point, we're calling for action, preferably a topic ban or sanction. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also note SPI is --> thataway. Making accusations here is not proper. Collect (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has made any such accusations. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? Here [30] you say that BF is ...basically a "revert-only" account at this point who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts (emphasis added). This is tantamount to making the claim that BF is socking, which is a serious accusation. If you have evidence or even a strong suspicion, take it to SPI.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't imply that Belchfire is socking in any way, but it does imply that he is reverting to versions edited by other throwaway accounts to game the general sanctions and 3RR. I hope you understand that this statement does not in any way imply that he is the operator behind those accounts, but rather that he conveniently seems to show up at coincidental and opportune times to revert to their versions. There are any number of explanations for this coincidental behavior. For example, they could be meatpuppets, not socks, and no SPI would ever prove anything. Now, please stop distracting from his behavior under discussion. This isn't a dispute about content or a request for an SPI. It's a discussion about Belchfire's continuing battlefield behavior. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of something called a watchlist? These edits you present as "evidence" of disruption of BF appear to be a coat-rack to bring up a discussion of sanctions against BF. Don't accuse me of making distractions, I'm not the one making insinuations.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Belchfire's contribution pattern, there appears to be a gaming of the 1RR of general sanctions and the 3RR coordinated with the coincidental appearance of single-use IPs and throwaway SPA's. You can dismiss this as a coincidence when it happens once, but twice within the same day on two different articles right when Belchfire "returns" from a week-long vacation? Sorry, this does have the look and feel of odd behavior. I monitor editorial patterns all the time, and this is very strange behavior. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Red herring. No one has accused anyone of sockpuppeting. Saying an editor has a revert only account does not imply there is another account. You inferred it, but it wasn't implied. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire is the poster child for votestacking. He finds a controversial article and reverts to restore the position of his friends, but he does not engage in discussion. More than any other, Belchfire is the type of editor that Lionelt hoped to recruit (and did recruit) for the Conservatism WikiProject to further conservative causes. The exhaustive list of disruptive edits that Swatjester warned him about includes many exemplary votestacking instances such as this one removing well-cited but negative information at Christian Coalition of America, without a single peep on the talk page, and this one at You didn't build that to revert to a fabricated image photoshopped by Lionelt, added to the article by Lionelt, one which was soon deleted. Anybody who wishes to investigate further into Belchfire's editing pattern will find too many disruptive reversions, the same things Swatjester already noted. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the Belchfire votestack I found most disruptive: he involved himself in the article for precisely one edit, reverting my changes to the lead section of BP and the addition of text cited to the New York Times, the US Department of Justice, the Washington Post, CBS News and ABC News. Belchfire used the edit summary, "removing unsourced material and obvious original research". Such a summary was purely spiteful, considering the sources and carefully crafted text. Belchfire never once engaged in discussion on the article's talkpage. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire's involvement with the project has improved since they received a final warning on September 9, but it seems to be mostly due to reducing the level of activity, as opposed to altering undesirable editing behavior.

The drive-by reverting started about a week after Swatjester's final warning.

• September 16 - I posted a warning about this edit.

• September 20 - Removing an entire section with an edit summary of "removing unsourced and poorly sourced material". Notably, one of the sources removed is an American Psychological Association article. The content needed improvement but a complete removal was not constructive.

• September 20 - Incivility and here.

• September 21 - Removal of content with an edit summary of "removing excessive detail, undue weight and non-neutral language. there, now it's explained". Notably, this edit restored User:98.91.31.197's same reversion. Interestingly, a similar revert was performed on October 7 by User:98.91.29.75. Both IP's have only edited Christian Coalition of America.

• September 25 - Removal of sourced content with an edit summary of: "sourcing does not equal relevance"

• October 7 - Removal of sourced content with an edit summary of: "removing undue weight. the significance of these orgs needs to be better established to merit special mention"

• October 7 - Removal of sourced content with and edit summary of: "See WP:BITE. Better rationale is needed, reason given is NEVER valid" I was concerned about possibly biting a new user, so I asked Belchfire about it, but did not receive a response. – MrX 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of the Sept 20th bullshit comments, most of the edits and summaries you cite appear to be reasonable, as they can reasonable be rationalized. Perhaps he is frustrated at what he percieves to be edits that do not reflect what the sources state? When you proceed to revert his edit before discussing, do you expect him to answer your talkpage response? I'm on the bandwagaon that BF can certainly be curt and sometimes abrasive, but most of these problems can be handled within BRD. Two bad the D part is often an afterthought. And BF is not the only guilty party.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire is not just curt and abrasive, he is purposely disruptive. That's the key point. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that's the claim being made. So far the diffs presented here haven't shown disruption, much less intentional disruption. That is unless you consider source checking and attribution to be disruptive. I would however urge BF to start opening TP sections when he removes material he believes to be unsourced and be more specific as to the chief complaint.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as believing text to be unsourced when in fact it is sourced to the New York Times, the US Department of Justice, the Washington Post, CBS News and ABC News. The chief complaint is that Belchfire piles on in edit wars, that he is disruptive in his edit pattern. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as an example, one of the cited diffs above is [31] which is a removal of unsourced material. There are other edits, also above, where BF has reverted edits that contain unsourced and sourced material in one fell swoop. Perhaps you feel he should have been more judicious in removing only the unsourced portion. Perhaps he felt it wasn't his responsibility to clean up anothers mess. Did he see one "bad" edit and decide to revert the whole thing? Is it ok to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Let's postualate that this is a misunderstanding on both sides. If everyone were to take this up on the talk page then we wouldn't be discussing it here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you chose that example, because here is the passage from the Rolling Stone article:

" "Open your eyes, people," Anderson recently wrote to the local newspaper. "What if a 15-year-old is seduced into homosexual behavior and then contracts AIDS?" Her agenda mimics that of Focus on the Family, the national evangelical Christian organization founded by James Dobson;"

Belchfire removed: "Anderson's agenda is similar to that of Focus on the Family" with an edit summary: "removing unsourced original research" – MrX 02:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And I realise we disagree on these matters, but I think Belchfire's edit was absolutely fine. The statement was in Wikipedia's voice. A claim like that needs to be cat in the voice of the one making it. It's the responsibility of people adding content to ensure that it is neutral. Not only wasn't the sentence cited, it wasn't neutral, and those sort of added opinions may certainly be removed on sight. StAnselm (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to add this series of events which occurred as the Parents Action League was being expanded:

• September 6 - "removing original research" followed by two additional reverts
• September 8 - "removing trivia" 1st revert
• September 8 - "Don't edit-war over this, please. If you think it should be here, make your case in Talk. I'm taking it out - again - because it's irrelevant." 2nd revert
• September 8 - Talk page discussion that was not going quite the way Belchfire had hoped
• September 8 - Well, that didn't work. I know! Let's see if we can get the entire article deleted!

At first, I was encouraged to see Belchfire, StAnselm and Insomesia joining together with me in the spirit of improving the article. But almost immediately, it became evident that there was an effort to keep sourced content out of the article. When that didn't work so well, Belchfire sent it to AfD in a WP:Twinkle of an eye. Belchfire's reason: "This organization fails GNG, as it is unheard-of outside the Minnesota Twin Cities area. Article is here purely as a coatrack to cover it's SPLC "hate group" listing." – MrX 16:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment I find it interesting that in this discussion, the members of Wikiproject:Conservatism are out in full force to defend Belchfire, especially those who previously tag-teamed with him like Little Green Rosetta. Not two days ago they were out for blood, misconstruing a joke comment as a "threat" in order to get rid of an editor who stood in the way of their tendentious POV-pushing and endured a great deal of abuse from them and nasty comments or worse for doing so. I think Belchfire ought to be blocked indef on the same grounds that the WP:Conservatism crowd demanded StillStanding-247 be blocked for. And yet, they insisted his conduct shouldn't come under an RFC/U first, while they want Belchfire given free rein to run around while an RFC/U is researched and filed? I have an alternate proposal, for all members and admin members especially of WP:Conservatism: Conservapedia is THATAWAY. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, the editor mentioned above was blocked for a comment about offing an admin. He was also blocked for repeated disruption and his block was widely supported. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this ip is most likely indeffed user SkepticAnonymous  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to StillStanding-247 who is still defended even though he is one of the worst POV pushers to ever hit this sight, amazing. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

::::As far as I'm aware, having a lousy sense of humor tinged with a little irony isn't a blockable offense. The comments you refer to are [32] and [33], which are clearly meant as him making jokes. There's no way " Even if I agreed to your dastardly plan to murder TParis" can count as a threat. The fact that it was a middle of the night pile-on by editors and admins associated with TParis is as much a matter of WP:CANVAS behavior as anything else, just as the rush to defend Belchfire is a function of WP:CANVAS levels from a certain Wikiproject. Reaper Eternal is previously on record as a WP:Conservative supporter and "supports the campaign to fire Obama", and blocked within 15 minutes, which is quite a rush to indef-ban an editor who's gotten the short end of the stick from a POV gang since day one. It's pretty obvious what is was going on was an attempt to get someone blocked/banned for political reasons because they oppose POV-pushing editors, nothing more or less, and the defense of Belchfire who has just as much a habit of tendentious editing and disruption is being treated the other way by the same people for reasons of political affiliation as well.

I don't see any reason to miss or minimize the fact that Belchfire saw StillStanding-247 gone, and figured he could get into tendentious editing again because one of the people likely to report him was now blocked.

Also, false accusations don't do much for me. Pull the other one while you're at it, otherwise they'll get lopsided. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

topic ban proposal

• Strongly support a topic ban for the areas where Belchfire is unable to contribute constructively: Politics, Christian political organizations and people, Christian right, civil rights organizations, anti-gay/hate group organizations and LGBT topics. While Belchfire can make positive contributions to Wikipedia, I believe that this topic ban would have a net positive effect on the project. – MrX 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights broadly construed. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)(Added Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

• Support topic ban A single edit can be edit warring; particularly when you pile in a edit war with others by not getting consensus for the bold reverted change first (It's BRD, not BRRRR). Belchfire trying to force an edit through by re-inserting a bold edit is edit warring, and it seems to be something he does quite often. The account shown account shown User:BacktoWiki is clearly a SPA account. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No case other than "IDONTLIKEHIM" has been presented. The implication that he is socking was improper on this page as I noted, and the fact that he has content disputes is insufficient to purge him. I would note that those seeking to ban him are specifically involved in the disputes, and that I would not support a topic ban on them either. AN/I is not the noticeboard to get folks barred from areas where the ones proposing the topic ban have remarkably similar attributes themselves. Collect (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No one implied sock puppetting. You wrongly inferred it as has already been pointed out several times. Stop with the red herrings. Are we reading different ANI threads? The diffs have been presented, that you have ignored and denied the reality of the diffs, which clearly show piling in on an edit war, doesn't mean there is no case. It is self evidently not just a content dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How else do you read This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely as anything other than a veiled accusation of impropriety? Cheers -- and the "new account" below does not seem to be "new" either. Collect (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the IP and registered account linked above are new, and appeared just prior to Belchfire reverting. Why do you claim they are not new? Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

*Support Agree a topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights broadly construed. --JimEdgers (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Question: Point of order - Why was this comment ^ stricken out? – MrX 13:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This !vote is by a sockpuppet. As are a few comments by a one ip address. I suspect the other ip address (supporting BF) might be a sock as well, but I have not an inkling of who the sockmaster would be. In any case I suspect a closing admin will take this into account during their closure.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that this had become such a puppet show. – MrX 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Rabblerousing from the usual suspects. Arkon (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I agree with IRWolfie. A look at the edit on the Romney positons article shows that this was indeed an edit war and BF's revert part of it[34]. I also note the use of the edit summary to debate or disute the previous summary claim (See WP:REVTALK) is one reason to consider this single revert an edit war. With the addition of the revert on the Homosexual agenda article, it does look very much like a topic ban is appropriate for "politics, religion, homosexuality (Edit:Not just this single article but all LGBT related articles) and civil rights" broadly construed as mentioned by Binksternet.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This has relied to much on verbiage and innuendo -- he reverted to the last version edited by an SPA (gasp) ... just sayin' ... not that I'm accusing anyone of sockpuppetry (but it's okay if you connect the dots on your own). More diffs, less words and less mud next time please. And single edits are warring, they're bold! Like a good Wikipedian is supposed to be. Nobody Ent 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There's lists of diffs in the discussion above. You want even more than that? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone whose actually read all of the diffs above (where diffs were actually provided), none of them seem to support the accusations of the submitters. To quote a recently indefed editor "What else you got?"  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Curious question: When you read all of those diffs, did you really see no examples where content was removed on false premises? Did you really not see that Belchfire wrote "The edit summary was erroneous, my bad" when called on it? – MrX 02:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::LGR is Belchfire's tag-team partner... linkage from the same. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on political, religious and LGBT articles as warnings appear to be ignored, as I explained above. TFD (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose  I have examined one of the edits [35] about which this topic has been opened, and found the complaint regarding this edit to be without merit.  The edit by Belchfire in question addressed the issue that the previous post was WP:BITE.  Note that the link provided by the OP hides the edit comment of the previous post: [36].  Belchfire's objection was sustained by the subsequent edit comment, which has removed the "WP:BITE".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • To be certain, the pattern is not established by just "one of the edits". It is the continuing pattern that is a problem. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This does not appear to be a clear-cut case. You should start a WP:RfC/U instead. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposed ban in its broad nature. I sure as hell think it is time to act on the final warning about 2012 election editing as this type of revert is so beyond inappropriate that it needs little explanation. The conduct at Parent's Action League is troubling, but over a month old. Seems to me an RfC/U is the more appropriate step at this point, even if just to sort out exactly where he should be prevented from contributing. Not gonna rule out that his contributions in some of the other areas might be constructive unless there is evidence to the contrary.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing of substance here. If anybody should be topic banned, it should be the person who started this thread since he has a pretty clear POV biais. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:: As opposed to yours? "let's ban anyone who disagrees?" 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Reading the Warning thread [37] convinced me there was a problem here, thanks to admin Swatjester. It includes a substantial number of links to diffs that indicate an edit pattern I can only call tendentious per WP:TEND. I feel these links make a strong case for a topic ban with a mandatory lengthy block for even one more violation. I defy Belchfire and his band of supporters to explain this away:

(Start Swatjester's warning message) "Belchfire, stepping in here as an uninvolved administrator, I've noticed that your actions on Wikipedia have drawn quite a lot of attention recently. You're pretty much constantly on one noticeboard or another -- often times invalidly, but still. It's pretty clear to me that you're viewing Wikipedia as a battleground to fight a war over conservative articles, and your edits are often times uncivil, and make personal attacks in the process of doing so. This is not a recent occurrence, there are several times you've done this. You also seem to use the phrase "coatrack" as a bludgeon to get your way in discussions.

Examples: Reverting a listing in a deletion debate, reverting large amounts of validly sourced edits, personal attacks and incivility personal attacks on an administrator, incivility and personal attacks, edit-warring back in a valid removal of a non-free image with questionable justification, while accusing a good faith editor of wikistalking, incivility, incivility, removal of sourced material, including sources from Department of Justice, Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, etc. with the argument "removing unsourced material and obvious original research", claiming other people's edits are "nonsense", sarcastic comments suggesting another editor you are in a dispute with should be topic banned, incivility, inappropriate removal of sourced content, inappropriate removal of sourced content, incivility, clearly misleading edit summaries to justify removing validily sourced material.

And that's just in your last 50 edits. Here's more.

Claiming information sourced to Britannica.com was "unsourced", removal of large amounts of sourced information, in an edit war, without consensus, incivility, personal attakcs, accusing others of bad faith because they oppose you in a content dispute, incivility and personal attacks, accusing opponents in a content dispute of tendentiousness, and again, admin aboose, calling other editors revisions "bullshit", accusations of bad faith, bad faith removal of content, blatant incivility ("nonsensical horseshit"), accusations of "wikihounding", incivility, bad faith categorization of opposing arguments, POV removal of content to significantly "weaken" the "pro-obama" side, incivility "irrelevant bullshit", categorizing New York Times sourced material as "original research", removal of sourced content, justifying edit warring because of "some hack at NYT", snarky response when called on the previous diff, blaming Wikipedia, "Bilge", personal attacks, blatant incivility

And that's just from the next 50 edits." (Here I snip Swatjesters warning, which continues in the original.)

This astonishing mass of evidence clearly indicates a problem editor. That he went right on with his edit pattern, as shown above, in spite of Swatjesters warning, indicates bad faith. I say again, indicates bad faith. He denies he has a problem in this very thread, calling it a "content dispute." That is absurd, in my view, and I hereby call on the community to take action for the good of the project. We have heard from his friends; now let's weigh the evidence and take action. Jusdafax 03:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't have time to look all those diffs. So I just sampled one [38]. Calling bullshit StillStanding's claim "You're stonewalling by playing burden tennis" is not civil, but it's not blatantly uncivil either. And we know that it took a saint to put up with StillStanding. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And even then... StAnselm (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to look at more than one diff to see a pattern of civil POV pushing. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

All I see from the above is political football like Wikipedia always sees before some election (in the US or elsewhere). And it takes two teams to play it [39] Tijfo098 (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As far as I can tell, the actual original complaint consisted of noting that a different editor (who consistently battleground edits against BF) complained on an admin's page, and was told not to bother the admin. V then posts and makes vague intimations about sockpuppetry or running sockpuppets, that neither makes much sense, nor is particularly clear. BF is a very active editor, with a take on several articles; this complaint looks very much like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKE vote on whose POV will win, not a behavior problem. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

::It's intriguing that the "admin" in question is TParis, who has a history of tendentious editing as well as a political bias well known and who previously was gung-ho to create a topic ban and eventually tried to (succeeded at) get someone blocked indef for political disagreements; now that Belchfire was reported for violating the same topic area, he's mysteriously "too busy" to handle it? I can see why it was brought here. There are obvious favorites being played based on political affiliation and it casts doubt on the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole. The fact that we're discussing a "topic ban" for Belchfire while a less tendentious and more productive editor who was deliberately provoked and prodded over and over again is indeff'ed just makes the whole of Wikipedia look dodgy. Support a topic ban for Belchfire only at such time as the person he and his fellow travellers were targeting gets the same fair treatment, otherwise support treating all sides in this deplorable mess the same. Meatpuppeting is bad, WP:CANVAS is bad, tag-teaming is bad, tendentious editing is bad, threats are bad, admins telling someone to commit suicide are worse. That all ought to apply no matter which side it is. If they don't like it, Conservapedia is --> thataway. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not log in? - Sitush (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Belchfire is not the only POV warrior here to make Wikipedia safe for conservative thinking, he's merely the least subtle about it. And I see that the usual suspects are here to tell us all that we're imagining things or trying to throw up as many irrelevancies as they can to cloud the issue. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The evidence is crystal clear that Belchfire has a serious history of tag team edit warring, and that is his primary “contribution” to Wikipedia. Numerous warnings and discussions have failed to persuade him to change either that or his repeated incivility. It's time to stop the disruption. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
  forcemeat  10:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As no such evidence was given, I think your position here is not tenable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights, very broadly construed. Belchfire has made it abundantly clear, over and over again, that he is either unable or unwilling to constructively edit in these areas. He has been given ample opportunity to improve his behavior, but has consistently failed to do so. There is no indication and no hope that he will ever change, so the topic ban should be indefinite. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. On the contrary, the evidence here shows a significant improvement after the September 9 warning. There is some incivility, but the diffs presented do not indicate any disruptive editing after the warning. StAnselm (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I stumbled upon this issue last night, and have since examined the evidence thoroughly. Belchfire had quite the laundry list of disruptive edits last month, but there isn't much evidence that he hasn't improved on this behavior. It certainly seems to me like those who brought this complaint in the first place did so largely due to a personal grudge against an editor they know has been problematic in the past. I would recommend that Belchfire take note that his disruptive edits remain unacceptable, but I don't feel the need for more decisive action at this time. If there were a marked resurgence of nonchalantly destructive edits similar to what was seen in September, then I would support an indefinite topic ban. Coppaar (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for LGBT topics and political organisations, broadly contrued. Belchfire has previously been warned by an admin and multiple other editors but behaves as if never warned. I further think that Belchfire is non-productive in this topic area because he has one of the strongest biases i have seen, in a far-right direction. Wikipedia will be better of without such unconstructive editors. In the past Belchfire's POV was largely balanced out by Still, but now that Still is blocked, we have Belchfire roaming free. Pass a Method talk 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

*Support as noted by many, Belchfire has had many warnings over and over. The tag teaming edits, many here "oppose", show its a common trait.--178.254.135.157 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC) proxy user   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Struck Tagged the above as an SPA, possibly related to one or more above. a13ean (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment just wondering; is this a record for socks, proxy, and throw-away accounts contributing to an ANI? The number of such invalid contributions cast doubt on the the objectivity of the proceedings, and suggest meat-puppetry. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Association fallacy much? It's supposedly one, possibly two socks. How is that a record and how could it possibly cast doubt on this report? I suggest you read Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Dear V; you are just not listening to the points made. Belchfire alleges that he is subjected to personal attacks, and both much of the above is personal, not edit-based, and fraudulent accounts pop up to attack BF. Part of any allegation of tendentious editing is repeated abuse of WP processes to delay proper editing. Part of BF's defense is that BF runs into more problem ediTORS that can be expected of a normal WPedian, and sure enough, on the ANI: many more problem ediTORS. Direct and specific relation between problems on this ANI and the problems BF alleges partly explain the editing; no logical fallacy here.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Belchfire runs into more problem editors? He runs into problems on purpose; he creates problems. He cannot be considered a normal Wikipedian with his disruptive behavior. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

        BF edits in an area that attracts more problem editors than, for instance, Zoology. The USE of process must be measured against the prevalence of process problems in the AREA IN WHICH BF edits. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

      • @Anonymous209.6: I think there is a misunderstanding here. Belfchfire is not 'running into problem editors'; he is the problem editor, as the many, many examples above prove. This is not about content; it is about how his editing consists of mostly deleting sourced content and the sources, under false pretenses, and then either disappearing or resorting to crass incivility when other editors try to engage him in discussion. I have seen no evidence so far that indicates he has edited these articles in a constructive manner, by conducting research, copy editing, fixing MoS issues, adding new sections, etc. His legion of supporters seem to be more concerned with losing an ally in some imagined crusade to protect the wiki from the blight of liberal untruths, than with building a great encyclopedia. There are socks and SPAs on both sides of this debate, and they can all be easily dismissed by the admin who determines the outcome of this ANI. Viriditas was exactly right about this being a (desparate) attempt at association fallacy. – MrX 16:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Speaking of association fallacy.... "legion of supporters". Arkon (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

          Let's be clear; attacks on other editors are NOT a rebuttal, and that includes disparaging editors by making unsubstantiated speculations on their internal motivations, and that similarly, other editors arguments, such as "on both sides" are both factually (mostly) incorrect and invalid WP arguments. Again, lack of listening makes for lack of "understanding". The point being made is that ABUSE of process is a cornerstone of tendentious behavior, and to establish ABUSE, we must consider what reasonable USE is, given the topic area and prevalence of need of USE. This ANI can be used as evidence that BF simply runs into more problem ediTORS than a usual WPdian, the evidence being that more sub-investigations and blocks/bans are handed out to participants on this ANI than appear on the average page in 5 years. This is explicitly NOT an "other people do it" argument, but an argument that the topic areas lend themselves to more process.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

          • Belchfire creates problems when he kicks process out the window. You are concerned about process but his edits show that he is not. He jumps in and reverts disruptively without discussion. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- I've finally had the chance to look at a large number of BF's recent edits, and I now believe that he does not have a net positive impact on this project. While he clearly has made some positive contributions I think there's too strong a tendency to remove sourced material just to see if it sticks, to be barely civil with other editors, and to often make misleading edit summaries. I'm afraid that while he does make some good edits, the benefits to the project are canceled out by all the time other volunteers have to spend dealing the others. a13ean (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Jusdafax. I've had poor interactions with Belchfire almost every time and have to decide whether I want to interact with them just to edit an article I saw problems with. The battleground mentality makes for a bad environment to respect other editors and find common ground for improving articles. Insomesia (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Since BF received a warning, his civility has improved. Some of the articles in the proposed topic ban area have had problems with mischaracterization of the sources. I can only assume that BF feels that this abuse was done to push a POV, of which IMO is a fair assumption. We should not topic ban an editor who is preventing such abuse to the enyclopedia. Has he been perfect in this? No, he was even challenged on a removal of a source by MrX and BF acknolwedged his error. Displaying accountability for an error is the exact opposite of being disruptive. Several of the support !votes above are the very editors who simply have a different POV than BF and are attempting to squelch him.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

LGR, you almost had me rethinking my support of the topic ban. That is until you accussed editors who support the ban of "attempting to squelch him". I would ask you to strike that out unless you have some supportive evidence you wish to present for that accusation.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the possibility that those who may have different political persuasions than BF would like to seem him banned a 500lb gorilla? I precisily didn't name names because I don't care to spend time to go through the edit history. The socks above clearly have it "out" for BF.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible spam attack

• rockthathat.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I speedy deleted a few user pages which were just some kind of weird advertising/promotional/commercial content, then I noticed they all had the same format user name of "name123..." and the content was of similar format. At least one of them had comments to see other similar pages of the same format name, though those pages did not exist. It looks like some sort of coordinated spamming, so I went back and indef blocked them. The ones I've zapped so far are...

• User:Michalg101
• User:Neville311
• User:Darreu819
• User:Jone845458

I've also had a look at the User creation log, and I see a worrying number of other new accounts with the same format names having been created this morning, though most have no contributions yet. But the content of the above 4 is weird, with most having no actual links to sale sites, so I'm rather perplexed about what's going on. A few more eyes on these would be good, together with a scan of the user creation log from time to time for any more of the same format that may have created content. (I'll notify the above 4, because I'm really not sure what weirdness is happening here, and I'll watch their talk pages) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Krtery899 is another one I just found - I haven't taken any action on that one, to leave one that non-admins can see. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible school project? I ran into a similar naming scheme from a class operating out of the U of Penn a year ago. Heiro 09:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, could be - I'm tempted to undo the blocks, in case it isn't anything nefarious. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I've unblocked - benefit of the doubt and all that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've run into quite a few of these whilst patrolling CSD in the last couple of weeks. The random text - looking as thought it's been copy-pasted from a wide range of sources - immediately makes me think of the random text strings used by email spambots to try and circumvent certain filters, and as those I found regularly contained dodgy-looking links hidden in the mess, I've been routinely deleting and blocking. To me, they look a lot like bot-created accounts. It may be worth requesting a checkuser on some of these, especially since they don't seem to be letting up. Some examples from my block log: User:Calebp656, User:L69OOyee9d, User:Zheng6710d26, User:Malikq016, User:Nikenfl466, User:Le4frkwh4. (Since I believe these accounts to be bots, I haven't notified them of this discussion; if an admin thinks I should do so nevertheless, just ask) Yunshui 雲‍水 09:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If the others were like User:Krtery899, it looks like an SEO scam. Apart from containing "www.rockthathat.com" (not hyperlinked) the majority of the text there is from that site, albeit garbled with other random phrases including... er... "Dubai Search engine optimization". Voceditenore (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I also ran a couple of these names through Google. Observe the results for "Jone845458" and one of Yunshui's "Zheng6710d26". - Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha, very interesting - it is looking a lot like bot-driven SEO. I guess the thing to do is just delete and block (but I'll leave that undeleted one for a little while, in case it helps with any further insight). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, those are spambots; feel free to block with extreme prejudice and, then, contact a CU who can check for sleepers and impose rangeblocks. In this case, no rangeblock was possible, unfortunately. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also a good idea to revoke the talk page access for these accounts. They are known to also spam on their talk pages. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reblocked all the users who are not globally locked without talkpage or email access as spambots. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a poorly-configured spambot. Shouldn't someone also add this domain to the spam blacklist, or XLinkBot's list? That will eliminate the need to play what-a-mole with the throwaway spam accounts. - Balph Eubank ✉ 21:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I can't say that I am against blacklisting this stuff (is it cross-wiki by any chance, then meta is the place to be), unfortunately the links were added in a non-linking way (without protocol links are not converted to working links) and the blacklist hence will not stop the spamming. An edit-filter may help (I wrote a detecting one once (Special:AbuseFilter/354) for user/user talk page spam, maybe there are some terms that can be extracted from the created pages which can be added to the terms in the filter so we see it when it is added). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:the "good guy" redirecting to IP page (yet again)

The user continues to redirect the account user page and user talk page to the unregistered IP account. Even after notices from other editors per [40] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm using the IP as my main "account" and I see no policy against this. The only reason I registered (now as the "good guy") was to protect my right to edit by IP. Full reasons are at my talk, which the nonanonymous user above has studiously avoided citing policy at. I did miss one thread about this in that analysis, but it does not seem to make a difference. I also note that the user above has used some strong incivility in a recent edit summary while reverting me yet again. Policy guidance would be helpful. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

IP is a shared IP. We cannot be sure all edits from that IP are from one specific editor. Given that, I am against the redirect being permitted, as it could (even accidentally) give the appearance of a shared account. --Nouniquenames 16:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You're saying people might accidentally perceive that the "good guy" is a shared account, when there is no evidence of that? Even though nobody knows the account password except me, the primary user of the IP? Even though my intent is (properly according to WP:SOCK#NOTIFY) for the account's pages to link informally to the user's main pages (the IP pages, where most of the talk addressed to me appears)? Wherever the warning of use of shared IP appears, the disclaimer also appears that states that the primary user of the IP also has a named account for maintenance purposes.

It occurs to me I could abandon, and request userspace deletion for, the account; but then I would be giving up my personal rights e.g. to request oversight, as it appears IP editors cannot request oversight even though they may be in more need of it. If consensus is that WP's intent is that IPs have no rights to create accounts to request oversight while remaining IP editors, I will listen to it and may learn to live with it. But otherwise I believe I should exert my right to edit through shared IP as well as the right to protect myself against (community-proven) harassment through oversight. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

By your own admission [or at least that of somebody using that IP address; see what I mean?] the IP address (which is not an account, but an IP address) can be shared by others, and has been in the past. Given that fact, and the fact that you have a legitimate account established, I would say in the strongest terms that the redirect is not appropriate in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the prior comments, note that the IP address in question has the appearance of a static IP, as it is not in any of the usual dynamic IP blocklists (see [41]). Unfortunately, this does not, by itself, mean that the IP is not "shared", per se, as the IP would normally be the gateway address, so could be shared by multiple editors at one organization, business or residence. As the IP is shown as belong to a business, the "ANSWER GROUP" (see [42]), the information suggests that this IP is, indeed, shared. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason we are here at drama central discussing a redirect when we already have WP:RFD explicitly for this purpose? (and for the record IP users can request oversight. They are of course expected to provide a reason that unambiguously meets the criteria for suppression and if they fail to do so the requests are declined.) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Please help me out Orangemike. This IP demonstrates a user's credible, continuous desire to continue editing by IP. Due to community-proven harassment, the account and IP both demonstrate a user's credible statement of believing oneself compelled to obtain and link the account to request oversight. WP:SOCK#NOTIFY says linking the accounts informally is acceptable. As an IP editor I have the right to use the talk page of a shared IP. Are you saying that as an account-based editor I lose the right that I had as an IP-based editor to use the talk page of a shared IP? Then maybe I have uncovered a benefit of IP editing that I lose when I obtain an account! 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You do not want to edit by IP. You want to edit by IP AND by a registered user account. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you Beeblebrox on both points. If I can initiate an RFD I'll do it myself. RedPen, yes, I do, I understand this is allowed behavior if one account is only segregated for maintenance. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My interest in this is in part to [[43]] an article currently under MfD, which is the userfied version of a page deleted by discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. The page was userfied prior to the user rename to The "good guy" while the account was under the inappropriate user name User:IP 12.153.112.21 (note this is User:IPXXX NOT IPXXX). Given this confusing history it is of great importance to keept the greatest level of transparency possible, and redirects do nothing but add levels of confusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I affirm the desire for the greatest level of transparency, which I think is served by redirecting to the notices at User:12.153.112.21 and its talk. If readers don't notice the "redirected" message they probably won't quibble about the page title either. As for the userfied article, I have added a notice at User talk:12.153.112.21 that the redirected page currently in question contains a properly attributed fork of the userfied article, now moot. If there is some notice that TheRedPenOfDoom thinks is important for the article's history, it should be added to the userfied talk (although I think this was already done). I really am uncertain why this is dragging out. If I went to RFD it appears I'd need to do a "procedural nomination" and then vote "speedy keep" because default is delete and TheRedPenOfDoom doesn't want delete but wants the history to be retained. Nu? Mu? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that this has been handled kind of dysfunctionally at many steps along the way. Far too many reverts and templates and communication thru edit summaries and misunderstandings and account switches and bad faith assumptions and outings and indef blocks and misquoting policy and such. My first thought is that we should all just back off and agree to do whatever Beeblebrox thinks is best, since he's most familiar, but since Beeb's answer to that might be "what did I do to you that you hate me so much to propose this", I think a good alternative is to follow his advice so far: close this, leave the redirect in place for now, and go to RFD if it's really important that the redirect be removed and replaced with something else. That would be my recommendation too.
  By the way, TGG/12.*, I think Beeb's point is that if TRPoD or OM or someone want the redirect removed, they can initiate an RFD. I don't think his point was that you should do it.
  It might be useful to gently remind all involved that in the grand scheme of things, this really doesn't matter very much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Just as a public service announcement, let me clear up the issue of whether an account is needed to request oversight in some more detail. An account is not required to request that the oversight team act on something (in fact, you don't even need to have ever edited Wikipedia!). An account is required to use the Wikipedia email function to contact the oversight team, but even without an account you can always email oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org - no account necessary! IP, what I think you might be misunderstanding is that as long as you're editing as an IP, you're "displaying" that WHOIS information for public consumption. So as long as you're editing as an IP, that WHOIS information is not "private information", so it cannot be oversighted (in general terms. your mileage may vary, contact your nearest oversighter for special cases). If you edit under an account, then information about what IP you're editing from is no longer public - you're not displaying it, and if someone manages to dig it up, that's considered private information. In this particular case, IP, by editing first as an IP and then as both an account and an IP, you're giving free access to your WHOIS information. If you want to keep people from being able to see where you're editing from, you'd need to edit only as an account from now on (and in my personal judgment as an oversighter, your previous IP contributions would not be eligible for oversight, since you've personally and quite determinedly linked the IP to your account). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - if you want an alternative account ( and per SOCKLEGIT it can be done -- assuming correct steps are followed and it's used correctly) why not create another named account and use that rather than an IP ? It would give you the alternative account and negate the reason for this report ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

For transparency, I would rather link everything to the IP instead of starting fresh. I don't think that creating another account for any purpose would be very transparent nor would it be easy (given this discussion) to link the account to the IP such as by redirect. Fluffernutter, while your advice is very good and generally applicable, more than one user has been judged as having misposted additional speculative information beyond that available by IP search, so yes that's another layer because this is not about ordinary oversight of Whois data but about speculations related to Whois data. Ah well. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That person would be me. I don't believe it was all that extrodinary, but , consensus states otherwise, so, no problem. Creating a non-ip under socklegit is possble, look at "eatshootsandleaves", that's a socklegit account, so it

Bishonen and Bishzilla. It can be done, and, in that fashion, you no longer have to worry about anyone from Tag logging in under that IP, and you bear no further burden if someone did and decided to vandalize wikipedia.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The user just above has just reverted my redirects again (first time for that user today) prior to posting on this thread. I don't know whether fixing it again, or not fixing it for now, is the better course. I have accepted the burden of the occasional vandalism edits that have arisen from this IP. The burden I was not prepared for was constant reverting against userpages, without policy basis and without discussion, which some admins have found rather pointless yet nobody has succeeded in stopping. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If a lot of people are telling you not to do something, it's probably a good idea not to do it, at least until the discussion about it is over. Or would you rather continue edit-warring over this during the discussion until somebody protects the userpage? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been advised by two users and 1 admin not to do that. If nothing else, you will want to follow the admin's direction.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

IIRC the two users have now both used obscenity in edit summaries and the admin did not present any reasons or indication of familiarizing himself with the case either, so I do have a habit of discounting advice that tends not to be grounded in anything other than preference, even when it's teamed up against me. As I just said, I appear to be in another double bind, as fixing it again now didn't seem to work, and waiting to fix it later (whether by my reverting later or by my waiting for someone else to see the light) doesn't seem to work either. Several editors have agreed this behavior isn't against any policy; it appears it's just not something anyone besides me has had the effrontery to request. I still agree that RFD is perhaps the best place to discuss this but it has been hinted to me above that I should not go initiate there myself.

The policy is that an alternate account should be linked to the user's main page. I think the question is whether a shared IP page can be used for this purpose as the main page of an editor who exerts the right to prefer to use the shared IP to edit. Very few (perhaps also excluding myself) have addressed the question from a policy basis. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know the right forum for this discussion; perhaps (gulp) it really is here at ANI? My suggestion that you not file a pro forma RFD yourself was just, that: advice, not a demand. If you think it makes sense to file one, do it. Anyway, I have no problem with the redirects, and don't think those reverting you have any real policy basis on their side. But were I you, I would settle for a short message explaining the situation in text, with links to the IP talk page, rather than the redirects that seem to be driving everyone to distraction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: [44]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to soft direct (for both the user and talk pages, right?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems like kind of a no-brainer.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a logical solution that has the potential to satisfy all parties. --Jayron32 21:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering at what point you figured I was obscene in telling you that, based on policy, the redirect should not be there. It would seem that we have different definitions of obscene. --Nouniquenames 05:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have cut the Gordian knot by deleting User:IP 12.153.112.21 and its accompanying talk page as U2 - userpages belonging to a non-existant user. It's way too confusing to keep it around for people to edit war over. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

While we are all here. Is it appropriate for someone who "wants to edit as an IP", to have the privilege that comes with having a registered account of having userfied an article that was deleted as part of an AfD? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly troubled by that. I have zero problems extending to IP editors the same courtesies as we extend to registered editors. It doesn't make anything better to "force" him to use an account to userfy an article. Insofar as the only point of userfication is to allow development to proceed to a point where it can be moved back to the mainspace at some point in the future, there shouldn't be any hindrance to IP editors doing that sort of work. None at all. --Jayron32 06:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoa there ... but isn't one of the "Advertised benefits" of having a registered account the ability to create userspace drafts and subpages? Let's not enable things here. dangerouspanda 10:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Enable what? You don't want to enable the improvement of the encyclopedia?!? --Jayron32 12:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you see preservation of an article User:The "good guy"/List of AT&T U-verse channels that was deleted per discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and has no viable plan to address the concerns of the original AfD as an "improvement of the encyclopedia"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, hold on a second. You're conflating two seperate issues in this. First is "Should IP users be allowed to userfy articles", which is a broad site-wide practice issue. I posit that there is ultimately no problem with IP users having the same mechanisms to improve Wikipedia that registered users do. So, speaking from the point of view of sitewide practice, there shouldn't be any problem with IPs userfying articles, broadly speaking. There's nothing in a sitewide practice like this that needs to be considered as "enabling" this one point of contention. Either we allow the practice or not, but either way, it that decision isn't made for all of Wikipedia based on the peculiarities of this one case. That being said, the second issue, entirely and wholly unrelated to that, is whether this one userfied article belongs at Wikipedia. We have a mechanism for dealing with that, and it is currently underway at Wikipedia:MFD#User:IP_12.153.112.21.2FList_of_AT.26T_U-verse_channels. We're not going to simultaneously decide here a different conclusion from what the MFD determines. So, if you want to weigh in on the appropriateness of the userfied article, do so at the MFD. If you want to start a discussion over the broad site-wide policy issue of IPs having access to userfied articles in general, do so at WP:VPP. There's really no point in belaboring either issue in this thread. --Jayron32 16:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

" no problem with IP users having the same mechanisms to improve Wikipedia that registered users do" - we dont allow IPs to create pages, we dont allow IPs to edit protected articles, we dont allow IPs to move pages etc. There are LOTS of mechanisms that could potentially improve the encyclopedia that IPs do not get to do.

We have policies about legitimate SOCK accounts. Is userfying an AfD's page appropriate use of SOCK account? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOCK only disallows the use of multiple accounts to deceive. The account is publicly linked to the established identity of the user here, and isn't trying to deceive anyone or mask any identity. In fact, the IP user in question has tried repeatedly to comply with the spirit and letter of WP:SOCK by linking his allowed alternate account to his preferred IP address he uses to edit, only to be repeatedly squashed in doing so. I mean, you tell him he has to comply with policy, he does, and then you tell him he can't do that either. If a registered user is allowed to create an alternate account for certain purposes, uses it only sparingly, and publicly and conspicuously links it to his main account, that is allowed 100% of the time. How is that different from what happened here? Look, I'm not going to come out and say that the IP in question is not misbehaving in some way. They may be. But when you bring a hundred and one spurious accusations against them, many of which aren't even violations, it looks more like your just throwing as much shit on him to see what's gonna stick. Confine your discussion to only those salient issues regarding his behavior that is an actual violation of established Wikipedia practice and is actually disruptive, and not any of this silliness about IP editors not being allowed to also maintain an account for legitimate purposes. And again, if you want to explicitly ban all IP users from userfying articles, that's a just and proper and right and good discussion for us to have as a community, just not in this thread. I am awaiting your thread at WP:VPP on that issue. --Jayron32 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. " Is it standard policy to allow a SOCK account for the purpose of allowing an IP to have a userfied copy of an article that was deleted per AfD? And your position is that there is no standard policy about that yet and so that question cannot be asked here. Is that right?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's break this down into two parts. Part one: Is it a violation of community standards to userfy a deleted article so it can be improved? WP:USERFY says not. Part two: Is it a violation of community standards to set up an secondary account which is publicly linked to one's primary account? WP:SOCK says not. So, what I ask you is if WP:USERFY is accepted practice, and above-the-table, clearly identified secondary accounts are legal under accepted practice, then what is the disruption between the two? but just on the central issue of the policy, I can't find anything in the policy that says "People may not establish a publicly declared secondary account to allow them to userfy an article". I see nothing that says that that is not allowed. At all. If you'd like it to be explicitly not allowed, WP:VPP awaits you to start that discussion. I also note that you continue to do your position a giant disservice. It may very well be true that 12.153 could be in the wrong here. I'm not really sure. But if he is, it isn't for any of the reasons you have noted. Maybe he's not making a proper use of WP:USERFY in the sense that the article shouldn't have been preserved at all. However, if that were the case, by introducing patently off-topic issues which aren't violations of any sort anyways all you've done is clouded the issue. As I've stated above, there may be something worth discussing here, but you've picked the wrong battle to fight, and it does your stance no service to continue to press forward on that front in this thread. If this is a misapplication of WP:USERFY and NO copy of the article should have been userfied, that's an unrelated issue to what you're bringing up repeatedly here. It's also an issue which is being discussed at the above noted MFD, and so doesn't bear discussing here seperately. --Jayron32 01:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone performing yet another confusing move to User:12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels. Though an experienced editor spoke to the contrary, it appears that I cannot create such a page in my IP space as an IP, and it would be too confusing for me to log in and move or create myself. So if there is truly no mechanism for IPs to create subpages in IP userspace, yes, there is a valid and interesting question whether an IP has a right to a userfied article. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You can create User talk:12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels. IPs can create user talk subpages to their heart's content, but you cannot perform a page move, so you'd have to cut&paste with proper attribution. --64.85.216.51 (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Suspension of article movepage rights of User:Kauffner

I am requesting that Kauffner’s pagemove rights be temporarily suspended for failing to cease moving articles that are controversial. This editor has been heavily involved in the requested moves (there are a number of ongoing requested moves on the subject) and discussions concerning the use of Vietnamese diacritics in article titles.

• On 12 September, during a the requested move discussion at Talk:Buôn Ma Thuột city, I informed Kauffner and In_ictu_oculi that both needed to cease moving articles for the purpose of inserting and deleting diacritics from Vietnamese articles without discussion, as the issue was controversial.[45]. This seemed neither odd nor unreasonable because requested moves of that subject rarely showed a clear consensus.
• On 21 September Kauffner moved Bắc Kạn city to Bac Kan without employing WP:RM
• On 24 September, after putting that move up for discussion, I reemphasized that actioning moves that either inserted or removed diacritics was controversial and needed to be discussed.[46]. I also made clear that I was checking their logs of every couple of days to ensure that neither was inserting or removing Vietnamese diacritics in/from names without discussion.
• On 5 October, Kauffner moved Thúy Nga to Thuy Nga Production (removing the diacritics) [47], without discussion.

Given I had made two rather clear warnings on this exact subject I don’t believe a temporary rights withdrawal is either unreasonable nor excessive, but nonetheless leave the issue with you. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, I am always happy to be on ANI. I want to emphasize that I have never received, or even requested, a privileged status with regard to moving articles, or anything else for that matter. It's not true that I moved Thuy Nga without discussion. I wrote a little explanation here. As for Bac Kan, it's a town, not a city. Even if it was a city, there is no reason for it to have a pre-disambiguator. I was reversing a move made in bad faith. If you are interested in diacritics, I give an exhaustive explanation here. Labattblueboy seems to think that Vietnamese diacritics is a hot subject and that this leads to controversy. No! IIO has a grudge against me, follows me around where ever I edit, has a beef with everything, and complains everywhere. Kauffner (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good Idea, although I don't believe “move” is a right that can be unchecked, so it would be a formal restriction. Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue. cf GoodDay's AC-imposed restriction re diacritics for much the same long term disruption. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: As long as Kauffner is willing to see a controversial move reversed, and as long as there is no evidence that a particular move will be controversial, I don't see any need for restrictions here. Clearly there are two opposing diacritic factions and equally clearly neither of them has a claim on exactitude, so we shouldn't be restricting anyone here unless an editor is move warring or obviously moving against consensus. Moving articles is one way of testing consensus. regentspark (comment) 19:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment No statement one way or the other on restrictions, per se, but two notes on either side of this: 1) WP:BRD still has Bold as a part of it, if a move he makes is contested, you're allowed to revert it, and then he should discuss it. If you want to contest one of the three moves above, revert and start a discussion. I don't see that that has been done yet (I see lots of admonishments to stop, but that does not amount to a discussion). 2) On the other hand, acting in a fait accompli manner isn't productive: that is, through sheer volume of action establishing a convention which isn't strictly decided is usually a bad idea. I don't see this at that level yet (three moves is hardly a "fait accompli" maneuver). Lastly, I am troubled by the statements by Kauffner that dodge the issue being put bluntly before him. Two of his moves changed diacritics and something else, and his responses are defending his moves based on the "something else", without addressing the point of contention. That should be corrected going forward. If someone is raising the issue of moving articles and changing diacritics in the process, that specific point needs to be discussed without distraction of unrelated issues. --Jayron32 20:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't really have much opinion on the core situation, but just to toss in that at least a small part of this saga played out on a section of my talk page over the last couple of days. This should be added into the mix by anyone examining the recent history of this kerfuffle. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It can seen in this context. Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  Interesting. Looks like we do have a diacritic war of sorts in progress. There is also this mass move request on RM. I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to assume a move is controversial so perhaps all parties need to be reminded that WP:BRD is an acceptable process and that, since we don't actually have a diacritics or no-diacritics policy in place, each page move needs to be considered on its own merits. I don't see enough evidence to conclude that Kauffner was disingenuously moving articles to non-diacritic titles but that is also something worth watching out for. regentspark (comment) 20:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  You make it sound like this is something new and shocking. IIO has been doing dozens and dozens of these mass move requests and also 1000's of non-requests to diacritics across this and every other wikipedia and topic all this year. This is the norm and he and several friends rarely consider each article on it's own merit or whether a rm has recently failed or not. It's not just Vietnamese diacritics, it's all diacritics. I won't get into merits on this one particular incident but it seems silly to talk of the flyswatter and not the fly. I think Kauffner is just reaching a breaking point with this editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  Like I say above, I don't see any need for action against Kauffner. Rather, it is the other editor who needs to be reminded about BRD and about proposing page moves individually. If you believe that IIO needs to be sanctioned somehow then that's a different matter and, since I don't follow the diacritic battles, I can't really comment on that without further evidence. regentspark (comment) 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  No, the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this. He's made a great many controversial moves and there was an issue with many IPs being used to mess with talk pages to hide old RM discussions so that new ones could be falsely proposed as uncontroversial (somethin' like that, at least;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  It's not possible to revert moves wherein the article is first moved then a G6 is employed to salt the route back. The edit history of Thuy Nga Productions shows this was conduced it this case. The better question would be is an action still considered bold if you are aware that the action is controversial bordering on disruptive. BRD itself states "Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus". The only consensus appears to be that editors are generally tired of Vietnamese diacritic moves of any kind, the requested moved at Talk:Bac_Kan seems to be the clearest indication of that. Given the entire topic is controversial (you need not look further than the half dozen at WP:RM to see that) is the request that such moved be addressed at a central venue that unreasonable?--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  Unreasonable, no. But definitely avoidable unless necessary. If Talk:My_Linh#Requested_move is the tip of the iceberg (and, scanning RM/C I see quite a few others), then we're going to get bogged down by these move discussions. The problem with diacritics is that each article needs to be evaluated in isolation (what do English language sources say), so group moves are generally not possible. It might actually be more practical to just ban both of these guys from making or proposing any move from a diacritic title to a non-diacritic title or vice versa and be done with it. It might not be fair but may turn out to be the only way to deal with this without a load of overhead. Just a thought. regentspark (comment) 02:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  RegentsPark, with respect I hope you are agreed that there is a difference between:

(A) 1600x undiscussed moves - 800x of them counter the Talk:Ca Mau RMs, and 1600x BRD-locks on one hand, and

(B) putting in a democratic RM to give the community opportunity apply the majority view of both RfCs on the subject.

There is a difference, yes? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought In ictu oculi. Not something I necessarily support. I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything. regentspark (comment) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, plus he seems to have the habit of adding irrelevant tags in his undiscussed moves to prevent everyone to revert then without a good amount of work, as [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] and [56].Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You know what I like about you? Your sense of humor.[57] Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - but a hefty caveat: I am not neutral here; although I only became aware of this issue in March 2012 I have been creating Polish bios with Polish names for years and do not have much sympathy with en.wp's English-names-for-Poles lobby. I also was in Hanoi in the early 90s, speak Vietnamese, and believe that Vietnamese people deserve the same lexical respect from en.wp as Polish people. But I am able to detach, and when standing back do recognise that even Slavophile editors may not share my view on the second point.

As I see it there are 2 separate issues: (1) User Kauffner, (2) diacritics.

(2) - Let's discuss (2) diacritics first. I wasn't aware of the "diacritics war" on en.wikipedia till March WP TENNISNAMES RfC. During that RfC I also became aware of edit-warring on WP:DIACRITICS. WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:DIACRITICS share the same characteristic of a minority of editors sincerely convinced that foreigners have "English names" - hence Lech Wałęsa's "English name" is "Lech Walesa" minus crossed-L and nasal-e, or sincerely convinced that en.wp should follow the MOS of USA Today/Daily Express etc and not Britannica/Chicago MOS. In terms of a "diacritics war" there evidently has been one on en.wp, as far as I can judge going back to 2010, centred particularly on WP:HOCKEYNAMES, but civily and democratically resolved in terms of articles Talk:Dominik Halmoši. Though unresolved in terms of edit-warring on WP:DIACRITICS is still at odds with en.wp's 4 million articles (or rather 4 million articles minus 9 hold out foreign tennis players). With one exception; Vietnamese. For some reason Mỹ Linh (Asian, no consensus) is more challenging than Lech Wałęsa (European, where de facto consensus exists on 100,000s of articles). Admin JoyShallot characterizes the "English name" thing against Serbian tennis players as "xenophobic" (technically it is only "xenonymophobic") but I note that the editors who turn out in force for Serbian/Czech/Romanian/Polish/French/Spanish/German names are less sure about for example Talk:Ngô Bảo Châu. This despite the fact that the Vietnamese roman-alphabet is older and more established than the Croatian/Slovenian/Serbian one. But whatever, it is legitimate to note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh.

(1) - Then issue (1), User Kauffner.

This is much wider than whether the accent on Mỹ Linh should be treated as Lech Wałęsa. The issues with Kauffner are largely behavioural, and cover much wider ground than undiscussed diacritics moves.

(a) IP puppet activity

The scope of move interests can be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive (this has not previously been at ANI). This is logged out set up of archiving - minutes after the puppeted Misza archive bot clicks in - launching second or third attempts when the archive is invisible. Although the opinion of those who discussed the Saigon IP cluster's activity concluded the tampering with archives prior to launching RMs from User:Kauffner/RM incubator was User Kauffner, User Kauffner did not admit to it in the SPI and a User check was not done to link user to IPs. Kauffner did (not on the investigation page) admit on Good Day's Talk page that the edits were his, and there is a "smoking gun" in the history of the IP's activity on one of the RMs which shows Kauffner, inadvertently logged back in, finishing the IP's archive reset.

(b) Undiscussed move then redirect lock

Up to a point undiscussed moves are reasonable, as regents park says as long as the WP:BRD cycle is not disrupted. (this issue has not been at ANI before). The problem is with Kauffner, as banned-user Dolovis, is redirect edits. If you look at Kauffner's activity in June 2012 you will see 100s of redirect edits, effectively locking the 1600x undiscussed moves made July 2011 to June 2012. This includes 1000x under UserKauffner name, + 600x using G6 involving at least a dozen G6 admins in performing "uncontroversial moves" on Kauffner's behalf. An example of WP:BRD cycle blocking is 15:07, 4 November 2011‎ Kauffner moved Bún chả to Bun cha: Removing diacritics from Vietnamese name for standard English usage) + 30 June 2012‎ Kauffner (added Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics using HotCat). After a Dolovis-style redirect edit June 30 2012 the only way to restore a locked move is an RM - and even then a 3-1 support of restoring a title may be overturned by a closing admin.

(c) Deletion of failed RM notifications prior to G6 requests

One of the particularly unpleasant aspects of the G6 moves counter the 2010 2011 2012 Talk:Ca Mau geo article RMs was the deletion (logged in) of notification of failed RMs before proxying G6 admins to move counter RM with a G6 request. (this issue has not been at ANI before). Obviously no G6 admin will move an article if there is a notification of a contrary RM result on the talk page - hence the deletions have to be deliberate intent to deceive admins making (in good faith) article moves as uncontroversial.

(d) IP archiving prior to G6 requests

This is distinct from (a) above. In this case the IP archives the failed RM not before launching a second RM, but before/after bypassing RM with a G6.

(e) Canvassing

Kauffner has been warned about WP:VOTESTACKING on several RMs. Similar is targeted canvassing for example to WikiProject Conservatism (this is just a particularly desperate example of a longstanding pattern).

(f) Deleting Talk page requests to stop

Deleting Talk page requests to stop (these go back to July 2011, long before I was aware, AjaxSmack, Gimmetoo, Prolog, Vietnamese editors, who knows how many more), and carrying on regardless.

(g).......or alternatively,

If you agree with User Kauffner's views - on Hauptbahnhof or Vietnamese - then a good cause justifies the methods. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I may stand above as the one who began this discussion but in due fairness to Kauffner, In ictu oculi comments are the pot calling the kettle black. In ictu oculi has an equal sordid history of moving articles when he/she should have known them to be controversial. If I remember correctly, my warning of 12 September at Talk:Buôn Ma Thuột city was initially because In ictu oculi moved approximately 100 articles while a requested moved concerning geographic Vietnamese names was taking place. Further In ictu oculi was entirely unrepentant. The only reason In ictu oculi is not equally mentioned is because he/she as not moved an Vietnamese scope article to insert diacritics since my initial warning of 12 Sept.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Labattblueboy,

Sure, in part fair, but I'm not sure about "entirely unrepentant" because as you say, I did not continue to restore articles which had been among those moved counter Talk:Ca Mau (among the 1600x total moves). What I did explain was that restoring 80x of the 800x was after RMs restoring several of the moves, after RfC majority, and after admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett (and one more whom I forget) had already reverted approx 40 of the 300 of the 800 geo articles which had been done by using G6. If anyone considers reverting those 80x of 800x undiscussed moves (moves counter to RM) "disruptive" then does that apply to the other 40x reverted by the proxied G6 admins admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett as well? However I was asked to stop restoring the articles and did. In practice it was hard work to restore the articles anyway, since finding any among Kauffner's undiscussed moves which have not been given Dolovis-style redirect-edits to prevent BRD is almost impossible. I estimate that I already found most if not all of the 80x of 800x geo stubs he omitted to lock. There is less of a clear mandate to restore the 800x bios. And there has been more locking activity since. (If anyone doesn't believe me, try and find one that isn't locked... then call the pot equally black).

As regards the pot calling the kettle black, I am not perfect but, as above:

(a) I have never used IP activity of any kind.

(b) I have never followed a move with a redirect lock

(c) I have never deleted a failed RM notification prior to a G6 request. (In fact I am reasonably certain I have never used a G6 request template at all)

(d) I have never used Miszabot to hide a previous RM (never even thought of it)

(e) I have never made the sort of WP:VOTESTACKING notifications during an RM or RfC we are seeing here.

Unfortunately if you wade into mud you will get your hands a little dirty. This is a filthy area. But is a filthy area which is being enabled by winking at (a)(b)(c)(d) in particular. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel my previous comment was both accurate and fair. You have not at any point accepted during this or any other discussion, to my knowledge, that your own actions were sometimes inappropriate. Your comments above that it’s necessary to sometimes get “dirty” are in the very least unhelpful. Simply ceasing to move articles in a controversial topic area does not, by any means, equate repentance. Equally, simply because you may not have engaged in actions (a)-(d) does not mean your behaviour has necessarily been appropriate in the topic area. If this post concerned actions over the past year or further, and not simply approx. 12 September onwards, then I would be entirely supportive of PBS’s suggestion below that any remedies apply to both yourself and Kauffner. Please see this as an opportunity to turn a new leaf.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• IIO is claiming to "speak Vietnamese"??? Trời ơi! I'm sorry, I just can't sit still for this one. We've discussed various language issues. IIO can't get even very simple stuff straight. I live in Saigon, so I edit about Vietnam. I read the local English-language press, so I quite familiar with the fact that the professionals don't use Vietnamese diacritics. Nor is Vietnam promoting their use in English, as you can see here. No published encyclopedia or major media organization uses these marks. Local publications that once used them, like VGP and VNN, have dropped them. They make the copy look amateurish. I spend many hours telling Vietnamese not to use Viet-lish. The editors of Lech Walesa's article can worry about his diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, I wouldn't doubt that your familiarity of street Vietnamese is better than mine, now, 20 years later. But we aren't here to discuss this.

(a) Do you now want to give a yes/no answer to the SPI?

(b) How many articles have you followed an undiscussed move with a redirect lock? The records show 1600x from July2011-June2012, with redirect locks continuing even this week. I estimate 1500x redirect locks. Is that about right?

(c) Did you (while logged in) delete failed RM notifications from Talk pages prior to G6 "uncontroversial move" requests?

(d) Did you (while logged out) manipulate Miszabot to hide previous RMs some of them not yet launched from User:Kauffner/RM incubator. yes/no?

In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support WP:BRD does not work when articles are locked on purpose. Kauffner has continued to lock articles even after being asked not to do so. Agathoclea (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Um, how is he locking pages down. He's not an administrator, and doesn't have the ability to protect pages. I'm confused to this rationale. I don't care one way or another, but this makes no sense to support sanctioning him for using an administrator tool he has no access to... --Jayron32 06:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • By double-editing redirects he makes it impossible for rank-and-file editors to revert his moves, requiring admin rights to undo the move. The issue is tricky as redirects have to be categorised but a) he does that even when he could create the redirect and categorisation in one edit and b) in controversial cases like this it is better to leve the categorisation until the matter is settled or to the other side iE I can without causing any controvery lock redirects from diacritics wheras Kauffner could without any controversy lock redirects to diacritics. Maybe some noticeboard could be established just for that issue. c) There is past precedent for even banning of editors involved in exactly that behaviour. Agathoclea (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I believe there is another method of gaming the system to achieve this "lock", which would keep an editor's hands "clean" at first glance; but it's probably not a good idea to go into detail right now. If we were drawing up stricter rules on redirect-mischief I'd be happy to add it to those rules. bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Whether or not to use diacritics in titles is the subject of much disagreement between editors, so such moves should go through RM. In the last year, we've made a lot of progress on that front. Still, some people persist in making undiscussed moves to diacritic-free titles and sometimes sneakily edit the redirect to prevent somebody else moving it back; that is gaming the system. A previous combatant in the diacritics wars was banned for it. Kauffner knows this. bobrayner (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support move ban Käuffner has been caught many times on this, and knows better. dangerouspanda 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• I am placing the following bullet points here and my views are based on what I have seen both editors doing over a number of months.
  • Comment Iio wrote "note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh" yet the last requested move was closed with the statement "The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 46 days" support/oppose about 10/11. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest that user:Kauffner and user:In ictu oculi are banned from moving any article that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months. This ban will include initiating WP:RM request that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months. This ban will not include reverting bold moves (as described in WP:RM) and both can still voice their opinions in requested moves initiated by other editors.
  • I suggest that all the editors who have edits that have been diffed in this section for editing redirects after a move has been made (which prevents an non-administrator moving the article back to the previous name) should take this as a warning that such edits are disruptive and in future any such edits by these editors will result in administrative action. Likewise moving an article through an intermediate page name (so that the bots automatically change the original page name's redirect) will be seen disruptive (the correct process if a mistake has been made is to move the article back to the original name and then move it to the new correct name--so that double redirects are not created). -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PBS,

I'd like to assume good faith, but you see Kauffner making 1600x undiscussed moves, 800x of them counter the Talk:Ca Mau, IP puppeting, G6 and basically NOT using RM, and your solution is........... to ban RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez and Talk:Dominik Halmoši????

Your personal view (10:30, 11 Apr 2005, 18:57, 23 December 2010, 09:12, 22 April 2012) was characterized as "hysterical"‎ during your 1-8 opposition to É in the Talk:Édouard Deldevez, and also this response from the closer.

Sorry, but no. RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez and Talk:Dominik Halmoši express the consensus of the vast majority, and the reality of where en.wp's 4,000,000 articles are (minus those 9 tennis players). You know this. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of this is to force controversial moves to go through RM not to avoid the use of RM. Agathoclea (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In ictu oculi that you would object to a restriction on yourself is not surprising. Iio your argument is disingenuous most articles that go through the RM process that are not at descriptive titles are at their common name as used in reliable sources. Agathoclea in the case of these two editors I think that they can be just as disruptive using the RM process, I think it is better for Wikipedia if both take a back seat over such moves for a time and follow rather than lead in this area. -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support The community [banned] Dolovis from moving diacritic related titles because of the exact same methods that Kauffner has been using to lock the pages so that regular editors can't revert his moves. I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the same restriction that Dolovis was given. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I was going to mention Dolovis as well. This comes down to a very simple issue for me: There is no possible way Kauffner is not aware that moves to or from diacritical versions in this area are controversial. WP:BRD, like WP:AGF is not a poison pill. There comes a point where the bold move simply becomes disruptive. I would !vote the same for any editor on either side of this coin who makes a similar pattern of moves. Resolute 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• With everyone ridding their own hobby horse like this, I obviously can't deal with every concern, so yours may be overlooked. IIO brings up the issue of the page moves I made last year. This was already dealt with here. But while we are on this trip down memory lane, I would like to review a few items. As you may or may not recall, there was an RfC on the issue of diacritics with wide participation in July-August 2011. A proposal was made to increase the use of diacritics, but Vietnamese was specifically excluded. So despite divided opinion concerning other languages, there appeared to be a consensus in this regard. I rewrote the naming conventions for Vietnamese to conform to this understanding of the RfC. So when IIO got involved in this issue in late June 2012, pretty much every Vietnam-related article of any notability was at a non-diacritic title. Thuy Nga isn't the first time IIO has tried to hold an article hostage at a misspelling. He did before with bui doi. IIO and I have a long and complex history. In happier times, we translated Latin and Hebrew titles together. More recently, Vietnam and other countries have been caught in the crossfire. I can only hope that common ground will reemerge when appropriate matters arise. Kauffner (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of that is true, I am actually in favour of English exonyms where they exist (i.e. "John Calvin" for "Jean Calvin", not simply stripping ç to make "FranCois Mitterrand,") and did award Kauffner a barnstar for one of his English names moves. However, that is before any of us were aware of (i) IP puppeting, (ii) G6 proxies, (iii) deletion of the Talk:Ca Mau RM results from talk pages, (iv) the 1600x Dolovis-style move-locks, and none of these items have been at ANI before. As to this latest two-step-G6, move to a self-admitted mispelling and then G6, certainly creative, but that only makes one wonder whether the G6 loophole should be shut down for everyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• "The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format," per WP:RE/SG. So the act of putting a redirect in a category is not in itself problematic. In Dolovis' case, he was accused of going against the consensus of the hockey project. The technical means he used to do this are a secondary issue. There is certainly a lot of advise to "take it to an RM." As far as RMs go, IIO abuses these to fulminate at length against me, in the same manner that you see above. I don't know how many editors follow these rants, but they do seem to head off reasoned discussion and editor participation.[58] Kauffner (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Per (b), (e) above. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of bias

I've come across a big of an issue with articles concerning Jobie Hughes, which includes At Dawn (novel). I'd edited the article to where it was up to date and was sourced by multiple reliable sources. Now I've had my edits reverted to the previous version, which not only has copyvio from the author's website ([59]) but is also out of date. The same thing has happened with the novel article, which has a complete lack of sourcing to it. I've reverted to my edits, which were to redirect the novel to the author's page and to keep my updated version of the author's page, but I've noticed that there's been a few accounts that have been either reverting my edits or selectively removing parts of the article that they personally don't like, such as the controversy section. I've also been accused of having a personal bias against the author, and since there's not only multiple accounts reverting the pages but I'm being accused of having an agenda, I'm bringing it up here. Here are the specific edits in question: [60], [61], [62].

I'd left a notice on the user's page that accused me of having a grudge against the author (User:Ohioana) and I notice that both of the editors (User:Sb1995) that have been reverting my edits only edit the Hughes themed articles (not that there's specifically anything wrong with that), but I'm bringing it here before it escalates any further.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are not displaying a NPOV and read like a publicist blurb. Besides that, this is a content dispute and no admin action needed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where in specific do my edits read like a publicity blurb? I was rather careful when it came to editing the author's page. As far as the edits on the book page, I want to stress that the previous revision with the various praise reviews was not written by me, but rather by the other user. This is the edit I made before realizing that it was only sourced by two reviews and lacked enough to pass WP:NBOOK: [63] The previous version by Ohioana is fairly promotional in content, especially since it takes the PW review somewhat out of context, making it sound more praising than it actually was. I was the one who redirected the article to the author's page because all that existed were various unsourced vanity reviews. Also, what about the accusations that I'm supposedly vandalizing the author's page because of a bias against the author? I'm getting incredibly tired of SPAs coming onto pages that I've edited and reverting edits back to previous versions or going onto AfDs, accusing me of having a bias because I'm removing content from articles that is unsourced, non-NPOV, and/or is outright promotional in content. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This does not appear to be promotional. It's hard to see redirecting the book article as reading "like a publicist blurb". :) I've left a note at User:Ohioana pointing out civility policies and also linking to "dispute resolution". Please try to engage them in conversation at the talk page of the article; if dispute resolution doesn't work out, additional steps may be necessary, but I think at this point more direct administrator intervention would be premature. (Although it does look like there might be a WP:COI somewhere.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Problem is, I've asked them and they've never actually stated their reasoning beyond anything along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and other arguments that don't show notability or justification. As far as content removal goes, they haven't said or showed me anything to show why the information shouldn't be in the article for Hughes or how exactly it's incorrect. At no point do I ever state outright that Hughes said one thing or another about the contract, just that multiple news outlets reported on the separation of the writing team and that it had been rumored that contract issues had been a part of the ongoing issues between the two of them. It might not have lead to the split exactly, but considering that more than one news source had commented on this and ESPECIALLY considering that this is really the only time that Hughes is mentioned specifically, I find it puzzling that this is removed. Almost every mention of Hughes has been in relation to the contract with Frey, with much of the coverage going over the contract (and the papers' reactions to the contract stipulations). There's actually not that much coverage of Hughes outside of this, which is why I'm also not sure as to why the user is so particularly sure that these things are incorrect. Even if they are, if enough news sources reported on it and this was ultimately one of the things he was known for in relation to his ghost writing the Lorien Legacy series, then it should be included in some format. We do a disservice by not including all of it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• See this report at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone please step in here? The user is constantly editwarring without any reason as to why they view the information as incorrect. I'm just being ignored by the user and they've consistently reverted to a version that not only includes copyvio, but removes all but the most glowing praise of Hughes.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

• It's now up to five reversions without any administration intervention.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and Talk Page to it

In the article Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford at least two editors, Tom Reedy and Paul B, continually express their POVs, thus distorting the historical image of the person to whom the article is dedicated. They have openly disclosed their bias and even enmity to Edward de Vere on the Talk page to this article. On this Talk page, there were also massive personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery".

In my view, Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the outcome of the solution to the William Shakespeare authorship question. And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy on 9 October 2012 on this same Talk page to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which probably everybody would call blasphemy. This expression was used by Tom Reedy in connection with Jesus Christ. The use of only this one expression, in my view, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• The above message has been posted at NPOVN (where I have replied), and at its talk page. The issue (did Shakespeare write the works that standard scholarship attributes to him?) was the subject of an Arbcom case (WP:ARBSAQ). Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI readers can look at the thread to which the complainant refers Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford#Complaints_from_the_peanut_gallery. It is difficult to respond to an editor who makes such astounding comments as Zbrnajsem does, and this encourages satirical replies. Good faith and patience has already been supplied in spades. 'Bri[n]cknall', btw, for the uninitiated, is a servant who was stabbed to death by the noble earl. Paul B (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Link fixed.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep - while I have considerable sympathy with the suggestion that Tom Reedy could have chosen his words better (as indeed so could I on occasion, before anyone else points it out...), there are limits to how much pomposity an ordinary human being should be expected to bear. It seems to me that Zbrnajsem provoked the comments directed at him by starting a thread with allegations that Tom reedy had a "personal bias" driven by a dislike of de Vere "as a person, a historical person". Given that de Vere has been dead for four-hundred-odd years, this seems an odd suggestion to make, and one hardly conducive to fruitful dialogue. The thread was basically a provocation from the start, as I see it. Regardless of what action (if any) needs to be taken against Tom Reedy, Zbrnajsem needs to be told that goading people into inappropriate responses is itself entirely inappropriate talk-page behaviour, and that issues regarding NPOV are unlikely to be settled by making ridiculous allegations concerning the motivations of editors. I'd also point out that there is no requirement whatsoever that contributors have to like the subjects of biographical articles anyway - were it so, I fear to think what consequences such a requirement would have for say our article on Pol Pot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I was the one who broke the thread away to separate it from the original section that he had attached his comment to. The ridiculousness was overwhelming the serious editorial section, which I wanted to preserve. So technically he didn't start the thread, just the ridiculous discussion, hence my naming it "Complaints from the peanut gallery" (first definition). Tom Reedy (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem: I find it distasteful that you have been ridiculed, and in no way condone what is - in my opinion - Tom and Pauls' stepping over the line from robust debate to personal attacks. However, it also - and again, in my opinion - appears you have brought this unpleasantness upon yourself, by advancing untenable positions. While I think the form of Tom and Pauls' responses was unacceptable, I fully support the substance of what they were trying to explain to you.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please show where I made any personal attacks. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the description of Zbrnajsem's contributions as Peanut gallery responses. I make no apology whatsoever for my personal opinion that Fringe theory POV pushers should be treated gently. They have their deeply-set beliefs. Those beliefs should respected, but gently rejected. When push comes to shove, as has occurred here, I still think the general standard of civility should still apply.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to waste a few hours of your life and review his talk page contributions, as well as User:Knitwitted's, with whom he often interacts on talkpages. They both waste time on trivialities while making minimum constibutions to the project, hence the section retitle, based on the first definition from the article: "A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater, which was all too willing (in the view of the performer) to heckle the performer." I can't think of any better description, except possibly civil POV pushers, but I was trying to keep the mood light and--to knowledgeable WP editors anyway--entertaining. Both of them have been repeatedly (and gently) directed to WP help pages, policies, and procedures, but evidently they believe their time is better spent sniping at the heels of those who are trying to build an encyclopedia. This whole thing is just one more example of their disruptive strategies. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the problem of the William Shakespeare authorship question. I am ready to point out concrete editings by Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow which manifested, in my opinion, their personal POVs without serious historical background. I need only a short additional time for this evidence. I am sorry, but the whole article on Edward de Vere is problematic, and certain passages have the capacity to ridicule him and to make him almost a villain who he, in my eyes, was not. On the other hand, everybody with serious interest in this matter knows that there is a substantial community of very respectable persons, gathered since 1920, who believe Edward de Vere to be the true author of the Shakespeare canon. It is not appropriate to have an attitude to this dispute which leads to personal dislike of Edward de Vere. And there is no right for anyone to suspect me of deliberate actions to get certain responses from Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. Look at the contribs record. Nina Green made very detailed additions to the page, and virtually rewrote it from top to bottom, accepting as a key source the very work Tom Reedy and several others are using, i.e. the standard academic bio of de Vere. The page has technical and organizational problems, nothing new here. --Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting sillier. I have made no "personal attacks" on anyone at all. My comment about the Earl's "smirk" and "poncy doublet" was an obvious joke, and in any case it cannot be construed as a personal attrack since the guy is long dead. For the record, I have no opinions about his smirk or his doublet, never having seen either of them in real life. Yes, I said that Zbrnajsem was making himself look ridiculous, but that referred to his actions. If Zbrnajsem believes that passages in the article make de Vere seem to be a "villain" he should say which passages they are, and why they are problematic. Many articles on Wikipedia make their subjects look like "villains", that's usually because they record actions that readers will disapprove of. If that's what RS say then that's what we include. Paul B (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, since Wikipedia is not, last we checked, run in accordance with Christian dogma, I'm unmoved by the so-called "blasphemy," and find the notion that the use of "blasphemy" disqualifies someone from being a Wikipedia editor well to the left of farcical. Quite aside from that such hyperbole is unbecoming a Wikipedia editor in my POV, I'm quite interested in what basis Zbrnajsem has for declaring that anyone has a "personal dislike" of the subject ... other than, apparently, that Messires Reedy and Barlow disagree with his own position. Ravenswing 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked with Jesus this morning and he said he forgives me for it and won't file a WP:BLP violation report, so it's a moot point. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Really very witty, Tom Reedy. Ravenswing, please read the Talk page on Edward de Vere, you will see that my points concerning the "personal dislike of the subject" on the part of Tom Reedy and Paul B. are simply true. This is, of course, a Talk page. Theoretically, they can say there what they want, if they don´t use unproper language, but their attitude towards Edward de Vere is obvious. I am the only one on this Talk page who criticizes such an attitude, but other persons who would probably like to do so are banned from this topic. Why actually, if they would edit only on Edward de Vere and not on the authorship question? I have the full right to do so, and on all Talk pages concerning directly or indirectly Edward de Vere. There is a lot of pages of this quality, and everywhere it is the same: E. de V. is something like a "minor mole in his molehill" and things like this, sometimes worse. Any person with a sense for historical writing should be critical to this kind of attitude to the subject. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think God needs you to defend him, Zbrnajsem, either with half-baked sarcasm or self-righteous indignation. Your confrontation with Tom Reedy, and your absurd ad hominem attack on him, culminating in an attempt to get him banned, carry no weight with the majority of users, except perhaps to make them think poorly of you. Could you, perhaps, rephrase your central concerns about the Earl of Oxford (rather than about Tom Reedy) in such a way that previously uninvolved editors can make something like sense of them, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: Nice work there, adding a huge extra block to your comment after I had replied to it, and doctoring the time-stamp. And yet, despite having presumably seen my reply to you, you haven't answered the question I asked. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This was a simultaneous editing, AlexTiefling, nothing else. What was then my "absurd ad hominem attack on Tom Reedy, culminating in an attempt to get him banned"?? Where, what? Have I used the words "please ban him"? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In your own words, from the talk page: "And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy, which people probably would call blasphemy. The use of only this one expression, which should not be deleted by anyone because it is a corpus delicti, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia." You repeated the same suggestion at the beginning of this thread. And you've repeatedly accused him of personally disliking the late Earl so strongly as to make him incapable of writing impartially on the subject. I consider this as an ad hominem attack, particularly as he has explicitly denied your claim, and you have gone on repeating it. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Zbrnajsem, you've been told by several people now that you need to let this drop. Please let this drop now, or else we'll have to make you let it drop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a little harsh, I don't see any clear requests in the prior discussion. However, I'd find it helpful if Zbrnajsem could clarify whether this is an issue about POV (which makes it a content dispute, and belongs elsewhere) or a conduct dispute about Tom's post. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Here it is primarily a conduct dispute, User Sphilbrick. Thank you for your attempt to clarify. In order to simplify the case, I would then like to limit it on the attacks on my person already recognized by at least one of the participants (different from my person) on this section. On the Talk page to the Edward de Vere article, there were, in my view, personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" by Paul Barlow and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery" by Tom Reedy. I deleted the word "peanut" from the heading of the section "Complaints from peanut gallery", but Tom Reedy reedited it, adding that he would like it better so. I don´t want to reach anything else but an excuse on my address from the two gentlemen. Then we can cooperate on the related "Shakespeare matters" as we did before, I am prepared to do so. The POV matter is then a separate one, and it is being already discussed on WP:NPOV (I do think this is the name). It is, of course, a serious question, but what is not serious in the world of Wikipedia? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem: again, you appear to be either unwilling or unable to see how you have brought this situation upon yourself. Perhaps Wikipedia is not for you.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is what used to be WP:WQA type stuff. Thread needs to closed and Zbrnajsem told that his grievance is a mixture of the trivial (the "peanut gallery incident"), the strange (calling the earl's death "kicking it" is "disrespectful") and the plain wrong (blasphemy disqualifies a user from Wikipedia). DeCausa (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't view being labeled as "peanut galley" as trivial. It won't make the top 100 of the all-time greatest insults, but it is directed at the editor, as opposed to the edit, so I've changed it. Tom has toned down the expression of frustration. (Thank-you Tom), and yes, the notion that an expression of blasphemy disqualifies one as an editor is nonsense. If my count is correct, two marginal complaints have been rectified, and the remaining complaint is not valid, so I hope we are done here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there was a good advice to me by User Sphilbrick, which I have appreciated very much. I have followed the advice. User Tom Reedy may have a look at the Talk page of "Edward de Vere". I don´t state anymore that a certain sentence written by Tom Reedy disqualifies him to be an editor. (But there should be a discussion on sentences like this one on Wikipedia, as everybody knows about religiously motivated fervour in the world and its consequences.) However, there is something, about which I would like to complain now. What is it that gives you the right for your following sentences, User Tom Reedy, as put down by you in this very section today (just part of what you have written), and directed to my person and to User Knitwitted: "...evidently they believe their time is better spent sniping at the heels of those who are trying to build an encyclopedia. This whole thing is just one more example of their disruptive strategies. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)". First, what disruptive strategies, where? In the article itself? This would be simply not correct. My editings there are really rather minor, because of the difficulty to add something to the numerous editings e.g. by Tom Reedy, and then - what is important - they have never been disruptive. On the Talk page? - I beg your pardon, User Tom Reedy, but there can´t be disruptive strategies on a Talk page. You would probably be happy without my contributions to the discussion, but you have no right to deny me an access to the Talk pages and to contribute. Altogether, you have no reason for accusations like the above ones. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ask somebody else to explain it to you. I have no intention of spending one more minute on this. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite alright, I'll spend a few minutes. As it happens, Zbrnajsem, I've read the talk page in question. That on the talk page Tom and Paul had a jocular tone only could conflate, IMHO, to a "personal dislike" of the subject only to those with overdeveloped imaginations or personal axes of their own to grind. I am far readier to credit you - with your paean to Shakespeare on your user page, your insistence that people discuss these subjects in reverent tones, and that your relative handful of articlespace edits is dominated by the authorship issue - with an obvious personal agenda than I am them. Indeed, there can be disruptive behavior on a talk page ... where editors haul out spurious side issues, rather than discuss article building, is one example. Ravenswing 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

request immediate deletion

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

---

request immediate deletion of article "Susan Jiwey" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanjiwey (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD filed on user's behalf at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Jiwey. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was apparently created by the subject. The reason given in her request for speedy deletion was "inaccurate and out of date.". I did not search extensively, but the editing history appears to contain no inappropriate personal information. I think this is simply a matter of notability. If there is not sufficient ongoing information available to keep it updated it should be deleted as not notable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Deleted per WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Jimmy Savile and Talk:Jimmy Savile (Sir Jimmy Savile) ("FORUM" and NPoV issues)

Would an uninvolved administrator, especially a British or a British-Isles-based one, say that there are non-NPoV editing or PoV-pushing going on in the article for Jimmy Savile and in Talk:Jimmy Savile? I would also suggest that at least one (unnamed) over-enthusiastic user might in fact be using the talk page as if it were a forum for the general discussions of some sort, on Jimmy Savile. I thank you. -- KC9TV 17:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to tag it with {{current}}. I'm not an admin but I'll give you my 2p as someone uninvolved - the abuse claims should go to the end of the lead, the picture should be reverted to the one I saw a few days back and the section relating to the abuse allegations, while cited to BBC News and The Telegraph amongst others (so it should stay) doesn't necessary have due weight. I'm reminded of a similar media circus around Pete Townshend some time back, except he was still alive to defend himself. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good idea on the current event tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I am personally somewhat uncomfortable with this particular tag/template, and I did not agree to be the one who actually put it up, as I am not certain that all this actually meet the strict definition of "current events", bearing in mind that the primary events of the allegations were supposed to have taken place at least, if not more than 30 years ago (or at least this is what some might say). I am however otherwise content with this. -- KC9TV 21:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Are you really "temporarily inactive" as your Talk Page states? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Perhaps the {{current event}} template could be tweaked, or a similar template created for this kind of editing issue? The allegations may be about things Savile did years ago, but the media storm is now. This kind of "belated" controversy is a regular occurrence - for instance when a politician's opponents find something dubious the politician did in the past and turn it into a media storm. Or when the police restart a big old investigation. Or when somebody makes controversial revisionist remarks about 20th-century history. And so on. So, I think it may be helpful to have a tag for "Right now there are lots of people talking about something that happened in the past; the article may be subject to change; take your finger off the revert button..." bobrayner (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Dcshank

I'm being harrassed by the above user. Serious lack of good faith. They are leaving discouraging and inflammatory notes on my talk page which I've tried responding to but to no avail. Is it any wonder people get fed up and leave if this is what continues to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I see a:

• Welcome
• A polite note that assessments should be done by project members
• A polite explanation of a reversion

You are seriously calling this harassment?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• At the most severe, it looks like a mild content dispute to me. As a regular admin once said, WP:DRN is thataway.... --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• What Sphilbrick says. It's not harassment: they're actually trying to help you. On the other hand, you should stop assigning quality ranks to those articles unless you are a member of the specific project or have an otherwise proven experience in quality evaluation. Please listen to Dcshank's advice, or you might indeed be blocked, and no-one wants that. (And no, I don't think this is a matter yet for DRN.) Drmies (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• The user has now reported me as a vandal. Yes, I would call that harrassment. And you've just assumed the exact same thing, that I have no experience in "quality evaluation", that I have no idea what I'm doing. Why is this? What makes you think that? I don't think I've even evaluated them by quality. Is it a crime to rate Dante or Cervantes alongside Joyce? It doesn't require a genius, a child could work that one out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• You're blocked for three hours since you continued behavior judged to be disruptive instead of talking this out. (That's besides the fact that this ANI thread was specious to begin with.) I'm not quite sure that more explaining needs to be done; I'll leave it to Dcshank to do so, but I note that your rebuttal ("a child can do this") doesn't require an answer. Your block is short, since I think (I hope) you have the project's interest at heart, but you cannot pursue a course that's not OK with other editors. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm suspicious that this IP doesn't know how to sign edits, yet knew where ANI was and how to do an unblock request pretty much straight off the bat. Coincidence, or sounding a bit sockish? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't jump to conclusions, Ritchie. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies, I wasn't suggesting it was, other than just things struck me as a bit odd. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know that I notified Dcshank about this discussion. I know I'm not involved, but I figured someone should let him know it was happening. RunnerOnIce (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I kind of assumed they'd know from the IP's talk page. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

NP. Thanks Runner and Drmies. I had some real world work errands to do. I thought I would let the drama unfold and check in later to see who got muddy. Not the low profile behavior of a sock, but definitely the behavior of someone not unfamiliar with the inner workings here. --  :- ) Don 21:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, I should have just stayed silent on this issue. What a lot of drama! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you really are a bunch of sneaking no good doers, aren't you? Working away behind the scenes like this, defending wikipedia from any outsiders who get in the way. If its any use at all, I'm noting for the record that Doctor Mies is now behaving menacingly around my talk page, suggesting I could be blocked again. [64] I didn't even make that edit they accused me of making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Noting that User:Dcshank has resumed their personal vendetta against me. I have signed up for the project and this is now becoming very annoying. They have given me a "final warning" and I have done absolutely no wrong. [65] [66] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• I guess this isn't over. The IP's snarky comments and insinuations seem to continue; sounds like someone is being oppressed. I have no vendetta here, needless to say, and I don't think Dcshank has one either. Anyway, I don't have that much of a problem with their edits, it's the whining that is somewhat bothersome ("behaving menacingly"--I don't even know how I would do that). I'm hoping that someone from the literature project has a look at this IP's edits. This thread is of course going nowhere, unless it boomerangs someplace. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, I tried. We tried. It's up to Literature people now. I can't keep him/her busy all night, I have real work. Fortunately it is about 3 am there now. --  :- ) Don 01:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have done nothing wrong. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Point me to a policy I have violated. And I am not whining. I was happily going about my business when Dcshank started with their vendetta again. Drmies "behaved menacingly" in that they lurked on my talk page insinuating that I would be blocked if I misbehaved as if I were a naughty child, then accused me being responsible for an edit I did not even make. That was what it was about. I have done nothing wrong. I am being painted as some sort of outsider - an outsider who, if the above is to be credited, is not a "literature person"? Not a literature person? Who gives anyone the right to decide if I am or am not a literature person? I think I could be forgiven for losing my temper on several occasions over the course of the last several hours. But I haven't. How do you do that across a computer screen? I have been accused, among other things, of not being "calm" - and now I am "whining"? I am not. The only thing I can do is say that I am not. I don't know how you prove such a thing in these circumstances. But I am not. I insist I am not. And "somewhat bothersome" does not do justice to what I've been through with you unreasonable people. "Somewhat bothersome" to read what I have to say? More like "somewhat bothersome" to be blocked for hours over nothing, not to mention "somewhat bothersome" to be hounded and harassed in the way that I've been and am continuing to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed this entire case and it's a lot of nothing, just another instance of Victim mentality. Let's just close it out. Qworty (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, feel free to close, but just note that I've reblocked the editor for 48 more hours. Wikipedia requires collaboration. One person cannot simply declare him or herself an expert who knows exactly what importance various literary works, authors, and subjects have, and tell eveyone else to let him/her be. Now that the IP has been asked to discuss the matter at the Wikiproject page, s/he needs to do so. If s/he is unwilling to do so (i.e., to have a civil conversation without continuous attacks on other editors), then s/he can't edit here. I don't know if we'll see a change of heart in 48 hours, but if we don't, then the block will have to be extended.

As a side note, the IP editor claims his/her keyboard doesn't have a tilde key. Is that even possible? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The course you propose seems more than sensible. While I doubt that the 48-hour block will lead to 18 years of maturity, it's worth an AFG shot. Blocking may have to be permanent after that. We simply cannot allow one emotionally disturbed individual to monopolize so much time and energy. As for the tilde--he either does not know what one is, does not know how to copy and paste four of them, is using a keyboard that lacks one, or some combination of all three. In any case, I don't understand how he can proclaim himself to be the world's greatest expert in, among other things, Spanish Literature without knowing what a tilde is. Qworty (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I give up. I was ready to unblock, but they proved that they are either incompetent or playing dumb. At least they now have a defender with a registered account--someone else to hate us and cry admin abuse. Ah well. At least I get a bonus from Jimbo for every block I make. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Problematic user returning: Geraldgorilla

Geraldgorilla (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA editor focused on the now deleted via AFD, USP Networks. He appears to be a sock or meatpuppet of both UnderAdvice (talk · contribs) and Wpoel (talk · contribs). Yes, I know WP:SPI is over there, but that's not why I'm bringing him here.

He's recently returned to Wikipedia and his user page has a statement about how he is "conducting a minor crusade to try and tag those incurable wikiwonkers" and "beware. Twats will not be tolerated." I'm pretty sure that's not in the spirit of cooperative editing, but I'd rather have someone else deal with this as I'm pretty sure I'm at least partially the target of this invective. Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing a CfD discussion

I notice Wikipedia:Categories for discussion has quite a backlog, and User:Eraserhead1 has helped out be closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights, disclosing that this is a non-admin closure. Now, that link refers to closing deletion discussions, but it says "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." The "better left" bit means that the user did nothing wrong, but this is undoubtedly a close call (I count 8 keep !votes and 8 delete/rename !votes) and undoubtedly controversial (which is perhaps why no-one had got around to closing it). WP:NACD also says Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. However, Wikipedia:Deletion review doesn't seem to include categories, so I thought I'd post it here. Would an uninvolved admin please read over the discussion (and it is a long one, I know) and see if he or she can endorse the closure? StAnselm (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I closed this is as unfortunately given the lack of admins who are willing to close such discussions we are going to need non-admin closures as well to make things happen.

I do respect how you've handled your issue with my closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I counted 7 keeps, 6 deletes, 3 renames, 1 neutral and a great many tangential comments. I appreciate that Eraserhead1 was willing to look at the weight of the arguments to make a decision to bring the CfD to closure. – MrX 20:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To be clear I didn't count the votes. We are weighing up the arguments - not counting the votes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a good close, no matter who made it. Perhaps the closer would be interested in joining the admins in the usual way? ` DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

DGG, "joining the admins in the usual way" appears to be lately less a "community discussion" and more a Trial by ordeal.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone willing to help out in one of our weakest areas and can do so with a level head, is just fine with me as well. If you are interested, I would be happy to do an admin review. Likely, others would be willing if you asked as well. Or if you would rather not, that is fine, too. Just know your efforts are appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going to close the discussion the same way as Eraserhead1, xe just beat me to it. The whole 'discussions need to be closed by an admin' is a red herring thrown about by those who don't like the way the discussion was closed. Being an admin has no bearing on whether you can read a discussion and properly weigh the arguments against policy. The are admins that do that well. There are admins that do it poorly. There are non-admins that do it well and poorly as well. Quite frankly, the reason there are so few people that close these discussions is that no matter what, they are never closed right. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the phrasing of the OP left a lot to be desired too. For example, if in reality we had 8 keep !votes and 6 rename !votes, that's really 14 "keep in some manner" !votes (at which point you have to really weight the strength of the rename arguments) - don't lump delete and rename !votes into the same category! dangerouspanda 11:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/420mysteryman69

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

---

This editor is consistently and repeatedly vandalising articles - I am not sure what to do about it - can someone help? Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Smerus. The standard venue to report continuous vandalism is WP:AIV. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Sally Season

Highly suspicious single-purpose account. The username is an obvious reference to "silly season" and has only edited articles related to Republican-affiliated interest groups, mostly to subtly push positions opposed to Republicans. My encounter with this account has been in the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund where Sally keeps reverting attempts to have claims about OPSEC being a Republican swift boat effort attributed to the Obama Campaign, which is supported by the sources. When I noted this on user talk, Sally's response included the claim "The campaign doesn't accuse the group of being Republican, they only refer to the group as Republican." The account's user page also appears to be getting used to list editors with whom the account has had negative interactions. It smells like trolling, and it could also be a sock.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what the incident is that you are asking about, or what intervention you feel is needed at this time. Could you elaborate please.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See the account's contributions. Basically just making tendentious edits and then edit-warring over them, as well as some other issues. I am not sure what the most appropriate action to take would be, but the conduct speaks for itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not at all. The SPI went nowhere, and so there's a different tack tried now? It may well be that this account/editor is up to no good, but you'll have to do better than say "smells like trolling" without providing any evidence at all. Come up with diffs and an explanation for them, and maybe we'll talk. If you don't, this should be closed pronto. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I only looked at the oldest half, because I got bored at that point, but they appear to me to mostly be legitimate content disputes. And per Drmies, this smells like forum shopping, and should be closed immediately, with the reporter sternly warned for such actions. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Per both Drmies and Kerfuffler - close as possible forum shopping and no legitimate issue raised.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who filed the SPI so how can I be forum-shopping? The actions of this account elsewhere are what drew my attentions, not the SPI. Contributions from this account are minimal and the issue can be clearly understood from looking over the revision history of the OPSEC article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This really does seem to be an effort at stifling an editor whose opinions do not match your own. Insomesia (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here you go, again this was really simple as the conduct essentially dominates the minimal contributions of this account:

• [67] - Removes material noting claims of OPSEC being Republican came from Obama campaign, as the source clearly supports, to simply say it has been "described as" Republican.
• [68] - Reverts RightCow.
• [69] - Reverts Belchfire.
• [70] - Reverts me.
• [71] - Reverts me again.
• [72] - Fifth revert overall.

Three editors oppose this change, but Sally keeps reverting it. Before the last revert I had plainly noted on Sally's talk page that the source explicitly supported what Sally claimed was not supported. The response included the above quote that "The campaign doesn't accuse the group of being Republican, they only refer to the group as Republican." Plainly obvious that such a distinction has no meaning in this context.

Aside from this incident, the account has been edit-warring in a tendentious manner on various other articles within a very narrow focus:

Koch family

• [73]
• [74]
• [75]

Americans for Prosperity

• [76]
• [77]

David H. Koch

• [78]
• [79]
• [80]
• [81]

Does that suffice? This does not include the conspicuous act of listing editors on the account's user page. Note the following discussion page as well: [82]. BTW, it has nothing to do with my opinion on the issue and everything to do with my opinion on the edits and conduct evident with this account.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion here is also illuminating: [83].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• What Sally Season has done on Americans for Prosperity in no way even approaches edit-warring. I note that AdventurousSquirrel reverted their edits, after which they were restored by a seasoned editor. It always takes two to tango, and from what I can tell, in that particular case Sally Season was not warring and had the sources on her side. I've looked at Koch Family as well, where we had an edit-war brewing and consensus did not seem to be on Sally's side. There was talk page discussion (humorous to read, since no one seemed to understand Sally's joke) and then it was over. So where's the beef in those two? With those two, you've established that Sally and Squirrel got into it and then it was over. Was a report filed at ANEW? What other avenues were pursued? (I may look at a few more--I do thank you for providing these diffs.) Drmies (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• OK, I've looked at the diffs you gave for Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, and you are correct: Sally Season is edit-warring there with way too many people (and they're absolutely wrong in this edit and others like it. I've given them a warning for edit-warring on that article, and I personally think their edits should be undone--but it should be looked at by someone who is not you or a squirrel, or me. Mind you, I'm sort of wearing two hats here (editor and admin), but that edit-warring took place is clear (admin) and that their version is incorrect is clear to me also (editor).

  So, I'll grant you the charge of edit-warring on that article, but I won't block right now, since I just gave a warning. Your larger issue is, of course, tendentious editing--but that's something that should probably not be handled in this forum, and it will take more evidence. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I notice I've been mentioned a lot here but I was never notified about this thread. The reason I started the SPI is because Sally had edited a lot of articles that StillStanding-247 had been editing right before he was blocked, and some of the edits Sally made on the pages were the same edits or reverts that Still had been working on, so it looked pretty suspicious. But it looks like based on the IP's that it's unlikely they are the same user. Sally does seem to have a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality but I wasn't about to bring him/her up here at ANI for any reason. We resolved or are resolving our differences on article talk pages. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're not here on any charges. ;) I saw the SPI as it was happening, and I thought also, for a moment, that there was something going on. Now, I won't deny that there is some battlegrounding going on here, but I think it kind of comes with the territory (dumb politics), and I don't think it's gotten out of hand yet. Again, if there is a larger issue it should be dealt with somewhere else; issues like edit-warring should be dealt with at ANEW and I don't see enough (evidence) yet to block. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have is that, all of it put together is rather suspicious. "Sally Season" is obviously a reference to "silly season" and the conduct has been almost purely disruptive. I have a hard time believing that this is just another partisan editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

On and off edit warring at Schmidt Sting Pain Index

This IP user has waged a slow-moving edit war on this page, claiming that the descriptions are "made up" and did not come from Schmidt. Several users have provided reliable sources on the talk page that indicate that such is not the case (and though this won't count as a reliable source, an entomologist friend of mine who happens to personally know Schmidt confirmed that the descriptions did indeed come from Schmidt). I should not hand out blocks personally as I am involved. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I must be overlooking the sources on the talk page ... can you point me to the right threads on that talk page? Is there a reason they haven't been added to the disputed section of the table? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Immediately preceding the table is an explanation of the origin of the descriptions in which the source is Snopes.com. I'd found a journal article before that mentioned the same thing, but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The descriptions do not come from any papers published by Schmidt. Only one source is reliable enough to back the claim that these descriptions appear in an article by Schmidt, and that would be an article by Schmidt that contains them. If you can't produce such an article, your "my friend says" or "this journalist says" are totally irrelevant. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to Snopes on Schmidt Sting Pain Index or Talk:Schmidt Sting Pain Index, nor do I see a reference to any other article which is claimed to give the source of the descriptions. Could you please reproduce here the bibliographic details of the publication in which the descriptions appear? In the absence of such a citation, it appears that 190.44.158.38 is correct to remove the information as unreferenced and unverifiable. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS does not require that we get claims from the horse's mouth. We just have to get them from a reliable source. Just as an example, I'd like to point out Charlemagne - we have well over 100k of content about that dude, but not a single word of it was written by Charlemagne himself. Instead we rely on how scholar A reported the work of scribe B who described the life of king C. As long as scholar A is reliable, we're happy. However, we do need a reliable source - specifically, we need enough detail so that somebody else can look it up and check that it supports the content. bobrayner (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I was only asking for a citation to the "publication in which the descriptions appear", not to where they originally appeared, though as the article wants to quote the descriptions verbatim, the latter would clearly be preferable. The descriptions in the table which were removed by 190.44.158.38 had no cited source, primary or otherwise. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If Schmidt said what it is claimed that he said, it would be easy - incredibly easy - to find the source. Scientific articles are hardly kept hidden away, are they? Comparisons of contemporary scholars to historical figures who died 1200 years ago are not realistic. Seeing as no-one has yet managed to find the paper in which these "descriptions" allegedly appeared, I think we can safely say it doesn't exist. The question relevant to this discussion is why User:Ohnoitsjamie has been edit warring to keep unsourced and unverifiable claims in the article? Why did he not discuss it on the article talk page? Why did he not discuss it with me? Why did he go straight to AN? 190.44.158.38 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As Schmidt's list is obviously subjective and represents a creative effort, reproducing the entire list here with or without the very creative descriptions and even with attribution may be a violation of copyright. I think the best way to deal with this is as a general description of the index without reproducing it entirely. Reproducing the "wheedled out" version from Outside magazine is even more problematic in regards to copyright. Please see this essay for a broader and more informed view on the subject of copyright in lists. WTucker (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

CertificationPoint

After removing a speedy template a number of times from CertificationPoint a number of times and having it returned, User:Terrigentry subsided. A SPA, User:Blgiles23, then came into being apparently for the purpose of removing those speedy templates and justifying it (speciously, in my opinion) to the editors who had placed them. I therefore took the article to AfD and User:Terrigentry began removing those templates, material, etc. I can't keep up with reverting this and think some administrator attention is warranted. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm unable to say with 100% accuracy, but it may also be that User:Terrigentry has falsified an Articles for creation notice. I cannot locate any track of CertificationPoint having actually been created through AfC. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:DGG who has dealt with this by deleting and salting the article in question. I'll keep an eye on the creator(s). Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blgiles23 is a  Confirmed sock of Terrigentry. I have indef'd the sock and blocked Terrigentry for a week. Please drop by my userpage if you see similar pages come up. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• ...and I must be going blind, also  Confirmed ByronLGiles (talk · contribs). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Block review: User:Andycjp blocked indefinitely by User:Tznkai

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

---

• Previous thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#Creationist_vandalism
• tznkai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• andycjp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am requesting a review of my own block of Andycjp. By way of background I closed the above thread by topic banning (after reading a rough consensus to do so) Andycjp from evolution, creation, and the origin of species. I notified Andycjp of the topic ban, and tried to secure him a mentor who shared, or at least understood his religious idiom. In my independent review of Andycjp's edits, I believed he may have been suffering from some combination of language and cultural barriers, and might become a productive editor, even though he had gotten quite confrontational of late. User:Jasonasosa agreed to try to mentor him, but quickly reported back on my talk page (see User_talk:Tznkai#TB) that there were serious problems. I left a message for Andycjp urging him to be cooperative, treat Jasonasosa with respect, and to tell me if he wanted to be an editor. User:Boing! said Zebedee even took down a strongly worded, but quite accurate message to try to help out. In response Andycjp simply said "we are all sinners" and when I asked again if he wanted to be an editor, he asked "Do you wish to get to heaven ?"

At this point, I blocked him. Not because I am offended that he wants to know whether I want to go to heaven (I do, for certain values of heaven), but because I have reached the same conclusion that others have upon talking with Andycjp: he has a mindset incompatible with Wikipedia. He seems to be here, at least now, to wage some sort of cultural or spiritual war, or use Wikipedia as a platform for proselytizing. He is uncooperative and uncommunicative. That all having been said, this is a sensitive issue, and deserves close review.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. He was given the opportunity to show that he was here for the improvement of Wikipedia, and not for other motives. The topic ban discussion should have been a call to him to change his ways. He shows no sign that he has. Though he hasn't actually violated the exact letter of the ban, as far as I can tell, he only narrowly avoided an indef block through the topic ban discussion, and his hostile passive-aggressive behavior you highlight above has convinced me that he's reached the end of his WP:ROPE as far as I can see. No need to suffer this any further. --Jayron32 04:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. I don't see how it could have been solved any other way, per WP:NOTHERE. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, IMO. While I at first agreed that a topic ban in lieu of a indefinite block could work, almost every reply by the editor since has convinced me it will not. This edit to philosophy of science, where Andy linked assumptions, a disamb page whose first sentence states "based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts", seemed an indication that he intended to push the limits of his topic ban as much as he could, and while not centered on evolution or creationism, it was a spurious addition to a science article that seemed like it could be connected to the behavior that got him topic banned. Almost every single remark on his talk page since then has been a religious quote or platitude, seemingly aimed at inflaming other editors and making a "martyr" of Andy in his cause. We really do have enough drama around here without someone using Wikipedia for self immolation. Heiro 04:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • He's done a few more like that, like overlinking "unique" in non-math contexts, etc. I'm not assuming bad faith, but he's got a clear competence problem. Enough time was wasted cleaning up after him. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block until user agrees to cooperate. I'm a Christian, as displayed on my userpage, and I still agree with the block; Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) isn't the place for pushing your opinion. FWIW, I've always believed it more beneficial to the faith to actually be a good Wikipedian and be cooperative and courteous towards others rather than edit warring and trying to proselytize all over the place. --Rschen7754 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Unfortunate, but necessary. Tznkai's approach of trying to engage Andycjp was commendable, but it has to go two ways, and Andycjp's complete failure to engage but instead to carry on proselytizing really left no alternative. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Necessary block. I don't know if andy was capable of constructive edits, but he seemed to think the spirit of collaboration didn't apply to him. Editors who refuse to honestly discuss issues simply don't belong here. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• First, let me start off by saying that I was wholly impressed by Boing's post on his talk page delineating why it is not permitted to alter existing sources for the purposes of pushing his own religious POV. It was very tactful, reasonable, and demonstrated respect for Andy's perspective. I'm also pleased with the efforts of Jason and Tznkai to try and bring him into the mold despite having a conflict of interest. It did not work, which is oftentimes the case when dealing with editors who have demonstrated an inability to separate their views from their editing habits. If we were to allow Andy to continue editing, there is hardly any doubt that he would remain unwilling to acquiesce to community norms and abide by the core policies of which Wikipedia was founded upon. As such, he is fundamentally unsuited for contributing to this website, as our aspirations for Wikipedia are far detached from his own. Tznkai's block was the inevitable conclusion of this schism. Kurtis (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. This user had plenty of chances to change their attitude during the last AN/I, and instead starting quoting the Bible at anyone who tried to help him. Afterwards, he was graciously given a mentor, but remained as stubborn as ever. What it comes down to is simple: this editor does not wish to change and is not here to edit constructively. I endorse this block. – Richard BB 06:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. There's no reasonable prospect of the user editing within Wikipedia's policies and the user has effectively made it clear he doesn't want to try. DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, unfortunately. Appreciate User:Jasonasosa's attempts, but in order to change, the subject has to want to change, and this subject was unwilling to adapt to Wikipedia norms. dangerouspanda 09:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

External link in article body

• motherstrust.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Site: www.motherstrust.org

An IP editor (his IP address changes every now and then) is adding an external link centric portion in 1) Ramakrishna 2) Gauri Ma article. Their addition is completely unosurced other than only that external link, which I think is not WP:RS. The worse thing is they are continuously writing in article body "More photos can be seen here [link]., more information can be found here: [link]. This article Ramakrishna is still affected where you'll find the link www.motherstrust.org multiple times in article body! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have posted notice in two of his IP address talk pages– 1) User_talk:75.198.11.140 2) User talk:75.219.181.57 --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are more:

• Atmalokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 75.241.110.108 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 75.219.181.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 75.219.127.249 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 75.241.83.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 75.198.11.140 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Added to XLinkBot, will have a further look. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Dirk; I'm glad there's smart people around. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing again - MatthiasHuehr

User:MatthiasHuehr is removing external links from articles again, without good reason and ignoring my request to discuss them, despite being warned about his disruptive editing and invited to use the talk page to achieve consensus. Instead he is edit-warring after I revert his changes (I have not reverted his latest edits in order not to provoke this further). This is a repeat of his behaviour in July which is reported here. Since then his user contributions show he has continued disruption on a small scale, but not reacted to any reversions until the last couple of days - see Streckelsberg and Vitt. In my own view, the external links are not spam and do provide references or additional useful information to the articles. However, I am quite prepared to accept a consensus that reaches a different view after sensible discussion. My recommendation is that Matthias is given a final warning not to delete external links without first proposing and discussing them on talk pages or face an immediate ban of a length felt by the admin to be appropriate. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be the same problems with him in the German Wikipedia, with [[84]]. I am just supposing it is the same user, and he gives himself an en-3, so should be able to understand what we try to tell him. Ping me if you want me to message him in German. Lectonar (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw you could do this yourself, messaging him in German I mean. Lectonar (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the links, and left a message on his talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• I got involved in a previous bout of EL removals, in response to a 3O request - but didn't make much progress as MatthiasHuehr didn't discuss at all. Don't be fooled by the peaceful-looking user talkpage - several other editors have attempted to discuss the issue with MatthiasHuehr but it just gets removed... [85] [86] [87] bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at Arattupuzha Velayudha Chekavar

Saw this article at AFC, passed the quick sniff-test so published, but noted this apparent (confusingly-phrased) legal threat in the lede:

Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker was an Ezhava warrior who lived in the 19th century in Kerala, south India and fought against caste oppression by the upper castes. His original name was Kalisseril Velayutha chekavar''.The present Chekavar who are rooted to the blood of Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker are grouped here- https://www.facebook.com/groups/144351819022209/. If anybody intend to undo the edits on the latest would violate the copyrights from the family and would be filed a case against the same. Copyright has been registered and is strictly prohibited.--Sumithsomarajan (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what to do with this, so leaving it for the moment just as evidence. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a misguided attempt to force the Facebook link into the article. As legal threats go it is remarkably clueless, but a legal threat nevertheless. I'd assume the usual block per WP:LEGAL would be a formality? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Matthew, it is so idiotic that it's hardly credible. The user just came off a block for edit-warring; they seem to have more blood than clue. Then again, not everyone may realize that the threat is idiotic, and what counts here is the perception of a threat, so I will block per LEGAL. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Brainbug666 -- Post-Finasteride Syndrome

Brainbug666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose editor who is devoted to trying to publicizing the side effects of a drug called Finasteride. His behavior, I believe, has become tendentious--basically what WP:NOBLE & WP: GREATWRONGS describe. I got involved in this when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome, an article he created. Creating a non-notable article is not sanctionable, but he's displayed a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality there, as well as Talk:Finasteride and Merck & Co.. He seems very interested in promoting a group called the The Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. After a flood of single purpose accounts on the Afd, an SPI was opened on him, and he retaliated by opening one on another contributor (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DangerGrouse). I'm convinced that he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and I suggest a topic ban from Finasteride-related topics, at minimum. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• What would have been nice was the SPI concluding that there was indeed sock puppetry going on. Unfortunately for you and other I suppose, that was not the case. Still, there's enough troubling behavior on Finasteride-related articles to warrant at least such a topic ban, broadly construed to cover the topic and not just the one article, and any next offense (including retaliatory action, etc) should be followed by an indefinite block. And maybe some nice clerk can close that bogus SPI quickly? Drmies (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here is realy breathtaking, but ok, everbody can read, what is going on here. You can also see what I wrote about this on my talk. --Brainbug666 (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, what you wrote on your talk page is precisely the kind of thing that I was referring to with "any next offense" and "personal attacks". Do you understand? (I guess I'm letting this one slide...) Drmies (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. I see 10 article edits by this account, 3 or 4 of which (depending on your POV) add technical information that, although I'm in no position to evaluate it, looks plausible and uncontroversial. Yes, there is some attempt to add references to PFS, a couple of which seem to have POV issues, but this hardly warrants an ANI case. And lastly, with no evidence of sockpuppetry, it's inappropriate to keep repeating it. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)