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

Request for Interaction Ban between Tony1 and LauraHale

User:Tony1 has been repeatedly asked by User:LauraHale alone and not comment on her talk page [1] [2] but continues[3]. Told to stop [4] but keeps it up [5].

Hurls abuse at other editors [6][7] more personal attacks [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither Tony1 or LauraHale were notified of this discussion. Now rectified.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nigel. I was just interrupted by a phone call. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the history of antagonism between the two users, I think it would be best if Tony1 were to leave it to other Signpost people to ask questions of Laura Hale. But this should not be used as a method to dodge questions about Laura's work with sports history, obviously. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

This has long been on her user page. There is nothing to ask. You know full well that she does no paid editing. It's just harassment and you know it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rather than an interaction ban – they obviously have overlapping areas of interest and I've rarely seen interaction bans have productive results – I'd suggest everyone involved just grow up a little. You're all intelligent people so I don't think it will take a huge effort to stop sounding like children. I also note that diffs from Wikinews where Tony is not even discussing Laura have no relevance. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay. Grow up then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I think that at least, it would be reasonable to ask Tony1 to respect LauraHale's request not to post on her talk page. wctaiwan (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • +1. If Tony1 has an issue which he feels is legitimate, then there are appropriate channels where he can take it - and if he does, he will need to prevent evidence. Continuing to repost the same question on Laura's talk page when she's requested him not to post there is not the appropriate channel.

My understanding, personally, is that Laura has done no paid editing. If she is paid, declaring a COI is appropriate, but it doesn't violate any policies - making Tony1's pestering of Laura harder to justify. If Laura hasn't yet made a suitable declaration or statement COI and there is any reason to ask for it (and I'm not clear there is), then someone without a track record of harassment or bad blood with Laura should be the one to ask her. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this was one of the alleged interactions that was unwelcome. I don't see the problem with it at all. It is a perfectly collegiate discussion about something LH apparently removed without explanation and did not respond on the relevant page. I don't see how it has to belong on the project page and not on her talk page, because Tony apparently did not get any response at the former; he ought not to have reposted after its deletion, but that's another matter. As to this, I presume Tony has/had a legitimate reason for asking if LH was engaged in paid editing. Since paid editing isn't a crime and not against our policies, she should just respond and be done with it. Her talk page is not some safe refuge where she can dodge answering questions about her own actions. Of course she can delete those posts, particularly if they are uncivil, but if they are legitimate and collegiate, such removals only makes it look like she has something to hide. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 12:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

He had no legitimate reason, none whatsoever, but that is beside the point. Since he has been asked repeatedly not to post on her talk page, for any reason, doing so is in itself uncivil, besides being kind of creepy. None of us are under any obligation to answer questions on our talk pages. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry but Tony's allegation has no substance and Laura doesn't have a case to answer. I'm sure Tony wouldn't like someone alleging that he was doing paid editing without facts to support it. Also Tony has a history of harrassing editors whom he disagrees with. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry too, but are the both of you, Hawkeye and Bidgee, mind readers now? Andreas JN466 18:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please strike that, you have no understanding of the matter. Bidgee (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am indeed sorry if Laura and Hawkeye took offence: I asked a simple question that was not rude or uncivil. I have no idea what the Signpost has to do with this; it's a bizarre angle to take. As an ordinary member of the en.WP community, I felt it was an important issue to clear up, closely related to a long-running discussion at a main-page forum, and more distantly related to an issue on which Jimmy Wales has made strongly worded comments in the press. It was up to Laura to answer yes, or no, or to inform me by email if that's what she desired. Wiping my query from her talk page simply left a question-mark over the matter, so I'm glad she has now reinstated it. Simple. Instead, I've been accused semi-publicly, among dozens of WPians: "Tony, you are a harasser. What you are doing is illegal. You are telling lies. You know it, and we all know it. Crawl back under the rock you live under and die." Hey, calm down and let's treat this in proportion. I won't post on Laura's talk page again, although I'd have thought collaboration would have been possible in the future. Tony (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Tony, what was stated on the members list (a private list) should not be published publicly. Bidgee (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, what is this members list you refer to? Skinwalker (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am also curious about what this members list is. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A local group - not a Wikipedia thing. --Chriswaterguy talk 01:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a Wikipedia thing. What is it?  Volunteer Marek  01:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm slightly involved here, but I think this should be closed with no action. I haven't seen any evidence at all of Tony harassing Laura--it looks to me like a big deal is being made out of some minor comments here. I suggest everyone involved make an effort to avoid each other, or at least stick to parliamentary language, and then move on. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Also, who told Tony to "Crawl back under the rock you live under and die"? That's really not Ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • +1, to both of those comments by Mark. Andreas JN466 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The members list (private) is for members of Wikimedia Australia. As to who said the comment, well that is no ones business on en Wikipedia (or any project) as this is from a private discussion. Bidgee (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Bidgee, I'm sympathetic to you and to Laura's case, but you could win more friends by being a bit less combative. Agreed that this is an internal matter for the WM-AU list, but for the record, it was a highly uncivil and inappropriate comment, regardless of who said it and who it was directed at. I'm sure this will be addressed by one of the list moderators (and if not, I'll raise it myself). I won't make any further comment here. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, once a user says please stay off my talk page that should generally respected. If Tony1 has reasonable evidence that LauraHale is in violation of some Wikpedia policy, they should make a case. Otherwise, just as checkuser are not run lacking evidence, we don't go around posting I need you to answer... type queries. With regards to the Jimbo-defense: the founder made a decision a long time ago to make the community mostly self-governing and, unless it changed the past week or two, there is not currently a prohibition against paid editing of Wikipedia.Nobody Ent 15:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Tony is not a newbie, he knows what it means when someone removes a comment, especially one accusatory in nature. I don't see where anything was left unresolved. Pursuing the matter was uncivil. End of story. As for Jimbo, his views on paid editing are known. People either agree with them or do not. They are, however, his opinions, and there is no obligation on anyone to agree with him. I fail to see how agreeing with a founder of Wikipedia provides one with cover.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Bidgee, as Skinwalker asked, what is this members list you refer to? 208.54.4.224 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

While this is not in itself a matter for ANI, there is also a matter of WP:Competence here that is part of the background. Tony is an excellent copy editor and proofreader. Laura has today submitted an article containing the following gems for DYK:

• With her competitive snowboarding career starting when she was fifteen years old, she has been injured several times in competition. She qualified for and competed in the 2010 Winter Olympics in snowboard cross, where she was finished in eighteenth place, two out from qualifying for the event finals.

• At 1.65 metres (5 ft 5 in) tall and weighing 60 kilograms (130 lb),[2][5] she only speaks English.[1]

• Hickey is a snowboard slalom and snowboard cross competition,[6] who has been affiliated with the Victorian Institute of Sport[7] and coached by Lukas Prem.[1]

• While snowboarding, she has injured herself several times, including September 2008 crash that dislocated five ribs, January 2009 tear of her medial collateral ligament while competing in Austria, and a 2010 concussion and memory loss following a crash.[1]

• The paragraph following that repeats the verb "compete" in practically every one of its dozen sentences, combined with multiple occurrences of "competitor" and "competition".

An editor who produces output like that and nominates it for the main page should not get to tell people who can actually write English to go away when they are trying to tell her that her writing is not up to par. Andreas JN466 18:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Andreas, that seems to boil down to "Your writing sucks!" The subject at hand is alleged harassment about a different issue so even if it were appropriate anywhere, it wouldn't be relevant here. I think it would be appropriate to withdraw your comment and apologize to Laura. --Chriswaterguy talk 01:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The first diff in the OP's post above includes Laura removing a post from Tony pointing out "the density of corrections required" in her writing, and telling him not to bother her. This is why the question of writing quality is relevant. Andreas JN466 01:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Andreas, the first diff in the OP's post above relates to accusations about DYK nominations, and the others that I checked repeat that accusation. (Unfortunately the diffs were for multiple edits, so I clicked next diff and then previous diff to find what was deleted. I may have missed something.) --Chriswaterguy talk 02:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You did: the diff I gave in my reply to you above. This is the diff that the edit summary on the left of the first diff at the top of this thread belongs to. Andreas JN466 02:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got it. It looks like Tony is correcting a comment by Laura on a talk or project page, not her writing in article space, and is being exceptionally pedantic. At a glance, most of the "corrections" are completely unnecessary in casual writing, and none strike me as a big deal. I can't see the value of Tony's post other than as harassment.

Laura removed it with the comment "I would ask in the future that if you wish to communicate with me, you do so on the relevant project talk page." I think that was an appropriate and restrained response. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this rises to the level of an interaction ban yet, but Tony1 should not make accusations like that without substantial evidence. It's tantamount to accusing people of plagiarism. --Rschen7754 19:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Tins of tuna all round. (Not quite deserving of trout). Let's get back to work? --Dweller (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC) PS, a proper trout to anyone who makes a "member" joke here.

That's a trout for you then, isn't it. --Andreas JN466 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer the questions about the members list, these posts are refering to a (rather heated) exchange of emails on the Wikimedia Australia members mailing list involving several of the above mentioned editors (including both Laura and Tony). Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is this list located? It's not Wikimediaau-l, because that has public archives. Andreas JN466 21:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the WP-AU email mailing list doesn't have public archives, and membership of the mailing list is limited to members of WP-AU (I may well be wrong about this though). Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Nick is correct about the above, the WMAU members list does not have public archives and is only open to members of the chapter. Wikimediaau is a more general purpose list for Wikimedians in Australia, and it does have a public archive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

That doesn't answer my question. I asked where the private members list is located. Is it a Wikimedia list, or is it run privately? The official Wikimediaau-l mailing list does have public archives, as do most Wikimedia lists (with some exceptions). The Wikimediaau-l archives are here – it doesn't seem that there is much traffic on the public list. Andreas JN466 01:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay, I've just noticed that Bidgee has answered that below. The list is not hosted by the WMF. So who does host it? Andreas JN466 01:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay, I've just noticed that Bidgee has answered that one above. :)) The address given at http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Members_mailing_list is http://lists.wikimedia.org.au/mailman/private/members_lists.wikimedia.org.au/ – so it is not hosted by WMF, but by wikimedia.org.au Andreas JN466 01:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I beseech Hawkeye7 to withdraw his request and close the discussion. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree, Tony took it a step further to publish a private comment (which should be removed and oversighted) from the WM-AU's member list which isn't hosted by WMF and he has a history of harrassing editors but posting a private email (doesn't matter who stated the "comment" on the list, thats not en Wiki's issue) is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. Bidgee (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • People at WMUK just went through considerable soul searching to make their mailing list public again, for which they should be commended. I think it would be more appropriate if Wikimedia Australia did so too. You might find that behavioural standards on the list, which seem to be quite lax right now, pick up. It is also more consistent with the Wikimedia ideal of transparency. Andreas JN466 01:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment For a long time, I've seen various editors request that some other editor never post to their talk page. I think this is bad practice. I gather that the community accepts this practice, but I don't think it should be encouraged. It just makes things awkward when there is a legitimate need to post a comment to another editor.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

While that is a fair position past practice has shown that too many users abuse this legitimate need to harass users and that interaction bans a very effective to enable the wider community to identify the antaganisor and take appropriate action. Gnangarra 23:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time and suggest closure, as no consensus for the interaction ban appears to be developing. Practices of WMAU or appropriateness of asking others not to post on a user talk page should be examined in a new thread, off AN/I, if needed. A proposal for an interaction ban should not become a coatrack for those things, or for criticising either LauraHale or Tony1 on unrelated matters. wctaiwan (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The private comment quoted by Tony and Mark should be removed and revdel/oversighted, it is a breach of privay and also a copyright violation (emails are copyrightable). Bidgee (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Ever heard of fair use? Care to show us a case where someone won a copyright lawsuit for publishing an email snippet like that? I can show you OPG v. Diebold in the opposite direction (15K emails published). See WP:POSTEMAIL for the wiki "law" (or lack thereof). Tijfo098 (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
      • These emails, regardless of their contents, are surely not appropriate in mainspace, and WMF policy prohibits nonfree content (even when a fair use claim can be made) outside of mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
        • The use your admin pohwaz and delete all the quotes from books given on all the article talk pages. Start with Talk:Hans Eysenck move to Talk:Axiom of regularity and earn lots of admin barnstars. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Oh, and don't forget to delete most of WP:RS/N (archives) too. Lots of quotes from copyrighted sources given there as well, e.g. [9] [10]. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Also go an delete any ANI discussion archives of plagiarism and close paraphrasing cases, e.g. [11] Any comparative examples there necessarily include quotes from the original copyrighted sources. Some portions of RfAs should be deleted too, e.g. [12]. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This kind of childish nonsense is one of the things that's so dispiriting about Wikipedia. Tony1 and LauraHale are adults, let them sort their differences out between themselves. There's far too much of this "stern rebuke from teacher" crap around here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If LH had answered Tony's question with a 'yes' or 'no', instead of a delete? then this thread would've been unnecessary. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually she did. So this thread is unnecessary. Rich Farmbrough, 05:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

This has some close parallels to the Racepacket affair lots of the same faces making some of the same arguments. Also, there is nothing in Tony's block log about harassment; anti-Malleus style block log flashing is a cliche. I agree with RF above. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I will email Hawykeye privately tomorrow—for the first time—to try to arrange a mutually agreeable calming down and resolution. No good comes of bad blood like this, either on-wiki or elsewhere. Tony (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

+1 I seem to remember a very distinct set of principles, findings of fact, sanctions applied from the above mentioned case. Seeing several editors from both sides of the issue show up again clustered around these users and reasoning is an indicator of a potential resurgance of issues. Hasteur (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK topic ban discussion

A DYK topic ban has been suggested for LauraHale at WT:DYK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:DYK#Banning_Laura_Hale_from_DYK.3F Andreas JN466 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Two Wrongs

• Two Wrongs (talk · contribs)
• 140.247.141.146 (talk · contribs)

User has tried to rewrite a section of Women artists, wishing to remove much content w/o seeking consensus, in favor of weighing the section on behalf of one artist. The intent may have been good initially, but they're way off base. I've tried to discuss this at both the user's and the article talk page, but am receiving accusations of vandalism and incompetence for my troubles--WP:BOOMERANG. A real good example of why good contributors get worn down here. JNW (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please provide WP:DIFFs of these vandalism and incompetence accusations. Additionally, why are you pretending to be retired but still actively editing and engaging in edit-warring? 140.247.141.146 (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

One diff suffices [13]. A user's activity status is beside the point, no? And I'll welcome an administrative view as to whether I've been edit warring--I attempted to discuss this with the other user, and approached both this and the Visual Arts noticeboards. As I said, there's a reason editors walk away. JNW (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

One diff shows nothing more than an extremely minor scuffle. You accused him of vandalism and now he is returning the favor. Why didn't you simply try to be civil and open a discussion about his edits? Also, please answer the retired question. That dishonesty concerns me more than anything else. 140.247.141.146 (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you try editing under your actual user ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPs are human too. 140.247.141.146 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the non-denial denial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If the representation of my activity status troubles you as much as you profess, please feel free to open a separate discussion on this page. Interestingly, you haven't taken notice of Two Wrongs' edits, which disfigured the article and years' worth of construction by numerous writers, nor their subsequent talk page aggressiveness. JNW (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:PETARD 140.247.141.146 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I find your accusations as misguided as those of Two Wrongs; mind you, there's no intent to imply a relationship, but here, too, I think other editors will be able to read the interchange and discern credibility. Please don't post on my talk page again. And unless your sole intent is harassment, I encourage you to open a thread concerning your problems with my history. JNW (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You do not own the talk page associated with the account you edit under. You are lying when you say you are retired. You are not retired. 140.247.141.146 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cite a rule that prohibits a self-declared "retired" account from editing again? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Don't lie. 140.247.141.146 (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So if he tooked down the "retired" banner, would that fix the problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:LIARLIAR. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a little tricky to present diffs when a guy makes like 50 consecutive edits, but if this links properly, you should be able to see the alleged butchering of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User Two Wrongs made a continuous sequence of about 67 edits which removed about 55 artists from the article and added and emphasized one artist in particular, & possibly images by a couple others. Also their response to some nice attempts to discuss was a series of insults and baseless accusations. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding IP 140 to the above complaint, whose edits here and at my talk page now constitute harassment. Don't know if there's a connection between the accounts, but this sounds like quacking. JNW (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

He is now vandalizing my talkpage as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ripe for WP:AIV. Single purpose account, tendentious and harassing. I'm more inclined to think it's a sock. Took up this campaign right after Two Wrongs went silent. JNW (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 140.247.141.146's edits seem to suggest that he's intentionally trolling. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, between edits here, edits at his talk page, and pretending to block Morphzone. I've not looked into Two Wrongs, so this comment is irrelevant for his situation. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just to support JNW's account; as always he has been very patient on the talk page. I have added a shorter version of the text re the artist, with one pic instead of 4. That's more than adequate while Frida Kahlo and others remain just names in a big list - this is truly a poor article, especially at the end. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nyttend, and good work, as usual, Johnbod. Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've continued to engage at the article talk page [14], and though the rhetoric has, thankfully, tamped down, it's a barren exercise, and silly of me to pursue, given suspicions of a connection between Two Wrongs and the blocked IP. Do we have a policy regarding the foolishness of WP:AGF when it need not be assumed? JNW (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the behavior I've seen on the talk pages is certainly enough to stop applying WP:AGF and begin dealing with the behavior as it is. Intentionally disruptive, as well as aggressive. There's nothing in the policy that says AGF when the evidence all appears to point to BAD faith. I'm sure Two Wrongs may indeed have edited in good faith at first, but when he became aggressive over his edits, he entered the wrong.Khan Tiger (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Total lack of communication from Savannah College of Art and Design

The Savannah College of Art and Design has been working on an article at Interactive design. The result isn't bad, but it could be better. For instance, I would argue that Chris Crawford and Lisa Graham are given too much weight. Alas, despite my repeated requests, nobody on this school project is willing to engage in any discussion on the article talk page.

I am not sure what, if anything, should be done here. Just let them run open loop without any feedback from anyone not on the project? Start reverting the more questionable parts of the article with "please discuss on article talk page" in the edit comments? Ask to have the article fully protected for 24 hours to get their attention? (which would be a bit like killing a fly with a bulldozer...)

It somehow seems wrong that they have made one Wikipedia page into a walled garden where the only discussion / consensus is arrived at off-wiki in their classroom, but I cannot point to a specific policy that is being violated here.

Also see:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#Possible School Project

Talk:Interactive design#Savannah College of Art and Design?

Talk:Savannah_College_of_Art_and_Design#School_Project?

I am inclined to just unwatch the page and not worry about it, but i wanted to raise the question here first. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)]

Just deal with them as would any other editor - normally. Revert/edit anything you think is questionable and start discussion on talk page. If they still refuse to discuss anything there, worry about it at that point. Might as well teach them how to collaborate with other wikipedia editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. I will do that. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, skipping the "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." is definitely not what to do. A couple of these editors talk pages now consist solely of an ANI notice. It would have been much better to post the query at one of the pumps or the WP:HELPDESK. The article is being edited by a few established editors. Nobody Ent 13:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of having any grievances regarding this page or its editors. In fact, I specifically said that they are doing a pretty good job. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, ANI is the last place I'd want to invite a new editor as it's kind of Wikipedia at its worst. Nobody Ent 22:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Point well taken. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

USER:HowardStrong is spammer

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

---

HowardStrong (talk · contribs)

he only cares about bitcoin and not wikipedia as whole. please ban him permanently he is not constructive thanks--198.105.216.188 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HowardStrong. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Oversighter needed - whole section allegedly "outing" user at Political impact of Hurricane Sandy

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

---

Section on Global Warming. prefer not to include too much info, for obvious reasons, also don't care WHO (several possible), just that it gets taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous209.6 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I got beaten to it, but it's done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

If this is about the user who was interviewed by multiple media outlets about removing the GW info from the Hurricane Sandy article, the "outing" stuff is a bit overblown since he gave the info (his real name and WP username) to a national US magazine (Popular Science) among other places. I don't see much point to putting his name in the WP article on editorial grounds, but I wouldn't get jumpy with revdels, unless (at minimum) the person himself has requested them. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits by recently blocked user 41.243.171.14‎

41.243.171.14‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just come back from a 48-hour AN/I ban to make edits to Debi Gliori and an attack on Talk:Debi Gliori. Can you help out, please? Esowteric+Talk 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: "recently banned" should read "recently blocked". Lacking nicotine late in the evening, I unfortunately posted in haste. Esowteric+Talk 09:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My response on the user talk page:

"Hi, I've reverted your recent edit to Debi Gliori in which you deleted accurate and reliably sourced information from The Times with the edit summary " Editor has not even read the story, see his twitter, using an attention grabbing headline from a story you have not even read is not a NPOV." I have read the lead paragraphs to the article, as these do not require a subscription." See edit diff. The source confirms the Wiki content that the IP deleted. Esowteric+Talk 22:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Esowteric has made numerous postings as a Wiki editor at The Guardian, AbsoluteWrite.com, in which he has made unfounded accusations that I am involved with an involved party of Debi Gliori's Wiki page, he has while in the forum on Wiki business outed me. He has detailed his plan to "dilute the controversy" by posting book reviews, which is what Debi Gliori asked for in her blog. He is clearly on some sort of White Knight mission on behalf of Debi Gliori and has shown a clear conflict of interest. Not to mention the unfounded accusations he has made against me. He has also been telling people on twitter that he is monitoring me, using his web server skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it a little strange that you should have visited my blog, my dropbox account, my web site and my twitter account. Esowteric+Talk 22:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Put the IP under your pillow and the stalker fairy will bring you a dollar! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for lightening me up. Esowteric+Talk 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I said that I would dilute the controversy, because it was becoming WP:UNDUE. Please stop twisting everything. Visit my twitter or my blog. You won't find me calling you a troll anywhere. Esowteric+Talk 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You are so hopelessly involved in this page, you are stalking me, and you don't even see it, you enter a thread as a Wiki editor, you then reveal where thread users can get my IP from, you then spend the next 48 hours telling everyone that you're being attacked by the dark forces of the internet. What have I done in the last 48 hours ? read your messages rallying up the forces against evil. I adopt a peaceful wait and see, you incite others against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

All I linked to was the publicly-available edit history for the article. And my username and your IP are logged and displayed every time we edit. See the end of your comment above. Anyhow, I need to go to bed now. Esowteric+Talk 23:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Wiki rules Esowteric has posted information on his user page, my usernames at 2 other sites, this information can clearly be used to help identify me and users could contact me using this information which is in violation of; "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia."

None of the information he has posted was available via my userpage and is clearly an attempt along with his numerous other communications to incite others against me WP:OUTING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If User:Esowteric engaged in any outing of the IP here on the pages of Wikipedia, I have not come across it yet. Two of the IP's edits at Debi Gliori have been revision-deleted, which is usually not a good sign about the person who made the edits. The continuation of off-wiki disputes here on Wikipedia is discouraged. I've now read the contents of Debi Gliori#Controversy two or three times and am uncertain on whether it belongs in the article. I have trouble seeing the IP editor as a victim, at least if I limit my study to the visible edits by all parties here on Wikipedia. After reviewing the contents of this ANI, as well as the previous one here that involved an obvious legal threat by the IP, I suggest a longer block of the IP for disruption. The future of the Controversy section might need discussing at WP:BLP/N but that is independent of any outing issues. It's a question of relevance and of the type of material appropriate for inclusion in a BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N is an interesting idea and may provide an exit strategy from this mess. See Talk:Debi Gliori for the history of the controversy section. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 10:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• The IP was blocked not "banned". See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Esowteric has posted my usernames from two other forums on his personal talk page HERE ON WIKI, in your own rules you say this is a "personal attack" and can lead to "harm". I never gave Esowteric permission to reveal this information and he is clearly inciting others to harm me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You publicly acknowledged that this was you. I wholeheartedly apologize for any distress or harm that I have caused you, and I will learn from this lesson. However, I do not agree with you that it is "Debi Gliori and her army of fans who include J.K. Rowling" who have defamed and cyberbullied either the artist, Angus Stewart or you. Esowteric+Talk 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

IP should be reblocked. GoodDay (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we let this matter settle down, please?

The "involved party", artist Angus Stewart, recognizing the damage that this has done, has recently issued a heartfelt plea for the issue to settle down. Many people, including Debi Gliori are thankful and grateful for this manly approach:

He writes on his Facebook page for "Tobermory Cat":

"[Tobermory Cat] May we close this thread please. I would rather like things to settled down. It seems my idea to follow the process of creating a celebrity cat turns out to be an extremely dangerous and damaging idea. It has caused a great deal of hurt and I want no more of it. My understanding of what is and what is not acceptable is misguided. It has been extremely hurtful to Debi and she does not deserve it. I met her once and she does not deserve to be hurt by my work. I don’t like that. I am guilty of following an idea too far - the fog came down and I forgot about where I wanted to go. The good thing is Debi's book came out and its a good book and will give more pleasure to more people than this page will do if this is the way its going. Good things can come from difficult beginnings and truly hope that is the case for Debi’s book. I need a bit of time to think about this so if possible could everyone take a bit of a deep breath. Time to think about good stuff not bad. I would really appreciate that. Sunday [3 November 2012] at 12:20am · Edited · Unlike · 4"

Please can we allow this issue to settle down? Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What would you like to see, 41.243.171.14‎? No controversy section; the original allegations of copyright theft against Ms. Gliori, or the full story? Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 11:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

− Yes I did acknowledge this was me on the forum, which I believe was the best response in the circumstances, but it wasn't for you to post the identifying information without asking me first, you then reposted the information on your talkpage. I am not sure how you expect other editors to contribute to the Debi Gliori page if this is how you behave when someone makes edits you don't like. Another editor thinks the whole controversy page you added should be removed, are you going to add another section to your talkpage called "Intimidation II", out them and then twitter for help? I think you need to understand that comment sections on news sites and forums are just people's opinions and not a Wiki of the facts. If people cannot voice their opinions without fear of reprisals then freedom of speech is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for free speech and the right to respond to perceived errors. Perhaps the best thing for you to do here is to tell us what your opinions are of Ms. Gliori's behaviour (specifically the copyright issue and the cyberbullying). That is, after all, the crux of the matter. You argued, for example, in removed posts at The Guardian that Ms. Gliori had stolen copyright "ideas" and that her blog post was thoroughly "passive-aggressive". Regards and apologies again, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 11:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

From Talk:Debi Gliori: "Ms. Gliori's blog describes the first meeting as an epic battle. She claims he was digging into her life and lunged at her, both of which are absolute nonsense. She claims she "snapped" and that "Hugh dug his heals in" when they should have just left. She mocks the importance of Facebook in Mr. Stewart's life claiming that it's insignificant in hers. Then her official line is of a victim whose very existence is threatened by the internet. Maybe if she had stayed on topic about the idea that was or wasn't stolen instead of Mr. Stewart's character her argument would be sound. Instead she just goes to her mob of fans' lowest instincts, which is the very same accusation she makes against Mr. Stewart, both are guilty of appealing to their fans for action when they should have resolved the matter amongst themselves. It also seems that she was very hostile towards Mr. Stewart before he took any action against her. What should be noted is that this story has been made into an issue of cyber-bullying by the press and not copyright and Ms. Gliori seems, so far, quite happy to go along with this. I think that it's important to note that the current flavour of the month for the press is "Cyber-bullying" and editors should be wary of any bias in the press because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC) " via Esowteric+Talk 13:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you like to express your opinion on the copyright issue, as this is absolutely crucial to the case? Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

From Talk:Debi Gliori: ""Attacked by internet troll" should fall under Godwin's Law, it's just too easy to label anything you don't like as a "troll". Is it really immoral or evil to accuse someone of theft if you believe it to be true? If a wiki page reports someone as having been viciously trolled, does that actually explain what happened ? Not really, only that the writer believed it to be immoral and disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC) " via Esowteric+Talk 13:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The copyright issue was explained at great length at Copyright – words and images, not ideas, titles or cats and later at AbsoluteWrite, by writing professionals. Esowteric+Talk 14:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of copyright it's worth noting that the publisher/book seller/author talk as if the cat were still alive, prior to the author writing her book, the cat alive was The Tobermory Cat of Mr. Stewart. Also the author describes the cat they were going to write the book about "even has it's own Facebook page". So if the real cat was dead what other cat could they possibly be talking about. I really think that the evidence at hand shows that the publisher/book seller/author intended writing about Mr. Stewart's cat(fictional creation), and as Mr. Stewart has pointed out there were many other similarities, of his creating, that appeared in drafts by the author. The author also admitted she had to go to the island to find more about the cat, but it was dead, so it's likely she could have injected some of Mr. Stewart's creation from talking to the locals as some of Mr. Stewart's observations of the cat must have already made it into local folklore. I don't think The Tobermory cat belongs to Mr. Stewart but they have obviously used some of his fictional creation and that is why they visited Mr. Stewart in the first place. Their original claims that they only knew he was taking photos of the cat are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

All we can go on is what is reported in reliable and verifiable sources. This is why I used the words "unproven allegations" (with intentional redundancy), rather than simply "allegations" (whereby mud might stick) and obviously, I could not use the words "unfounded allegations" (as Wikipedia is not a court of law). Esowteric+Talk 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If anything is said other than "Debi Gliori and Mr. Stewart are involved in a bitter copyright dispute" it would be unreliable. "Viciously attacked by internet trolls" is journalist-speak for "Don't let my career die behind this pay-wall", if you use this then we will have to start talking about troll massacres in describing other events. The word troll is now used to describe anything that offends anyone on the internet, so what she's really saying is "Viciously attacked by words they didn't like" which simplifies to "offended". Is this TMZ or Wiki ?

I also fail to understand what a cat that lived in the previous century, or two that lived in a distillery have to do with this dispute, both parties base their dispute on a cat that died recently and one's living. This is not The Tobermory Cat Wiki page is it? Why is there a discussion of other cats of the same name ? Neither of their works are based on these cats or am I missing a source because it was her army of internet fans that came up with this information after the fact and Ms Gliori makes no mention of it in the design process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Good morning! The copyright dispute depends on the artist Angus Stewart having produced a substantially original creation about a cat named "Tobermory" or "Tobermory Cat" that is copyrightable, an issue that has been extensively argued on-line by writing professionals.

The lead paragraph of the controversy section is there to provide background information to introduce the controversy section and put it in perspective, and to add counterbalance to the allegations.

It is up to the reader to then decide for himself or herself whether others might have come up with the idea of a cat called Tobermory, made him famous, or whether the actual living cat Tobermory was already well known; or whether Mr. Stewart had come up with a substantially original creation. This is much better than leading with the otherwise provocative and unexplained paragraph "In 2011–12, Debi Gliori was at the centre of a disagreement about copyright surrounding a character named "Tobermory Cat" ..." Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 09:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You may want to take this back to a POV/attack entry alleging copyright infringement against Debi Gliori, with no rebuttal, redress or counterbalance, but that is not how Wikipedia works. See first edit, later edit. The problem with words like "allegedly stole" and the selective use of citations is that mud sticks and you have to be proactive to counterbalance that. Esowteric+Talk 09:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Jfgsloeditor

Can an admin have a look at Jfgsloeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their contributions, may need a CU to work out which of the MMA socks it is. Mtking ^(edits) 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, do you know which this perpetrated user comes from a banned editor? ApprenticeFan ^work 08:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry no I don't for sure, perm one form about 3 or 4. Mtking ^(edits) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• It should be looked into, as their sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to attempt to do a lot of bad faith AfD nominations for America's Next Top Model related articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• First off, according the checkuser page, that tool is not to be used for fishing. So, unless you think I am some specific other editor, they don't just check accounts on hunches based on their guidelines. Second, does America's Next Top Model really need that many pages? Isn't this a serious encyclopedia? Why is not just an article about the show sufficient? We're not talking about some show with the kind of number one ratings as American Idol or something. --Jfgsloeditor (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

BLP issues at Ref Desk

I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this question for me: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Serious_question... Looks to me like some serious BLP issues inherent in the question (and trolling?), but I'm rather tired and am therefore unsure if I'd handle it correctly myself. --Dweller (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

An editor has rightly zapped it. It's a speculative question anyway, but explicitly naming public figures is over the line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't trolling. I will ask the question again, without naming any particular individuals.--Monopoly on Truth (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't classify that question as trolling. The naming of specific people was unnecessary, but they are so frequently accused of homophobia by the media (documented in our own articles on them) that I don't consider it a serious BLP issue. Cutting that out and looking at the substance of the question, he prefaces his curiosity with the claim that homophobes are more turned on by homosexuals, which is actually an entire field of psychological study, so I don't think it's obvious trolling. The question should probably just be restored without the names. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me, Someguy1221. Just because I am asking a question on a topic which could be controversial doesn't mean that I'm trolling.--Monopoly on Truth (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Speculating on what salacious stuff some specific public figure might like in their private life, based on nothing but some general statistical study, is not appropriate. Not necessarily trolling, but ill-advised, and we're confident that Mr. Truth won't repeat that mistake in future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for administrative review of Toddst1's actions toward user:Dr.K.

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

---

I reverted the addition of the term FYROM from the article of Greece three times because the term FYROM has been restricted in Greece-related articles after lengthy arbcom processes per WP:ARBMAC and long divisive discussions on the matter. I then got a warning on my talk by Toddst1 and after I tried to explain to Toddst1 that I thought I was in full compliance of Arbcom decisions and related matters, Toddst1 (talk · contribs) revoked my rollback privilege because I used the rollback function once and logged it in the ARBMAC logs. I find this treatment for trying to abide by and uphold Arbcom WP:ARBMAC and related decisions on the highly abused topic of the FYROM onomatology, extremely unfair and dispiriting for those trying to uphold the decisions of the community and its highest body Arbcom and I am requesting that Toddst1's actions be reversed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any mention in the linked ArbCom decision prohibiting FYROM from the Greece article. Revoking of privileges should be for abusing them, not disagreeing with admin. Toddst1 warned Dr. K. at 19:30; Dr. K. made no further edits to Greece after the warning. While I concur with Toddst1 that Dr. K. was edit warring, the removal of rollback seems unreasonable. Nobody Ent 01:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nobody Ent. FYROM is a very insulting term for the Republic of Macedonia. If you look at the history of the article and the talkpage of Greece you will see many such edits and requests to change the name to FYROM summarily reverted. There has been a lengthy and divisive community debate on the naming dispute and the decision was to ban the use of the name FYROM. I have to ask Future Perfect for advice because I don't remember the correct acronyms. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) states: "This guideline is a result of a centralised discussion process instigated by the Arbitration Committee following the "Macedonia 2" case (see navigation sidebar for sub-pages where the discussion took place.) Its resulting consensus was determined by three administrators Fritzpoll (talk · contribs), J.delanoy (talk · contribs), and Shell Kinney (talk · contribs), who were named as referees by the Arbitration Committee." [emph. mine]

So yes, an arbitration ruling (ARBMAC 2) was enforced here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Lothar for finding these decisions. I know them well because I also participated. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) Toddst1's actions here are, in my opinion, utterly unacceptable. Dr.K was operating in full good-faith under the spirit of the ARBMAC 2 decision, and Kupraios was informed of why his actions were unacceptable several times (after revert 1; after revert 2), choosing instead to continue to push his POV. Should Dr.K have used edit summaries? Probably, but WP:ROLLBACK states that the tool is to be used "where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear", and I believe it was made crystal clear why the reversions were made. Toddst1 deserves a slippery fish to the kisser, and Dr.K should have rollback restored and the removal stricken from the ARBMAC logs. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Nobody Ent And by the way, I reverted the name FYROM out of respect for the community decision not to use the term on Wikipedia and out of respect for the users who hail from the Republic of Macedonia who I know find the term insulting. If I were pushing the FYROM POV I would understand to be sanctioned but I find it ironic that I am sanctioned for upholding these commonsense principles. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LvR and NE here. Toddst1's actions towards Dr.K. were over the top, and rollback should be returned. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have checked this out as well and agree that Toddst1's removal of rollback should be reversed and the logged action stricken. -- Dianna (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I will also lodge support for Dr. K here, as that exact issue led to my protection of the same article in the lead-up to ARBMAC2. Toddst1 was undoubtedly acting in good faith, but he was wrong, and I would ask that he restore Dr. K's rollback and strike or purge the log entry. Horologium (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I wanted to add that as an upholder of the Arbcom-sponsored community decisions I got logged as an ARBMAC violator but the FYROM POV-pusher who got blocked and who repeatedly trampled over the Arbcom-sponsored community consensus did not get logged. That must be one of the benefits of being a longstanding and good-faith editor here I guess. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also got to say that in my six and a half years here I have never been close to being abused by an administrator and I have held all of them to the same respect they have demonstrated toward me repeatedly over the years. This is the first time that I understand what is meant by abuse of authority on Wikipedia. I just hope that this was not the intent of Toddst1 but rather a simple misunderstanding of the mechanics of ARBMAC2. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok guys. Just checking back in here. From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), "Editors are reminded that all contentious edits touching upon Macedonia naming practices also continue to be subject to a 1RR restriction. In cases covered by this guideline, editors reinstating the version conforming to it are not subject to this restriction." I was not aware of that and when I politely approached Dr. K, was pointed to WP:ARBMAC, not that naming convention. Had Dr. K pointed me towards the naming convention, I would have taken very different actions. My approach was to discuss with K, before any action. Given the snarkyness of the last revert, "Rv clueless edit" in all good faith on my part, it seemed like a classic ARBMAC edit war. Given the additional info, I'll restore the rollback (i.e. not clear vandalism), but it was clearly not appropriate to use rollback here (i.e. not clear vandalism), nor was the discussion with the editor yielding useful information. Toddst1 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see Lothar's comment above: Should Dr.K have used edit summaries? Probably, but WP:ROLLBACK states that the tool is to be used "where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear", and I believe it was made crystal clear why the reversions were made. It was a crystal-clear reason why I reverted: To follow the Arbcom-sponsored ARBCOM2 decision. Your restoration of my rollback using your caution as if I made a mistake using it is wrong. You did not remove your entry from the ARBMAC logs either. That is simply not satisfactory. As far as notifying you of ARBMAC2 I did not remember the exact acronym but that is no reason to sanction me so severely. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of rollback was inappropriate in part since Kupraios is a new editor and rollback was bitey. If it's just one incident then the error doesn't rise to the level of removing the tool from Dr.K., but Dr.K. should be advised to put more effort into dialogue (and revert manually if needed) if such a situation arises again. Kupraios is currently blocked and the engagement by admins with Kupraios's unblock requests is also less than ideal in my opinion. It would be better to spend a few sentences (electrons are cheap) explaining that there was a long, drawn-out group decision to not use FYROM; that the decision itself could in principle be changed through even more discussion, but it's not ok to just do it unilaterally, etc. In short, wp:don't bite the newbies and offer the person some coaching instead. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This has apparently been mostly settled now, with Dr.K.'s rollback restored, but just a few quick comments: First, Dr.K. deserves recognition for helping to uphold a community consensus, not out of his own political motives and preferences, but out of respect for the community decision (I'm pretty sure the WP:NCMAC rules aren't the ones he would have personally favoured). Second, it's a bit unfortunate that the relevant Arbcom decisions got mixed up in the communication, both with Kupraios and with Toddst; the relevant Arbcom rule is not ARBMAC, but WP:ARBMAC2#All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned (Kupraios was in breach of that 1RR, while edits such as Dr.K.'s are explicitly exempt from it.) Finally, a reminder that {{Uw-1rrMac}} is helpful for notifying new users such as Kupraios of these conditions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur with recognition but the execution was poor; none of Dr K's edit summaries referenced ARBMACn and there was nothing on the article talk page. The body of ArbCom's work is massive and it should not be expected that editors (even admins) have it memorized. Any editor invoking a topic specific rr exception should make it explicitly clear in either the edit summary or preferrably the article talk page the circumstances of the exemption. Nobody Ent 11:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nobody Ent but there was no need for taking it to the talkpage of Greece. The article is chronically plagued from the FYROM issue. The regulars revert FYROM on sight there. Just ask FPaS. I also informed the other party on their talk about ARBMAC. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the Ent - when you undo any type of edit due to ArbComm decisions, you must specifically note that in the edit summary - period. Otherwise, you a) look just as guilty as the other party, b) are not farily advising the other party, c) are begging for a block of your own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Now try to get me on a technicality. I guess from now on I have to remember all the arcane acronyms, years after they were created and quote them like an incantation to avoid bad spirits. Meanwhile the sanctioning admins don't have to remember these landmark decisions. That's real luxury. The FYROM case is really famous. There is no excuse not to remember this landmark and famous acronym which has constantly continued to harass these articles. Toddst1 even told me on my talkpage that he has executed many actions over ARBMAC yet he did not know on his own about ARBMAC2. How can anyone log an ARBMAC action of any version without knowing full well the ARBMAC suite of decisions? The irony is the blocked party did not get his action logged under ARBMAC. Meanwhile the rollback restoration on my rights log is under a cloud. Instead of the acknowledgment that FPaS is calling for, I am being "cautioned on my rights log not to revert "not clear vandalism" despite this being a clear-cut case of upholding the spirit of Arbcom and community decisions on ARBMAC and being exempt under rollback. I want this caution removed from my rights log. As a "side benefit" to Toddst1's warning about edit-warring to me, I also get opportunistic calls on my talkpage by POV-pushing accounts taunting me about edit-warring. This is a really nice day to be a law-abiding, Arbcom-supporting, community decision upholding, nationalist POV-suppressing Wikipedian. FPaS is also right: I did not fully agree with ARBMAC2 but now that it is the rule here, as a Wikipedian I choose to uphold it and enforce it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"The blocked party" didn't edit once after your ARBMAC warning - that's why it wasn't logged - it wasn't an ARBMAC block. To be an ARBMAC block you have to warn someone about ARBMAC first. In this case, we have not evidence that the editor knew it existed when s/he was making the edits and Dr.K was less than helpful in interacting with him/her. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I gave the editor a 3RR warning followed by an ARBMAC warning on his talkpage. Why do you assert these actions were less than helpful? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need an extra undo button/tool for "ArbComm Enforcement" that prompts you with a dropdown list of the various ArmComm jurisprudence decisions :-) You're fine upholding it (and it's appreciated), but by definition, ArbComm enforcement != vandalism reversion and thus rollback cannot be used (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you BW for your nice comments, but rollback can be used in clear-cut cases other than vandalism. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's review what WP:ROLLBACK actually says.

Misconception #1: Rollback is for vandalism only

To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear

Misconception #2: Tools [15] using the rollback function are subject to the exact same rules as simple rollback

If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary …, then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.

As I have stated before, Dr.K. could have been more specific than using the Twinkle "revert good faith" summary, but given the fact that Kupraios was given direct warnings after each revert about why his actions were in the wrong (and acknowledging the first notification, showing that he does understand how talkpages work), this is nitpicky. In fact, full talkpage posts are probably better than a character-limited edit summary. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way I did advise the other party on their talk about ARBMAC specifically because I did not do it in my edit summary. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to get anyone on a technically. Given the scope of all the arbcom cases expecting that any case is famous enough that every user will know it is just going to lead to frustration. I concur the summary on the rollback restoration is inappropriate; for one thing, rollback can be used for reverting other than vandalism if an appropriate edit summary is provided: If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. Nobody Ent 13:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point Ent about the myriad of decisions by Arbcom and thank you for your comment about the summary of the rollback restoration. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of referencing arbmac[n] or not referencing it, and more a matter of getting into an actual conversation with the person instead of coming across bristling with bureaucracy and threats. Dr.K.'s diff[[16] is IMHO quite unwelcoming to someone who had made only 20 or so edits before getting mixed up in that situation. What I'm trying to urge is for everyone to use a bit more diplomacy. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I believe there is a formal template warning that could have been used, I see nothing offensive in the personal warning that you link to above - it's diplomatic yet firm - the level of severity is definitely emphasized (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the lengthy history of the FYROM POV-pushing and the fast-paced edit-warring this account engaged in, I think my warning captured the proper level of firmness required to make the user comply with Wikipedia norms. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Sowlos's posts[17] are more diplomatic. Unless you think Kupraios is socking/meatpuppeting (in which case you should say so), it's best to to assume (WP:AGF) that the person has no clue about what Wikipedia norms are, what arbmac is, what arbitration is, what consensus is, what kinds of lengthy discussions went into the collective decision to not write "FYROM", etc. and that it's a sufficiently contentious area that they can't just follow their instincts without getting into trouble pretty quickly. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sowlos' second message arrived after the whole disruption was over and the editor was blocked. The circumstances were different and there was no more disruption being caused. Sowlos' first message had no effect whatsoever in the behaviour of the editor. I gave him a 3RR warning after Sowlos' first message with no effect either. You have to remember that when the disruption is occurring at a fast pace of edit-warring by an editor pushing known POV buttons you must act in a way to minimise disruption. The user kept on going even after my very appropriate 3RR warning, so I had to give a subsequent ARBMAC warning. They needed an appropriately firm, and proportional to the disruption being caused, message at the time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sowlos notified Kupraios (08:26, 5 November 2012) of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) following your first revert (03:51, 5 November 2012). Kupraios then responded to Sowlos (23:46, 5 November 2012), thereby acknowledging the notice received, proceeding then to revert you twice thereafter (23:58, 5 November 2012, 00:13, 6 November 2012). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Lothar. Indeed. The editor kept reverting well past Sowlos' first message and both my 3RR and first ARBMAC messages. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr. K's rollback privilege has been restored, the edit-warring editor who kept re-inserting an term against well established consensus is blocked, and Dr. K's received feedback on how to possibly avoid similar misunderstandings in the future. Per the Pareto principle, I think we've past the 20% of discussion which is going to provide 80% of the benefit. Perhaps it's time for a close? Nobody Ent 17:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly agree except for one thing: The edit summary on my user rights log: (restoring rollback per discussion, with caution not to use rollback in non-vandalism cases). I don't accept that caution. It was a clear-cut issue and according to WP:ROLLBACK, use is allowed in clear-cut cases. I would request that this caution be erased. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't at all clear to me and you certainly weren't sufficiently communicative when I messaged you. If there's doubt as to why you're using it, it is inappropriate to use rollback- which is how we got here in the first place. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing unclear about ARBMAC2 and about clearcut cases such as this for using rollback. I told you about ARBMAC and you will have to forgive me I forgot the "2" as in ARBMAC2. I thought that was protection enough, given that most admins are quite knowledgeable about such things. I didn't know that I had to come up with the exact chapter and verse and you never gave me a second chance or more time anyway to defend myself for defending Wikipedia. I was busy saving Judith Donath from PROD and I was working into making it a DYK so perhaps I didn't leave as many explanations as I could have. But you told me yourself you specialise in ARBMAC blocks. It would seem that you should have investigated a little more or given me more time to explain things to you or to try to find the information for you by asking FPaS or someone else knowledgeable about ARBMAC. Instead you rushed to revoke my rollback and log me like a wiki-criminal in the ARBMAC logs within minutes. You should not log ARBMAC actions or revoke privileges without having a clear understanding of the regulations or ramifications of ARBMAC and without giving your targets some time to find the information they need to defend themselves. You should not have tried to summarily execute these actions against me. As a longstanding and good-faith Wikipedian I do not deserve to be treated so summarily and brutally. And if nothing else I deserve to be treated with more courtesy and AGF, especially if you are about to blemish my record logs forever. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that I have "targets" is not helping your case. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, how did you take my rollback and logged me into ARBMAC logs in minutes? I can just envision you sitting with your admin tools pressing your buttons to effect my logs forever. Aim! Click! There goes the plebeian! If that's not targeting I don't know what is. Did you give me any chance for a proper and respectful discussion to present my case? Judging from your curt and threatening replies on my talk and your rocket-grade speed to revoke my rollback and log me at ARBMAC, not so much. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is clear from Arbmac2, and from Lothar's post above mentioning Kupraios' response to Sowlos, etc. that Kupraios's editing did not live up to the expectations that we reasonably have of experienced editors working in these areas. The whole idea of WP:BITE is that our expectations of experienced editors don't apply (at least in full force) to inexperienced ones. The "edit warring" is something we see all the time from newbies who see their edits reverted and treat reversion as if they're dealing with a malfunctioning piece of software (so they keep making the edit again, or otherwise try to beat their way past the malfunction) instead of editing collaboratively (treating their fellow editors as humans and interacting using normal human courtesy). WP:AGF applies even in this situation, and therefore treating the edits as vandalism is inappropriate.

I do appreciate Dr.K.'s sticking with the Arbmac naming convention and his/her trying to bring Kupraios around to doing the same thing, but if one doesn't have time to interact with another editor properly, it's preferable to describe the situation neutrally on a noticeboard (AN3 for this, I guess) and let someone else deal with it. And I'm not trying to pick on Dr.K. specifically, since as already mentioned, I see most of the other responses (other than Sowlos') as also leaving things to be desired.

I see the arbmac log has been updated to mention Dr.K's rollback is restored; this seems ok to me. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I did not treat the edits as vandalism. I treated them as a crystal-clear case of an undesirable edit as provided by the "other" acceptable uses of rollback. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am astonished that anyone could think that a posting like this[18] was reasonable. The link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia displays a page that most people would not be able to understand. Maybe User talk:Dr.K. should have a block for his/her conduct.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol. спасибо. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Let us look at your recent interactions with User:Kupraios:

• Greece 03:51, 5 November 2012 (Reverted good faith edits by Kupraios (talk).
• Greece 00:02, 6 November 2012 m (Reverted edits by Kupraios (talk) to last version by SeoMac)
• User talk:Kupraios 00:03, 6 November 2012 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Greece. (TW★TW))
• User talk:Kupraios 00:05, 6 November 2012 (→‎WP:ARBMAC: new section)
• User talk:Kupraios 00:14, 6 November 2012 (→‎WP:ARBMAC: added)
• Greece 00:17, 6 November 2012 (Reverted 1 edit by Kupraios (talk): Rv clueless edit. (TW★TW))
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism 00:20, 6 November 2012 (Reporting Kupraios. (TW★TW))

Both Dr.K. and Kupraios were edit warring. Dr.K. made no effort to explain why he/she was reverting Kupraios's edits to the article on Greece. The link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia was not a reasonable explanation, because most people would not be able to understand it - I think the most they could get from it would be: "do not edit articles on Greece or you may be blocked".

Kupraios did attempt to discuss his/her edits with another editor User talk:Sowlos 23:47, 5 November 2012, and he/she tried to provide citations 00:13, 6 November 2012. Both of these are behaviours that we want to encourage editors to do. It is not obvious that he/she displayed the "battleground mentality" that Dr.K. claimed he/she did when he/she made the posting on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

On the other hand Dr.K. is displaying a battleground mentality, both in his/her interactions with Kupraios and his/her interactions with Toddst1, and comes across as bullying.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr.K. was "edit warring"? Nonsense: Editors enforcing a case where a binding #Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR. Please educate yourself on the relevant arbitration before making ignorant statements. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I just struck my humorous reply above because I no longer think you are joking. Your ridiculous accusations are in fact a joke unto themselves so I will not reply to your ridiculous comments. They simply don't deserve any attention, other than to advise you to cease your unjustifiable personal attacks and uncivil comments toward me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not a joke, they're about the same as I observed them. You should take the feedback much more seriously. You're pretty far from being without culpability here. You seem to have missed that. Toddst1 (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the kind of culpability? Is it upholding the Arbcom decisions? What exactly is this you are alleging? This user is calling for my block for leaving an ARBMAC message on the other editor's talkpage. You came to my talkpage to assure me Toddy1 is not you and you called his accusations ridiculous. Now you are subscribing to them and his personal attacks? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. So. Here's my take: Toddst1 treated an established editor striving in good faith to maintain NPOV and ArbCom rulings with a heavy-handed, bullish disrespect. I have difficulty assuming much of either good faith or clue on his part. Dr.K. turned up the heat a little too high on a (POV-pushing) newbie and had the hot coals thrown at him as a result. At this point, Dr.K. feels personally wronged by Toddst1, and demands nothing short of a good-faithed full apology and admission of fault. This has not been forthcoming, and Dr.K. has been clearly getting more and more upset as a result. I would kindly suggest that both users log off for the night and drop the matter before this gets further out of hand. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)While not making a comment on the rights/wrongs here on either side, I do support the last part of Lothar von Richthofen's statement, there is no benefit that can come of keeping this open and feel that the best thing for both sides is for this to be put to bed now. Mtking ^(edits) 00:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with most of Lothar's comments except that I am not looking for an apology. I am simply looking for my rights log to be expunged from the "caution" statement which Toddst1 added which is completely unwarranted and false and it only serves to malign my record for the sake of saving face for Toddst1 and nothing more. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, out of respect for Lothar and his request, as well as for Mtking and his comment, I will follow their advice and not add anything more here tonight. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a risk that this thread will go on forever. I suggest that this be closed. Many of us have now been enlightened on obscure policy points that we may have forgotten. Experienced contributors may sometimes be sensitive when they are sanctioned for any reason; this is understandable. People commenting here don't have to agree with the correctness of everything done recently to want this to be closed. Please be generous and save the electrons. Insisting on an apology usually doesn't work. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thread can close, Lothar's comment is well-thought-out and accurate. I'd support changing "cautioned" to "advised" in the permission log entry if that's doable. We have too much damn drama about these logs anyway and it's not at all clear to me that it helps the encyclopedia. I was thinking of suggesting in the civility RFC that they be erased on request after a few months. No idea if that will get any uptake and this isn't the right place to go into it though. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki harassment by User:Euroflux

After his recent block and my proposals to delete/rename two of his categories here, User:Euroflux is now harassing me on the Dutch, German, and Italian Wikipedias, ferreting out my real-life identity (not all that well hidden, I guess, given that I originally edited under my real name and only had my account renamed to avoid exactly this kind of behavior) and accusing me of "proven" sockpuppetry, hounding and blocking him here, destroying his work, etc. etc. Is there a central point to report this behavior, or do I have to deal with this at each WP separately? Any advice is welcome. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You can request it at each Wikipedia separately, or you can request a global block at meta:Steward requests/Global. Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about the standards for applying a global block. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on the Dutch wiki's admin page, that's about all that I can do with my limited denkraam. Guillaume, if I need to support any statement on some meta wiki, just tell me. It's time this ends. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

An admin could help by blocking User:Euroflux from editing his English Wikipedia talk page—User talk:Euroflux—where he is also carrying on this campaign. First Light (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppet block needed

On November 1, Eurobacfiasco (talk · contribs) began adding polemic statements regarding some supposed controversy regarding the 2012 European Baccalaureate program (example diff). The account's edits were all reverted, and the account was subsequently blocked [19]. Yesterday, a sockpuppet of this account, Eurofactoid (talk · contribs), showed up attempting to force the content back in again as "fact". The edits have been undone, the account remains unblocked. I did not take this to WP:AIV, as it is 24+ hours old, but the account does need to be blocked. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked. GiantSnowman 15:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser shows no additional socks - Alison ^❤ 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Accused sockpuppet making massive edits, SPI backlog preventing investigation

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 is on hold because User:DeltaQuad requested more information. However, that was a couple of days ago and even though additional evidence has been provided, DQ has not been on Wikipedia since requesting it. In the meantime, User:Paniraja (the accused sockpuppet) has been making some massive edits here and here now that Polytechnic Institute of New York University has become unprotected. These edits, by the way, are similar to the edits by the puppetmaster. Can another admin review this case? SPI has a backlog. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok,  Done - Alison ^❤ 17:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Peter Lilley and Michael Portillo

Peter Lilley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Michael Portillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles (and the talk pages) about two prominent British public figures are currently subject to WP:BLP violations which are poorly sourced. Philip Cross (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What specific violations? Being poorly sourced is, alas, an issue with 99% of articles, BLP or not. GiantSnowman 17:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They are being named in blogs in relation to the Wales child abuse scandal. Both pages need to be protected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They are not the only articles being hit like this. I have revdeleted the offending edits on both articles and added them to my watchlist. Bencherlite^Talk 17:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now protected Peter Lilley (3 weeks) and Talk:Peter Lilley (24 hours). More eyes on the articles of leading UK Conservative politicians from the Thatcher era welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 18:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Portillo? Unusual choice... Already have the more prominent ones on my watchlist. But this is going to continue across lots of tory MP bios until the politician involved is publicly named. This could take awhile due to the gag order on naming in the UK. Hopefully a non-UK RS will print something soon so the focus can be narrowed. Until then its just going to have to be dealt with as/when they show up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Article review of X-ray pulsar-based navigation and behavior of User:Navman101

• X-ray pulsar-based navigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Navman101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Navman2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm tired of engaging in an edit war with this particular user on the X-ray pulsar article. While I'd love to have whatever sources this editor is using, this editor seems to not have a clue about Wikipedia policies and this particular page smells like a copyvio (for a great many reasons, not the least of which is the size of the edit). I would like an admin to investigate this page and take appropriate action against this user... particularly since he has already been warned about this particular issue but continues to even revert edits. I wouldn't even object to a temporary page block here if it would drive the point home to this user. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the cut-and-paste copyright infringement again and given the user a much sterner warning. If it happens again, I will block him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this user has moved onto sockpupptry and is at it again. At this point, I think it is time to bring out the ban-hammer as this guy just doesn't seem to get it. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

48 hours to Navman101. Navman2012 is indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeat spammer

117.27.138.86 (talk · contribs) has created several new talk pages with a series of spam links. These are the user's only contributions. Since the user is spamming Template talk and other low-traffic pages, these could stay for a long time. I think a block is in order, and all the talk pages created have been nominated for speedy delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I filed a report at the spam blacklist. - John Galt ✉ 19:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

IP address vandal

IP User 76.178.160.125 just made a vandalizing edit to the page Frank L. VanderSloot dif. The user's only other contributions are two acts of vandalism Fiona Apple's page (dif and dif). Andrew (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Why didn't you take this to WP:AIV? Go Phightins! 20:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Dapopewarrior

This offensively-named user has done nothing but create trivial articles which were all speedily-deleted, committed plagiarism, and is now engaged in vandalism (see [20]). Does the building really need to be ablaze to put out the fire? Quis separabit? 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that is vandalism. Edits in good faith are never vandalism and that appears to be in good faith to me. As far as the deleted articles go, I'm not seeing why the editor needs to be blocked over that. They've mostly had some sort of claim to notability. In fact, one of the speedied I'd even argue should've gone to AfD. Not saying your concern isn't valid, but I think a block is too much. This user needs guidance.--v/r - TP 20:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I cannot access speedydeletes so I don't know what the articles consisted of. I have been an editor since 2005, and my instincts tell me his edits are not being done in good faith. Look, I know I am nobody to throw stones, but I think you are being naive. Did you see the photo on his userpage in which he is doing an apparent imitation of the Anthony Weiner underwear Twitter scandal, which resulted in that congressman's departure (hopefully forever) from public life? -- what kind of editor uploads their underwear clad butt to Wikipedia in good faith? Quis separabit? 21:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This looks needlessly harsh upon an editor who only joined Wikipedia about three weeks ago. Please Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Assistance in the ins and outs about Wikipedia (and sourcing!!) might be better then biting him. The Banner _talk 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

IP legal threat SPA

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

2.96.223.131 needs a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed notice on editor and Ip blocked 1 year pending outcome.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Non admin claiming to be an admin

Warter_199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Warter 199 (who is being investigated as a sockpuppet of a rather prolific sockpuppeteer) starts off by filling in his userpage with templates claiming he's an admin. He's made additional edits since then, still keeping the admin templates.

Obviously, he is not an admin. At the very least he needs to know that the template he's using doesn't make him an admin, and considering his only other edits are in line with a long-term sockpuppeteer... I'll let someone else decide, but it's pretty clear what I think since I filed an SPI. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they copy pasted tweaked someone else's user page? I removed the admin stuff from their page. Nobody Ent 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. If the other behavior didn't match a sockpuppeteer who's claimed to work for the government and for companies he's written about, I'd have just assumed that, removed it myself, and notified him of it. Given that other behavior, his failure to remove those templates after editing his user page four more times has me wanting a few more eyes on him. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You properly filed an SPI report, and it's been confirmed that he's a sock; it's just awaiting administrative closure.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement of intent to go against consensus, followed by that action

User:Beleg Strongbow stated here on his talk page that he was aware that he did not have consensus to incorporate his preferred version of the article Maafa 21, but that he was going to put it in "anyway". (He has been working on his version for weeks, and there has been a lot of discussion about how it is irrelevant, incorrect, misleading, inappropriate, filled with synthesis, original research and undue weight.) About three hours later, he indeed posted his version and was reverted 90 minutes later by Roscelese. He quickly reverted to restore his version. This is clearly disruptive editing following a declaration to engage in disruptive editing. Note that the article is under 1RR sanctions because it is within the general topic of abortion. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User notified. Also, I reverted his massive edit. I'm not terribly sure he understands how consensus works, so someone may need to break that down for him. Ishdarian 03:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for notifying him; I should have done that.

I'm not so sure he is innocent of knowledge about how consensus works. His obstinacy looks purposeful to me. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My intent has not been to disrupt legitimate editing or to undermine legitimate consensus. I have sought consensus, continually asking for assistance from Binksternet and Roscelese. Please look through the multiple conversation threads and judge for yourself, but I feel that I have been acting in good faith and have made many concessions, based upon feedback. In the end, I was simply tired of being bullied and concluded that consensus was never one of their goals. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

quick revdel please

this [21] - and my following revert (should have thought about what I was doing :( ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't quick but I deleted it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

An IP has changed hundreds of politicians' birthplaces to historically incorrect place names

Over the last few days User talk:67.49.49.195 has changed the birthplaces of hundreds of politicians (it looks like mostly Africans and Europeans) to the current place names of cities/countries/provinces/etc. which are historiclly incorrect - for example he/she changed Salva Kiir Mayardit's birth country to South Sudan which did not exist at the time. The name changes in most cases also result in the incorrect place article to be linked. These edits violate WP:MOSBIO. In many (most?) cases the articles are subject to BLP rules thus AIUI remedial action is urgent. (The editor concerned has been notified.) Roger (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just issued a final warning. A temporary block will follow. --Tone 08:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, could someone go through the edits and revert them? --Tone 08:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted some but it's too many to check at the moment. --Tone 09:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2)The IP is not responding at all to multiple attempts to get their attention - can someone please block this editor to limit the ongoing damage to WP and force him/her to attend to this attempt to discussand resolve the issue. As it is, reverting the edits is going to be a large job, I've done a few but I do actually have a life outside of WP. Roger (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the final warning posted by Tone has put the brakes on the IP's editing. Is the there an accepted method for mass reverting the edits? Roger (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully, it hasn't. One week block. Mass revert makes sense, not sure how to do it, though. Bot? --Tone 09:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I started going through the contributions list but started random sampling, and I think a lot of them have been reverted by various editors chipping in, as I couldn't find one that hadn't been changed. Will check again later but well done, people. Britmax (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, still some to do. Britmax (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:MASSROLLBACK might have been useful :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was going to say that, until I encountered this user's edits to Kailash Purryag. The one I undid was obviously bad, this one was alright, and the validity of that one depepends on whether you like red links in your infoboxes (I don't care and have no reason to, so I've left it alone). Graham87 10:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)