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

This user is being reported for contravention of the following policies despite repeated advice from various editors.

• WP:OUTING This diff [1] posted to my talk page implies that I am a "senior" person connected with "Humjanenge" organisation. When I requested [2] him on his talk page to explain it, he immediately blanked his talk page [3].

(NB: As per the policy (and to protect my privacy) it is immaterial if the alleged "outing" is true or false, and I am not required to confirm or deny the truth of it).

• WP:DELTALK and WP:CSD Another editor had advised this user (on the user's talk page) to respect my edits / revert on page India Against Corruption which is locked (on my request). The user gave a TLDR reply. I also gave a short request [4] to him to correct his edit which had disrupted the formatting of the concerned talk page. His response to these was to blank his talk page and place a WP:CSD template. When I undid his blanking (to preserve the record of our disputes), he insisted it was my talk page and blanked it again [5]. I explained WP:DELETE and CSD / G7 to him indicating my tolerance was running thin [6] and he blanked his talk page again [7]

, [8] with the edit summary "Stop spamming my talk page with your poetry ;-)."

• He has also "spammed" a Talk page Talk:India Against Corruption to the extent it is unreadable by new editors who are being called in to resolve intermediate edits almost at WP:WAR. For almost 2 years from 2011-till 2 June 2013 (ie. when he entered this talk page for an article rated as "High Importance" for India) the talk page's size stood at a mere 2,493 bytes. In the space of just 6 days it has reached 48,545 bytes of TLDR and highly unformatted / unreadable text with allegations of NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI WP:SPA etc etc. I frankly admit I allowed myself (as the page maintainer) to be Trolled under WP:AGF and the impression I was assisting a newbie, and I went out of my way to help with equally TLDR edits explaining WikiPedia's policies and norms (which in hindsight I regret).

• I mention in passing (but not formally as yet) coincident edits (by a "11th class student") like these [9], [10] which quack with a "12th class student" who stopped editing Arvind Kejriwal just 3 days before this editor created his account to do complex edits like these [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] on his first day at Wikipedia.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Thibbs

The entire discussion: User talk:Despatche#C1, User talk:Thibbs#C1_and_SF1, Talk:C1 (television), Talk:SF1 (television).

I can't deal with this editor anymore. He deliberately ignores any given statement for reasons I do not know, and at no point have I shown him such behavior. He somehow uses this as a springboard to be accusatory and condescending without any sort of provocation or, again, some kind of similar prior behavior on my part. The worst of it at all is that he actually has a point, and it was one conclusion I came to when dealing with these articles (the why-I-didn't is all over the pages). But how am I supposed to acknowledge this when he seeks to destroy with that point? I've been writing myself in circles for reasons I don't even know now... I don't know what to do. Despatche (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you feel he is condescending (I am not saying he is), why do you lower yourself to that level and say "He doesn't understand what an SPS is. He cannot read these words that are on this bright screen which is probably destroying whatever eyesight he may have. Why does he still exist?" As much as you -may-have a point, it might be worthwile to try to see if you can understand his line of thinking and come with a reaction to that other than: "it's on the box, so no other opinion is possible". L.tak (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Content wise, there's only yourself and Thibbs discussing this, since the discussion has started to run in circles then it's time to go to one of the noticeboards for outside opinion. Try WP:DRN, WP:RSN (which Thibbs already suggested) or WP:3O. That being said, Thibbs has been incredibly calm in their approach to discussion. At a few points you descended into unnecesarily aggressive ad hominems. Was this amount of snark really needed? If you really feel that Thibbs is actively blocking the discussion then raise an RFC/U. Blackmane (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as much as I'd love to start an RFC/U, no one's going to bother honoring it, because apparently Thibbs is some kind of "trusted editor" and is free of all obligations. Time to run yet another lap around his little track... Despatche (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would honor it. I'm not perfect and I admit that freely. But I'm not worried that I've done anything sanction-worthy, though. I think you'd be wasting your time with an RfC/U, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all I completely refute the claim that I'm ignoring you, Despatche. I've read everything you said and tried to respond appropriately. I will note, however, that despite my repeated requests that you provide sources for your claims you still have failed to produce a single one and that despite my repeated requests that you cease to make edits in furtherance of your disputed vision of the Right and True name for the article, you continue to do so with abandon.

Now for any condescension that you may have felt, I apologize. If you're referring to my reference to when I was new at Wikipedia, then that was just my clumsy attempt to show you that I understand where you're coming from and don't consider you to be arguing in bad faith. Telling you in the same post to "try actually reading WP:SPS" was probably a bit ruder that it could have been, but the frustration here runs both ways. The question of whether box/packing material is a self-published source or not is absolutely tangential to anything and is a very silly thing to dwell on. SPSes can be used as sources in situations like this because the topic of the article is the product of the companies that printed the box. My objection to your use of the box as a source has nothing to do with its status as an SPS. I'm objecting to your sourceless interpretation of the box to differentiate between descriptor, logo, product code, and official name when the reliable sources on the subject all seem to disagree with you. SPSes (and indeed all sources) can be cited for actual claims, but nowhere on the box is the claim made that "XY is the official name of the product contained herein." You're basing your argument on the assumption that it is obvious to the world that "W is the descriptor, XY is the official name, and Z is the company logo". I think you need sources to back that up because it is not obvious to the world at all. In fact all of the reliable sources I could find suggested differently.

I'm willing to go through an RfC/U or through DR or 3O, but I still think that this question would best be handled by throwing it open to all members of WikiProject:VideoGames. Let's let the community weigh in on the content. Would you agree to that, Despatche? Let's leave the higher-level remedies to our disagreement for later if they are indeed necessary. Does that sound good? -Thibbs (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully support bringing it to WP:VG; it is active enough that its usually a good place to get a consensus going. For the record, in my experience, I find Despatche's report very hard to believe. Thibbs has been a great editor, very helpful in discussions on source reliability. I've never seen him act incivil. Anyways, I absolutely think an RFC/U is not necessary for Thibbs, of all people. I think this is strictly a content/source issue. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are a liar! You have been deliberately ignoring many key and non-key points, all with a strangely arrogant flair that does not befit you. As much as I would like to know why, all I can really understand is that it's making you look like a horrible person who has some kind of cruel deficiency (I apologize a thousand times but what is that going to do). Now, I wanted to avoid content territory, but:

I'm not sure I can trust anyone who thinks SPS has anything to do with the actual subject of the article (the television, the box it came in, the manual, etc); whether or not the product itself is an SPS is important here, when it's the only valid source to find a name from; "the world" doesn't care one whit what the thing is called. I've already explained a hundred times why "this is this and that is that" is more than simple conjecture, and why I'd still like more official material anyway. I've already said again and again that I don't object to this full title, because it's still correct in a sense (I would prefer ", fully known as <x>,"; mind that adding this descriptor makes the name a bit fancier than it might need to be, never mind that UCN is exactly why you want "C1 NES TV" so damned bad. And I've already said again and again why I object to that "C1 NES TV"; because it's wrong on a fundamental level, you know it's wrong, and the only reason you're giving it any thought is because one guy ran a story on it and the others bandwagoned way too hard. When things like that are found, shouldn't that start to make these sources a little less reliable, not more?

Whatever. In any event, it wasn't until now you even tried being "civil" again, and the why to that is a mystery to me too! Why should I be civil to someone I see as a monster? Despatche (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

1. No personal attacks.
2. Can you specifically provide some difs where Thibbs allegedly treated so poorly? Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, having read the talk page discussions it was Thibbs having to deal with your round and round points. Also, attacking the user you are aiming to report, calling them a "liar" and "monster", is going to result in a wicked boomerang. Blackmane (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely coming from him. You only go round and round because someone else leads you in a circle.

I've gone through all the labelled reliable sources, official or not, gone through all the valid info imaginable with a simple "this is here, how does it stand" and bringing in the necessary consistency checks to solve that. But I have come to the conclusion that there is a disconnect in the later unofficial sources as there always seems to be, because someone reported something wrong and we all get to deal with that. I have come up against a champion of such reporting, and he absolutely refuses to listen to reason to the point where he is outright ignoring anything, no matter where that info is coming from (he ignores key details of his own Google spamming, for Christ's sake).

What else can you really do except continue and continue putting down what's "right" (as determined by reliable sources) until they either realize that there's a disconnect (good), give up and leave you alone (bad), or ignore everything and resort to trickery to "win" anyway (harmful)?

Go ahead and cuff me for the "monster" comment, but how is calling someone a liar supposed to be a personal attack when you've come to the conclusion that this is what they're doing after careful deliberation and you're treating it as a fact? Despatche (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the flood gates seem to be open: "descriptor, logo, product code, and official name"? Where is all this coming from? Are you making things up now, no longer content to just ignore what you don't like? Sorry, but there's only one time where anyone "gets" to make stuff up at all, and it's done with an entirely different spirit that doesn't even really "ignore" anything.

I have only mentioned "the name" and a so-called "descriptor"--a description located near that name that is a common part of '70s and '80s tech styling, which could easily be interpreted as part of the name. Here's an example of Sharp's descriptors in action (you can find tons more of "pasokonterebi x1" all over Google, it's the same scenario), here's another example from Sega... and here is what you actually want (inb4 you try to use it as proof of something). So, "My Computer TV C1" is as valid as "Perso-Com TV X1"; actually, good luck figuring out how to romanize that thing, because it's got to done!

This is what I've been saying the whole time, I've had to say it in at least 3 different ways across 3 different pages at any one time, and you still choose to ignore most of it, even as I've kept up with every single word for the sake of discussion. Boggles the mind, it does. And for the last time, I'm fixing bad links to disambiguations, because they don't just fix themselves during petty squabbles. You can go on and on about how I'm trying to whitewash this and that, but you know as well as I do that fixing formatting circumstances from a recent rename are separate to any discussion on the actual rename. Despatche (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, here's what Thibbs really wants; let's say Kotaku or whoever made up a new name for the PlayStation 3, or even kept referring to the Wii as the "Revolution", and for whatever reason most of the other big names followed... yeah. Can't wait for someone to tell me just how valid that is anyway. Despatche (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not going to let you bait me into responding to your content-related arguments here. I've already told you that centralized article-talk-page discussions are the most helpful for content matters and AN/I is neither the time nor the place for carrying on a tempestuous content dispute. Remember why you came here: it was to get administrative action regarding my behavior. Cut and paste the above content-related paragraphs into article talk space if you want a response to them. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Despatche

This is all strictly content-based, and thus, not the right place to discuss this. Thibbs has done nothing out of line here, this seems like nothing more than Despatche being exasperated that he's not convincing Thibbs. This isn't the place for solving content disputes. Despatche, set up an RFC or something, and someone make sure WP:VG is notified. Let's close this. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a behavioral issue; see here and here. He continues to accuse and put words in my mouth, and very likely he'll ignore half of my response to prove some point of his, just as he's done so many times before. If it's a content issue, it's because he keeps bringing up the content here, and I apologize for even entertaining it. Despatche (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The diffs you linked to are all the same. I'd really like to see evidence of Thibbs putting words in your mouth in that diff. They (singular gender neutral usage) even linked to diffs of your accusations. Looking back through some of Thibbs work on those articles, there's been nothing but constructive edits. Some of this is rising to histrionics. Quite frankly, this should be closed down forthwith and a request put through to WP:3O. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand at all, Despatche. That first link in your last post is Thibbs calmly asking you not to make outrageous claims against such as calling him a "monster", something you indisputably said right here in these very discussions. That is your lead-off, best example of him putting words in your mouth? Him mentioning a personal attack you literally called him? Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Despatche meant to link my talk page here. It's another case of him latching onto some tangential phrase I've used that drives him to distraction and causes him to completely miss the central point of my argument. The same thing has happened with his mania about my reference to corporate-produced source materials (fliers, ads, box art, etc.) as SPSes. That seems to have really gotten his dander up for some reason. Anyway I'll avoid posting to his talk page except about business issues (future RfCs, community matters, or serious warnings) until he's calmed down and I'll just ignore his tone. I guess I don't really care that much if he wants to cast me as a destroyer of some kind. I think my record speaks for itself. And as I suggested on my talk page I think he's really just harming his own positions by taking such a pugnacious stance. -Thibbs (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That all sounds good. I do think some sort of RFC or WP:VG-wide discussion is necessary. I've only interacted with Despatche once before this, but he acted the same way towards me when I asked him a single question on why he changed the capitalization of a sub-title on my watchlist. Even a simple question like that sparked this response on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_7#re:_Ristar_.28read:_why_I.27m_batshit_insane.29 - Is this just how he interacts when questioned? I don't know. But if we show that the community doesn't support what he's doing, then at least maybe he'll stop with his misguided malice towards you. (Alternatively, if the community does side with him, that'll settle things as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I initially tried helping at Talk:C1 (television), but quickly backed away due to my lack of time to meaningfully argue, and due to the fact the discussion was generally looking like it wasn't going anywhere helpful. I strongly recommend making a full-fledged WP:RM and notifying WT:VG. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at this! So much accusing, so much condescending nonsense. Now I have to defend myself, look like a fighter, even though you guys threw the punches!

So this response is somehow a problem, even though it answers your question perfectly? How does this, at all, compare to what we have now? What is this "tone" you're speaking of? If I was a bit brusque with the language there, I apologize, but I would like to point out that a "why do you feel" question does not call for a simple answer. And apparently I can't just tell someone what I truly believe that are, because that's somehow a "tone" issue that requires I need to be ignored? Do you guys really think I'm trying to insult you? Why do you automatically assume it's "misguided malice" simply because Thibbs has "good standing"? Why bother me about "equals" when you've tried as hard as you can to be above such? And why are you worried so much about "fighting"?

Above all, why do you guys keep accusing me of things that I'm not doing, why do you keep hiding things from me, and why do you deliberately ignore things I say? I did not target any one "tangential phrase" when speaking to Thibbs then, I targeted them all, because they all needed to be answered. And so I target them all again. I take issue with his description of an SPS because it's completely wrong both according to Wikipedia and according to reason. Ignoring terminology, corporate-produced material is a more reliable source when it comes to the name of the product they produce. How can this possibly be up for debate?

There is a problem, there's proof that there's a problem, there's an easy fix, and all I have is opposition who can't put down one status quo in favor of another, even though this not-so-new status quo would be more beneficial to pretty much everyone. Despatche (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, really, why are people here so obsessed with this "fighting"? They don't want to sit down and really discuss anything, they want to beat each other up all day like this is some game. Despatche (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd also softly recommend you drink some tea, maybe have a nice walk, and stop seeing accusations everywhere? I hear Tai Chi is an excellent way to maintain a calm, positive and zen attitude at all times. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

More snark, huh? You want an accusation? Okay: I think the real reason you ran from that discussion is because you can't do anything without a bunch of cruel snark. There, happy? I'm not "seeing" anything, I'm not ridiculously angry or whatever; these things are actually happening, and I feel the need to point them out, because they're being used as weapons to shut me down. Despatche (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm giving honest recommendations about how to deal with the obvious stress this is causing you; if that is cruel, then Ghandi must've been the root of all evil. Trying to argue with your ideas because there is disagreement and "trying to shut you down" are two different things entirely... although when the only position you're willing to defend is that your idea is indubitably correct and that anyone disagreeing isn't being rational, I can certainly understand why what should be a productive discussion feels more like conflict. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am filled with disquiet at the general tenour of this discussion. User:Despatche is clearly angry about the content dispute but this remains only a content dispute; there is no evidence that User:Thibb is a 'monster' or has behaved even faintly uncivilly tot he point of requiring administrative action or sanctions. There should, instead of this type of discussion, be instead a conversation with an arbitrator (not ArbCom, of course, but a neutral party to offer up a balanced analysis of the content issue and work out a reasonable consensus within the Videogame Wikiproject. I firmly also believe that the request for checkuser (RFCU) mentioned earlier is inappropriate since there is no evidence that User:Thibb is sockpuppeting or abusing the system in anyway. DrPhen (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not look and I have not felt angry at all about any of this (at best, I'm a bit annoyed that Thibbs cannot understand Wikipedia principles, and that all three of these folks still insist on deliberately ignoring things), but that's a perception and there's not a whole lot I can do about that. But I have made it very clear that this is a behavioral issue, and carefully pointed out when and why. If this has somehow become a content issue, it's because Thibbs keeps pointing out the content, and I have to talk about that content on the page it's presented. (I beliexperienceeve they meant RFC/U, though I don't think that will be any more or less helpful than RCFU, haha.) Despatche (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• OK the article talk page discussions seem to have completely stalled so I'm ready to carry on with the content issue with the help of community input. The question is which forum would be most appropriate. Suggestions above include 3O, RfC, RM, and DRN. Which of these sounds like the best method to move forward? There are two articles but if possible I'd like to have a single discussion covering both topics. This AN/I thread can carry on in parallel with minimal input from me, I think. -Thibbs (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have had positive experiences with the formal request or comment feature (my apologies for mixing up acronyms above). based solely in my it has been fast, effective, and useful. A third opinion as you noted may be useful. I really don't see this as a good candidate for admin intervention since User:Thibbs has not even come close to breaking policy and this is mostly a content dispute rather than a situation in which User:Thibbs has done something meriting some kind of sanctions or adjudication. DrPhen (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • OK I've filed an RfC now. It seems awkward to try to shoehorn them both onto a single page, but I'm not sure I see a better option. Anyway I've dropped a note at Despatche's talk page and hopefully that will provide a better outlet for his constant stream of content-based arguments than this thread. -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a reasonable consensus from uninvolved editors that Thibbs has been going about this the right way and the content issues are going to be addressed by the RFC that has been raised. Despatche, I'm sure you will disagree with my summary but as you read above you'll find that virtually no one agrees with your interpretation of events. This is not to say we're slappingy you on the wrists or anything just that there is a consensus (more or less) that the bahavioural issues you are accusing Thibbs of just isn't seen by those who have commented here. My advice, whether you choose to take it or not, is to let the RFC run its course and accept the consensus that is developed there. If you still feel that your perspective is justified, seek the dispute resolution noticeboard's help. Beware though, seeking all avenues for a justification of your opinion is forum shopping. Beyond that, I move that this be closed. Blackmane (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm of course biased here, but I agree that a close would be in the best interest of all. I wanted to note for the record that Despatche is behaving admirably in the RfC at present. -Thibbs (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree as well. There's nothing actionable here. Let's get this closed, or let it sink into the archives. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I borrow the term "whitewashing" from Despatche above. I was wondering if someone could please speak to him about going systematically around performing edits in furtherance of his contested page move. Since learning that his move was controversial he has continually made edits in support of his controversial decision. I have asked him many times to stop "fixing" redirect so that they point to his new titles (diffs: 1, 2) and to stop performing page moves of other articles to make room for his new title (diff: 1, 2). But I see that he has only spread this kind of edit across to en.Wikipedia's non-English sister projects (diff: 1, 2). I would like it if he could leave the terms alone until we've finished discussing the matter because newcomers who aren't familiar with his editorial style might wrongly assume that the whole brace of new terms that he's added are the terms that have been in use a long time. They might then wrongly assume that there's a degree of consensus by silence when in fact these are all controversial moves and link alterations on his part. I've only met with hostility when I have asked him to stop making this kind of edit so could someone else give it a try? -Thibbs (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem still ongoing. -Thibbs (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's gaming the system. Blackmane (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AnotherPseudonym and Carl Hewitt. With a cameo appearance of User:Untalker.

Is AnotherPseudonym (talk · contribs) another sock of Carl Hewitt? Introducing "paraconsistency" in (the talk page) of an article (Material conditional) which doesn't relate to consistency or paraconsistency is problematic at best, and generally indicative of Carl's (students') activity on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone experienced enough to be an admin is bringing an issue here without filing a Sock Puppet Report and without engaging with the editor on the talk page of the article concerned. AnotherPseudonym is a new user, from what I can see on the NLP page s/he is contributing from the basis of some knowledge of the field (I can't answer for Material conditional. There surely has to be some real offence and also some dialogue before an ANI report is made? ----Snowded ^TALK 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter for SPI; the Carl Hewitt sanctions explicitly apply to "meat-puppets". I just found an edit introduced papaconsistency, a Carl Hewitt concept, where it doesn't belong. However, I'm not sure it was AnotherPseudoym who introduced it. I'll have to check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If s/he did I can't see it and even so at least talk to them first? Coming to ANI without any engagement or checking seems wrong. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) AnotherPseudonym's edits mostly concern neuro-linguistic programming, a topic that has nothing to do with Hewitt, judging by his biography. Despite the word "programming" appearing in NLP, it has nothing to do with computer programming or computer science, which seems to be Hewitt's expertise. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Besides, Arthur Rubin seems to be crediting Hewitt with far too much when he writes that "papaconsistency" is "a Carl Hewitt concept". Looking at paraconsistency, it seems that Hewitt had no contribution the notion, but that he merely applied it to something in software engineering. In line with the ANI program of today, this is another mountain out of a molehill. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

And finally, Arthur Rubin does not appear to have considered the substance of what AnotherPseudonym wrote [16]: "Also the failure to even mention propositional calculus -- which is the context in which someone is most likely to look up the meaning of the operator -- was an unacceptable omission. By the time someone reaches the study of paraconsistent logical systems they will likely have no need to look up what a material conditional is on Wikipedia. A novice is most likely to look up this entry in wikipedia and they will most likely have encountered the operator in the context of classical/Boolean propositional calculus." AnotherPseudonym merely gave "paraconsistent logical systems" as an example of advanced material in logic. He did not try to introduce it anywhere. He was actually arguing for something rather opposite, namely that page on the material conditional needs to be simplified and made more accessible for beginners in logic. Building a whole bang bang theory from that aside is rather worrisome when coming from an administrator like Arthur Rubin. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys and gals, this is discussion some real Wikipedia weirdness. I'm not Carl Hewitt (and I don't know who that is). Prior to registering the account AnotherPseudonym I was contributing to the maintenance of the NLP article without an account so you can see my IP address there. I was actually arguing against introducing notions of paraconsistency in the lead of an article on a logical operator. I mentioned paraconsistent logics because Incnis Mrsi criticised me for (apparently) failing to consider that the equivalency which I specified is valid only with respect to classical/Boolean logics; a substantial chunk of the non-classical/non-Boolean logics are those that termed paraconsistent. For this reason I read Incnis Mrsi's criticism as suggesting that the lead (and article?) should maintain a generality which makes it true over all logics -- paraconsistent included. I disagree with that idea and I thought I made that clear in my commentary (and the actual lead). Incidentally, Paraconsistent logic is not the idea of a Carl Hewitt; rather it is a major field of study in philosophy (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/). This seems an especially bizarre discussion. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I am now intrigued by Carl Hewitt and am trying to work out how a logical operator can elicit a level of passion that would cause conflict that would warrant administrative intervention. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't get too intrigued before looking at WP:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. The article at Carl Hewitt is under indefinite full protection. Hewitt has amply deserved the admin attention that his edits have received. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the devil... Can admin attention be directed at Untalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This seems far more likely to be Hewitt or a student of his based on the massive promotional contributions actually related to Hewitt and going on for the last three years. Here are some diffs although all his contributions except the minor edits are clearly Hewitt-related [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. I think this is what is called a single-purpose account. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Now knowing who Carl Hewitt is I wish I was him -- he has achieved much more than I have. :) His main body of work appears to be in software and in what is termed "incosistency robustness" and paraconsistent logic comes up in relation to that. I don't think a reflexive association between "paraconsistent logic" and "Carl Hewitt" -- as exhbited by Arthur Rubin -- is justified though, he hasn't made any major contribution to paraconsistent logic as far as I can tell. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like "incosistency robustness" is some application of paraconsistent logic to computer theory. If one bothers to search for "paraconsistency" in Google Books, there are at least a dozen books covering the logic topic and are not written by Hewitt and most if not all such books don't even mention him or his computer application. On the other hand, this discussion turned up another account, Untalker, which clearly has been promoting Hewitt on Wikipedia for the past tree years and has done little else. Looking at the ArbCom log, the situation should be handled similarly with how Madmediamaven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was dealt with. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. Looking at the user contributions, see no reason to think the account User:AnotherPseudonym is related to Hewitt, but the account User:Untalker very strongly resembles an SPI for articles related to Hewitt and the Actor Model. However, to give Untalker a chance to prove me wrong, I would recommend just a topic ban for User:Untalker from all articles related to Carl Hewitt and the Actor Model. If the account is unrelated to Hewitt, they should be free to edit other topics. — Carl (CBM · talk)

(Did you mean to say an SPA?) They've been here for three years and never yet shown any interest in editing anything else, so a topic ban in preference to a block seems bureaucratic enough. And I'm not sure there's widespread enough interest in this thread to get a healthy consensus either way w r t a topic ban. But let's have a proposal and prove me wrong. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC).

I did mean SPA, thanks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for User:Untalker

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

---

• Proposal: Per the above comments, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt and per their contributions, User:Untalker is topic banned from all articles related to Carl Hewitt and the Actor Model, broadly construed. Please record your opinion below. As proposer, I support the ban. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC).
• OK. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons explained by Bishonen. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, not that my judgment is to be trusted. Appears not only to be an SPA, but an SPA on Hewitt presenting Hewitt's views. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: In the hope of attracting more business, I've just mentioned this thread on AN, comparing the spotty interest in Untalker (who has been compromising the integrity of articles for three years), unfavorably with the latest civility block forest fire there. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
• Support as being the least disruptive method of dealing with the problem. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Ms. Shonen and Dennis. — Ched :  ?  15:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a non-admin, simply because this is the sort of thing that matters here. This is the sort of behavior that will do serious damage to the credibility of the encyclopedia. Intothatdarkness 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose They barely edit, and edits like this are fine. There isn't actually a policy against SPAs, we're just supposed to count their votes when we "don't vote" less. NE Ent 23:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, SPAs are OK in general. The difference in this case is that Untalker is almost certainly a sockpuppet of a banned user. The topic ban would allow them to continue edit if, somehow, they are not a sockpuppet. The other option is just to block the Untalker account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Need assistance at the Brazil article

I am simply not sure what to do about an editor that seems not to understand English. At the Brazil the editor in question (User:Vinícius18) is editing in good faith thinking that adding many many many many images is a good idea - but I cant get the editor to understand that sandwiching text between images is not a good idea. Could we get someone that speaks Portuguese to explain our policy on the matter and also explain that adding 9 images of the same person is not a good idea. By the oddly worded questions on my talk page I am guessing that comprehension is a big problem here. Moxy (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OMG, that entire article is a complete visual mess. It needs serious trimming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I simply cant keep up ...trying to move images to better locations were possible like here - but image galleries like this with 8 images of the same person i am just removing. Just need the editor to understand the problems at hand.Moxy (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say something different but instead I think what we have here is a massive lack of competence. They need to be given a short ban on image uploading until they understand the MOS. There's also a probable language issue here. And BMK has it right. The article starts of placidly but then descends into an eyesore. Blackmane (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have left a note on the editor's talk page asking him not to upload any further images. If you guys could carry on trying to guide him/locate someone who speaks Portuguese that would be great. If he carries on adding problematic images I think a block is the only option, so contact me directly. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I speak both, but the problem here is that everybody just places and removes pics as they see fit. So you really need just a few different opinions -on what is important to showcase- to get to this. I think we can get to some consensus on the talkpage shortly, once the new editors understand what a waste of time this is. Blocking is totally not necessary, other users are already reverting to vandalism because their contributions are undone. Thanks Moxy for your help, like you said, just check it every few weeks or so and revert the lot, not worth an edit war.Magafuzula (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Things like 2014 Fifa Mascot are not really that important though. WP:IRELEV seems to catch quite a few of the problem ones, like 50%+ of the image being dominated by an out of focus sign or sky. This picture was one of four at the small education section which makes it impossible to properly identify the subject from the thumbnail. The article seems much better now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo from university city was interesting because of the history, the junta had it designed like this to avoid students' gathering, but unfortunately this story got lost in the multiple edits (not sure if I put it there in the first place). But the photo was bad. The picture you put in place there is totally insignificant, so I combined the 2 in what I consider the best option.
About taking out the image of Fuleco: -I think we may assume that you care little for soccer- the sports section now goes without any image of the upcoming FIFA worldcup, totally absurd considering the amount of effort and money the whole country puts into this. Easily the single most important event in Brazil of this decade. Everything in Brazil at this moment is about this cup, and the warmer-up Confederations which is about to start. No picture. I think i am going to change this if I can find a more appealing picture, with so many important sporting event coming up this section should reflect the current events, not some dusty old picture of players who are retired.
By the way, we have made a full circle in the last week and are roughly exactly where we were before a few new users started adding lots of pictures. Since they have seen all their contributions reverted I don't think we'll be seeing them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magafuzula (talk • contribs)

Interesting! You are the expert; so I'll move my response to the talk page. Since this ANI will probably be closed as the behavior surrounding the content dispute has been addressed... and the content is being addressed as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor in question is back .... and adding images again after our efforts to trim them down. Did we find someone that speaks Portuguese yet - as its clear they dont understand what is being said to them. On a side note anyone know why the user would make the images all different sizes - as in some 400px some 200px and others 140px? Wondering what type of PC they are viewing this from.Moxy (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

After looking at a few more articles the editor in question is editing there are other good faith problem that needs to stop. After a bunch of edits at President_of_Brazil we were let with a bunch of images that did not work see here and also they are simply adding two many images as seen here --Moxy (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Very disappointing to see not one admin reply to and old editor that is asking for assistance. Is there somewhere else we can take this problem to were it may get solved?Moxy (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I just cleaned out the whole article; there were way too many images, even after reverting. Anyone feel like taking on Brazilian Armed Forces? ;-) If they continue to add images without replying to talk page posts, it falls into WP:Competence territory and the editor should be blocked. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am asking for the editor to be blocked at this point.Moxy (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems a dictatorship. Moxy is the dictator! Vinícius18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Editor is clearly not going to respond to communication effectively; talking is not solving the problem. Blocked indefinitely. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahul RJ Jain and his Jainism agenda

User is citing unreliable and inaccessible sources to stamp his Jainism religion on historic figures like Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya. Nature of religions keeps evolving over centuries and millenia. It is impossible to tell what was religion of historic figures, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism or some other similar religion. There will always be conflicting sources. It is better not to stamp religion on historic figures but user looks religious fundamentalist with specific agenda on wiki. You decide. I don't want 'honor' of getting blocked third time for edit warring. neo (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jainism by Helmuth Von Glasenapp publisher Motilal Banarasidass is a perfectly reliable source. If you doubt the reliability, you could have posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. On the other hand, you didn't provide a reliable source to any conflicting claim. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not just about reliable sources. I believe that as you are 'Jain', you are pushing your religious 'Jainism' agenda through dubious sources and edit warring. I googled about Chanakya. this government website says Chanakya was brahmin. this academic website says that Chanakya studied Vedas. this and this history authors says that Chanakya was brahmin. here Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is comparing brahmin caste with Chanakya. So I believe Chanakya was Hindu. And on Chandragupta Maurya you again reverted my edit with 1 inaccessible and 1 fake source. neo (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I am 100% sure that you are sockpuppet of User:Rahuljain2307 who was blocked after this sockpuppet investigation. I request admins to confirm this. neo (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually Rahuljain2307 is no longer blocked but hasn't edited since 20 January 2013. The Rahul RJ Jain was created on 29 January, so I'd like to ask them if they are indeed one and the same editor. Abandoning an old account for a clean start is not sockpuppetry but it would be good to know the link between them. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is the same editor. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

He was blocked for a week on 20 January 2013 and he created this new account the very next day on 21 January, NOT 29 January(clearly to create another sockpuppet on very next day). He made first edit on 29 January and resumed as if continuation of previous account. neo (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahul RJ Jain has above admitted that he is same editor as User:Rahuljain2307. Above admin indicated that this is not sockpuppetry but I think when user create new account during period of the block his intention is to avoid block, not clean start. He is daring me in edit warring without worrying about block as there is always new sockpuppet. neo (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also suspicious about this account which was created, made some edits during his block period and then vanished. neo (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I admit that I only looked at the contributions by Rahul RJ Jain. But the log states indeed that this account was created on 21 January while Rahuljain2307 was blocked. For a start I have now indefinitely blocked Rahul RJ Jain as an illegitimately created account. I haven't yet looked into the history of their edits about Jainism and historic figures, or any edit wars, so I left Rahuljain2307 and Rk195057 open for editing, but given the past socking activities (The Fake ID) I wouldn't be surprised if there were more incarnations.

Help from fellow administrators will be appreciated as I need to go offline now. Please administer further blocks as you see fit. De728631 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

After study I think Rk195057 is unrelated. I will remove his religion edits in Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya, Bimbisara & close this matter.neo (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Rk195057's edits don't seem to fit those by Rahul Jain. The latter has now requested unblocking so as to participate in this discussion without returning to his old account. I don't see any need to abandon the first account, so I'll leave that decision to an uninvolved admin. As to the claim of pushing an agenda and using poor sources, let me say the following: While he seems to use reliable sources when it comes to Jainism in general (e.g. [25]), I don't see how those sources that were later removed by Neo ([26], [27]) are unreliable when it comes to attributing Jainism to specific persons. What bothers me more is the deliberate creation of new accounts, i.e. Fake ID and Rahul RJ Jain, to circumvent restrictions. While the Rahul RJ Jain account was not used for editing during the masterblock it shouldn't have been created in the first place. De728631 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Since my appeal to unblock was declined, I have switched back to my previous account (much to my dislike, but I will honour the decision of the admins). I will continue to edit wikipedia with this account in future. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS changes and edit warring related to uncapitalized names

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

---

Can a neutral admin please sternly warn Jimthing that it's unacceptable to (a) make a large number of edits that lack consensus (please see his or her contributions; they're numerous and obvious) and then (b) edit war with editors and insist on maintaining those edit while he or she tries to change the MOS? He or she objects to the use of lowercase letters for the names of some people e.g., k.d. lang, danah boyd. That is a reasonable objection but this has been discussed in several venues and the current consensus is to use lowercase letters. Editing against consensus and edit warring to retain those edits while also lobbying to change the MOS is the wrong way to go about things. This is unethical and unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"discussed in several venues" – where please? ...there's been very little comment on my reasoned debate for a clearer resolution to capitalisation, here. Jimthing (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In just one of the articles in which you've edit warred, there is a discussion not only on the very Talk page to which you've already posted but there is also discussion in the archives here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. You're welcome to raise this issue again but you're not welcome to ignore the current consensus and edit war against it as you try to change consensus and the MOS. ElKevbo (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, you already knew about many of the previous discussions! So why do you now claim to not know about them? ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please look into this? An editor is abusing the system and bullying others to force their way in several articles. ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Stalemate in Southern Palestine

This article has been subjected to disruptive editing between 31 May and 2 June, when large chunks of information were cut before any discussion. The article has also been tag bombed. [28], [29], [30], [31]. There are many more examples. Attempts to discuss the problems on the talk page [32] have been side tracked by the issue of the unidentified editors who have not edited any other articles, but who are clearly experienced. They may even be sock puppets. As it stands the infobox of the article has been cut and despite being discussed on the talk page [33] an attempt to reinstate it was undone. [34], [35] There has been a lack of social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively, demonstrated during the disruptive editing. [36] Reasonable responses to posts on the talk page have been ignored [37], [38] or attacked. [39] Could the article be reinstated including infobox, while a discussion about problems takes place. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

(Although I know a bit about this subject, I did not see this article before.) This is an extremely long and detailed article (more than 210K) about a subject that is not extremely important (but important enough for an article, imo). Rskp wrote most of it and now defensively resists any effort to reduce it in length. As far as I can see, the main editors engaged with the article are acting in good faith and it is quite wrong to describe the problem as a behavioral one (unless it be the "ownership" problem). It doesn't really belong on this board but should go to some content noticeboard. Zero^talk 02:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Have people brought the Israel/Palestine conflict into this article? It seems to pop up in articles that are decades removed from the current conflict, even when the articles (like this one) involve conflicts between other groups in the same region. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the I/P conflict is not part of the article or the argument about it. Let's keep it that way. Zero^talk 03:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Its not true that I "now defensively resists any effort to reduce it in length." The article stands in tatters and has been for days without any meaningful discussion about the article's problems. Anonymous edits have been made disruptively Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in a slash and burn way, while at the same time the article has been tag bombed. Its the disruptive editing attacks which are the reason this article has been posted here. --Rskp (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Scrolling to a random point, we find:

In addition to 67 water carts, each mounted brigade required the following transport,

• 4 Brigade Headquarters transport wagons = 413
• Regimental transport wagons per regiment = 3920
• Machine Gun Squadron transport wagons = 204
• Brigade Field Ambulance transport wagons = 4.[275][276]

These wagons were deployed in three echelons

• "A" Echelon commanded by an officer, consisted of 21 Limbers and 4 water carts

...

Ye Gods! EEng (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, everyone acknowledges the article is too long. But what about the disruptive editing, the tag bombing and then leaving the article in tatters, without initiating any meaningful discussion? The infobox is still cut for goodness sake!! --Rskp (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The first three edits which have been labelled "reverts" were to cut the grammar tag, explaining that a copyedit had been requested from the Copyeditors Guild. The second edit cut the notability tag noting that a discussion was moved to talk page, which I initiated. Instead of a discussion on notability the fact that anonymous editors were making the cuts was focused on. The third reinsert reinserted "10,000" "which emphasises the scale of the two defeats‬." These were all good faith edits and not reverts. --Rskp (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to all, after some thought I've hatted this part since it has nothing to do with issue at hand and would cause an unnecessary digression. Blackmane (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I had an encounter with RSKP in Battle of Nablus (1918), which popped up at WP:GOCE as I'm a member. I tend to keep articles i've copyedited on my watchlist so I can revisit them every now and then to tweak here and there, but this one I took off my watchlist after a thoroughly dismissive comment from her in this talk page section. Rather than argue over her lack of civility, I posted to an admin who had previously been asked to provide an opinion in that article, left a final comment and unwatched the article. Blackmane (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Relevance was the issue Blackmane was referring to: "highly doubt the removal of a largely unrelated and generally digressive section in this article will affect its GA status. It's not about interest, or lack thereof, which is the point, it's relevance. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)" and I replied, "Yes, thank you for your work Blackmane. However, you did not do the GA review so your comments should be seen in that light. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)" Blackmane chose to unwatched the article because of those few words. So be it. But, what has this polite exchange to do with disruptive edits to the Stalemate article? --Rskp (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I should have noted in my edit summary that it was a follow on comment to Zero's statement above. In response, if you do not see that as dismissive of another editor's opinion then I have nothing more to say. Blackmane (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, I thought this was about disruptive edits of the Stalemate in Southern Palestine article. --Rskp (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, I've hatted off my comments as they weren't really salient to the discussion even factoring it in as a response to Zero's observation. That being said, the only comment I'll make re this article is that this is not disruptive editing so much as pruning. The efforts of the IP's should not merely be dismissed as the work of sockpuppets, a flagrant lack of AGF. There's just a great deal of ownership being displayed here. Quite frankly, most of the material here could be incorporated into other articles as an Aftermath-type section and the rest of the padding and filler dispensed with, but that's a content discussion not to be had here. Blackmane (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone concerned by the disruptive edits? --Rskp (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop Personal attack by Mediajet

18:31, 7 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+333) . . Bodu Bala Sena (Reverted 1 edit by Obi2canibe (talk): Ofcource you act like an extremist,not BBS,I know that you are a LTTE sup,but as you are a Wikipedian try to be unbaised. (TW)) by MediaJet Please don't escalate our dispute on Bodu Bala Sena into personal attacks. Comments like "you act like an extremist" and "I know that you are a LTTE sup" are enough for me to report you but I will give you a chance to act civil - like a real Buddhist.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC) So go ahead and Report I dont care,I dont want your chances,What I said is the truth.MediaJet talk 06:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Personal attack Reply from Mediajet This type of comments will make Wikipedia a battleground. கோபிநாத் 122.172.238.62 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

• The article in question is Bodu Bala Sena
• This incident report is about an edit summary on 07 April 2013 here and that another comment I am unable to find at present
• You can all see both how both editors identify themselves on their respective userpages

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarify

• The article in question is Bodu Bala Sena
• Here the personal attack is Ofcource you act like an extremist,not BBS,I know that you are a LTTE sup,but as you are a Wikipedian try to be unbaised.

The other editor requests him not to engage in personal attacks on his talk page But Mediajet refuses o Report I dont care,I dont want your chances,What I said is the truth. MediaJet stands by his comment. கோபிநாத் 122.172.239.35 (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that "you act like an extremist" is the personal attack? I've been parsing your report for an hour trying to figure out which part you're considering to be one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The incident reporter 122.172.238.62 may possibly a troll set on fomenting discord between User:MediaJet and User:Obi2canibe, who both have made a peace, disengaged from interaction and ceased any name-calling whatsoever over a month ago. Just my opinion. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Day to all !!!
I have fed up editing some of these controversial Wiki pages now,I don't contribute to those Wiki pages any more,truly speaking I don't have time to allocate for such pages.If some one is trying to raise a hand against me,I don't care about that also because I haven't done anything wrong here,Thanks.
See the Whole Discussion between we both :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MediaJet/Archive_1#Personal_attacks
MediaJet talk 13:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How can you say, you haven't done anything wrong after you have said, "I know that you are a LTTE sup" and then "So go ahead and Report I dont care, I dont want your chances, What I said is the truth."?

Thereafter you have come out with stories and not the apology to the concerned editor.

Better make use of this discussion to apologize him in his absentia. May the blessings of the Noble Triple Gem be always with you!

@ Shirt58 - Absence of Gun Fire doesn't mean there is a Lasting Peace.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong to him to Apologise,I can STOP editing Wiki but never Apologise him,What I said is the TRUTH,He is a Tamil Eelam separatist and that's what I said him,Anyone can see that from his user page and some of his contributions..But he has done much to Sri Lanka Wiki Project,I appreciate it,No more Comments,Thanks.MediaJet talk 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

PA removed --- that's just so not on
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well you happen to be a supporter of a genocidal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.53.157 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

@ 184.144.53.157 Better if you can return from Canada and see the present situation here rather than Just shouting staying in Canada further I am not a Supporter of any party,I am a Sri Lankan that's all,You will come to know the real roots of this problem,if you read An Introduction to Tamil Racism in Sri lanka Read this as well -> http://www.scribd.com/doc/98322975/The-Mythical-Ethnic-Problem-in-Sri-Lanka-%E2%80%93-Parts-I-II-III-By-Prof-Nalin-de-Silva Thanks.MediaJet talk 16:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who this anonymous User talk:122.172.238.62 is or why they've started this ANI discussion but I want no part of it. I've moved on, I suggest everyone else does likewise.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Block As user is going to continue with Personal comments in edit summary like LTTE supporter,Bush supporter,Al qaeda supporter,Basque supporter etc.Comment on content and not on contributor is Wiki policy.There is no need to put such comments in edit summary and they are a personal attacks and this will anger other contributors leading to editing conflicts .கோபிநாத் — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.92.128 (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@ 122.167.92.128 Good suggestion Mr Gopinath,So then I can save my time,Thanks for your concern :) MediaJet talk 10:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Gul (clothing)

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

---

Hi My name is Mike Flavelle and I am MD of Gul Watersports Limited or Gul. We are presently listed as "Gul(clothing)" which is incorrect and ifers we are a clothing company which we are not. We are a long-standing surf and sailing brand. How can our title be changed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroleflavelle (talk • contribs) 13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved to Gul (watersports) as a more accurate title. GiantSnowman 14:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for topic ban

• Evrik (talk · contribs)

This user has been warned multiple times about their non-free file usage. I have warned the user multiple times about this, however they refuse to listen. Most recently Scouting in Massachusetts where the user is re-inserting files that lack rationales. I do not want to see a useful editor blocked over this, so I am seeing an alternate method. A topic ban with regards to the usage of non-free files. Werieth (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• First, this is an extension of the debates on Scouting in California and Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine. Werieth has just retaliated by asking for this ban because I warned him that his edits were about to become 3RR. Werieth claims that "enforcing WP:NFCC is exempt from 3RR." However, if you look at the edit summary for each of the edits, the editor says, "missing non-free use rationale's for this article," and yet each of the five images does have an appropriate rationale. This is simply retaliation, or a bullying tactic. I refer you to this and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_20#State_articles this for some of the backstory.

I will also note that to date, none of the images in question have been deleted. --evrik ^(talk) 20:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note that the version of the file description page does not have a rationale and was only added after I filed this request. Werieth (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I added two that were specific to the page in question, but three of the five were correct. --evrik ^(talk) 20:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • And I never touched those files. I only removed the files that lacked a rationale for that article, per my edit summary. Werieth (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
      • As a measure of peace, I have withdrawn the 3rr notice. Can we agree the article is okay as it is and just move on? --evrik ^(talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Actually the 3RR report was in response to this request, almost 10 minutes before the 3RR report was filed. Werieth (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Umm, no. I made the warning first. You just beat me to the punch. The 3RR form is more intricate. ;-) I have to go engage IRL now. TTYL. --evrik ^(talk) 20:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me this is a retaliatory filing and should be considered as such.PumpkinSky talk 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, retaliatory filing. Trout Werieth and close the discussion. Cavarrone 15:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't knbow if a trout is needed. This issue appears to have calmed down. --evrik ^(talk) 14:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent edit stalking

I have asked User:Nikkimaria to stop stalking my edits, more than once:

• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 18#Enough
• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Removal of infoboxes
• Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler#Infobox
• Talk:St Mary's, Bryanston Square
• And in edit summaries and talk pages not logged

as have other editors (e.g. User:RexxS in the first link above and at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Infobox; User:Gerda Arendt; User:PumpkinSky at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Please stop). Despite this, she has continued to do so for some months. Examples, almost always on articles she had never previously edited, include:

• [40] (newly created by me)
• [41]
• at Mabel Richardson - since deleted
• at Eric Brooke Dunlop - since deleted
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52] (newly created by me)
• [53]
• [54]
• [55]
• [56] (newly created by another editor)
• [57]
• [58] (diff added 18:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC))

and most recently, today: [59]).

This is both stressful for me; and has (as I suspect is the intention) an inhibiting effect on my editing. I am here to ask an uninvolved adminstartor to caution her not to do so, in accordance with Arbcom rulings (e.g.), on pain of escalating blocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to address the issues, and warned of a block or ban, at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Persistent_edit_stalking. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well gee, I think we should wait for the other side of the story before threatening to ban her, don't you? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to refrain from any administrative actions (for several reasons) for the moment, but I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. While I had primarily had concerns over some of the "Classical music" articles which Gerda had worked on, if there are multiple editors expressing a similar concern on the issue then I think it's worth exploring. The "info box" issue is a massive time-sink and it appears that there's no resolution in sight - but for now perhaps it's best to just focus on the issue of an admin. edit warring and whatever the proper terminology of the day happens to be. Awaiting input from Nikkimaria. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • All I am saying is that Pigsonthewing has made a prima facie case of Wikibullying, which could result in a ban. I am not sure that Nikkimaria quite understands how serious this issues has become. After the Qworty incident, I think we need to wield the mop a little more. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Rushing to wield the mop is just as bad, if not worse, than taking too long. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It does look a little obvious. This does appear serious (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Several articles which I think deserve attention in regards to this problem:

• Mass in B minor structure
• Sparrow Mass
• Hans-Joachim Hessler

there are others. Also, re: Bearian, I was certainly not discounting your thoughts - in fact I very much agree, I'd just prefer to hear all sides before dropping any hammers on folks. (per Ed and not wishing to rush to judgement on any topic). — Ched :  ?  21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has a long history of aggressively pushing infoboxes in articles against the objections of those writing the articles, in many cases edit-warring or being incivil in his efforts. Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox and Talk:Cosima_Wagner/Archive_1#Infobox are among many examples, going back years, of these actions. He has continued to argue in the face of strong consensus against his position (for example at Talk:The_Rite_of_Spring#Infobox) and has a history of refusing efforts to compromise (see for example the last few posts at Talk:Hans-Joachim_Hessler - a compromise was suggested, I agreed, Andy rejected it entirely) or answer good-faith questions (see for example Talk:Little_Moreton_Hall#Infobox, right before the "Re-Start" heading). As the ArbCom decision Andy cites makes clear, the use of contributions to address related issues on multiple articles is appropriate if done in good faith and for good cause, both of which I believe apply in this case (and many editors agree that Andy's behaviour has been problematic, although some do not). As is clear from the list Andy provides, most of my changes have been simple fixes of his formatting - removing blank parameters, delinking common terms, etc - while others have involved instances where Andy has been unable or unwilling to justify his changes (see for example Talk:St_Mary's,_Bryanston_Square). The two discussions on my talk page also demonstrate that I have explained my reasoning civilly to Andy on multiple occasions and that he has refused to discuss the issue with me. It is not my intention to cause stress for Andy, but I would appreciate it if he would stop causing stress for other editors and make more of an effort to work with others and find means of compromising, whether or not he agrees with the opinions of other editors. I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, needs to be aware that User:Pigsonthewing has been literally causing problems with infoboxes for years. It's understandable that someone would monitor his edits in this area more closely than usual. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And anyone reading your comment likely wonders why you choose not to sign-in to voice your thoughts. — Ched :  ?  21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Nikki: re: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. " - I think that would go a LONG way towards moving forward here. Would you be willing to extend the same courtesy to Gerda?

Now, the infamous "info box wars" are not going to be resolved in this thread - but I offer this: I think it's a common courtesy that would serve the project well to allow the principle author of an article the choice in many formatting areas; including the choice to include or exclude an infobox. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see Richard_Wagner — No infobox and following discussions. In this case the wishes of the principle author Smerus were not respected by Gerda Arendt and Pigsonthewing. There are many other examples, but this was recent. It was provocative because of the high standard of this article, DYKs, the Wagner anniversary etc. --Kleinzach 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda would be a bit trickier, as our interests overlap quite a bit - I've been doing quite a lot of work lately in expanding Bach cantata articles, and as she too has been working in this area, we already share authorship on a few of them (for example both of us contributed to BWV 39, recently on the main page). Your larger point about infoboxes, though, I think we might agree on. Andy has objected strongly to that reasoning, which has been part of the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on board with the notion that the principle author should be accorded this latitude. In fact, as I was formulating my response, I started with the notion that the answer was generally yes, but I didn't agree on the infobox, but as I considered other examples, I began to reject them. Maybe there are some examples, but none come to mind. One of the aspects of Wikipedia that is useful to readers, is that they know what to expect—there will be a lede, there will be references, there will be sections, it will be written in a certain style (not a first narrative, for example). While I wouldn't expect an article on a Bach Cantata to follow the same cookie cutter style as an article on a member of the 1927 Yankees, I would expect some similarity between structures of articles in the same category. Maybe we are not yet ready to resolve the infobox wars, but leaving the decision to the principle author is not a step in the right direction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've interacted with Nikkimaria in the past and I can say from experience that although she seems to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, the zeal with which she accomplishes her missions can go over the top at times. Indeed her block log shows that the line between zeal and combativeness have become blurred for her a number of times in the past. While passion is an important part of what makes good editors great, if the same passion is directed into a negative channel by one of our trusted mop-wielders then the results can be quite unsettling for us mere mortals. Because this isn't the first (or even second) time that this issue of over-the-top passion has become an issue for Nikkimaria, I wonder whether something more formal than her promise to stop editing only those articles that Pigsonthewing has written would be a good idea. Nikkimaria is a valuable contributor here and it would be a shame to see her further tarred by this issue. I'd recommend that she avoid watching Pigsonthewings' edits altogether. There are so many more positive ways that an editor can contribute to Wikipedia and Nikkimaria surely has the passion to make great improvements elsewhere on the 'pedia. -Thibbs (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this or an RFC/u re Nikki coming weeks ago and divorced myself from the inevitable wiki mess. But Andy posted on my talk and mentioned me above, so I will comment. Agreeing to avoid Andy is a start, but what about Gerda Arendt, and your infobox warring in general? Let's not forget your teamed edit warring over an entry in Franz Kafka's infobox, not mention numerous other articles that had infoboxes. Nikki clearly has an excessive zeal for infoboxes and IMHO should be banned from editing them until she learns that infoboxes serve a valid purpose and many, if not most, users, like them. That an admin is doing this is even more troubling. With that said, I again divorce myself from these proceedings. PumpkinSky talk 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: Thank you, everyone, for taking this concern seriously. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh without a doubt this is very serious Bearian, and I never meant to be dismissive of the situation. My own personal choice however is to "fix" things, rather than just toss them out. I think it's very VERY important to understand that .. for lack of a better word .. "stalking another contributor's edits" should be completely unacceptable. And by that I mean in the sense that any attempts to make another editor's time on wiki unpleasant should be quickly stopped. There are and have been accounts which were primarily disruptive, and to research those things is always acceptable. Now, rather than "demand" apologies, or some sort of submissive "I will comply" - I tend to favor a "how do we move forward in a way that's productive to the project" approach. (and I assume everyone here feels that moving forward in productive ways is a good thing). Nikki has offered one step in the right direction here in agreeing to avoid Andy's articles - good! The issue as far as Gerda may be a bit more complicated however. Since both edit in the same topic area (classical music), then they will obviously cross paths. From what I've seen there have been honest attempts on both sides to find a common ground, all in good faith. My suggestion would be that whoever gets to working on an article first be given the latitude to create or improve the article without any harassment. I have some further thoughts developing at the moment, but it may take some time for me to flesh them out. Either way, I think it's imperative that Nikkimaria stop researching what other editors are working on, and going to those pages to impose a particular preference. Nikki has done some amazing work from DYK to FA, and I'd hate to lose that. With that I will leave further commentary to the rest of the community. — Ched :  ?  00:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been called to this scene. I assume in good faith that you, Nikkimaria, are as sincerely interested in Bach's works is as I am. However, I don't understand why you needed to change almost every infobox for them BEFORE the talk about the template, {{infobox Bach composition}}, came to a conclusion, sometimes just hiding three lines of a list, sometimes (but not lately any more, thank you) doing so using {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} which I don't accept as a compromise for articles I feel responsible for, as explained on your talk. I would like to get the planned article on Baroque instuments to Main space first and THEN adjust the infoboxes. (No reader has been hurt so far by an abbreviation he doesn't understand.) I trust that we can work it out, confessing that I sometimes thought that a series of reverts was a waste of time, - for those who want to understand what I mean, have a look at history and talk of Mass in B minor structure (a work in progress). With less assuming good faith, it might have looked a lot like stalking. - I would like you and others to show more good faith toward Andy whom I haven't seen "pushing" recently (see the above mentioned The Rite of Spring discussion), but helping (!) with {{infobox opera}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been on the fringes of this issue with the classical music infobox issue. I don't think an interaction ban is appropriate, nor a general editing ban. HOWEVEr, I do have a proposal: Seems to me that the best solution is to ask that Nikki simply NOT edit infoboxes where they exist and not to remove them where they have been placed by others. She can call actual factual infobox errors to the attention of other editors at the respective article talk pages if she sees them, and I see no reason that she cannot continue to discuss the general issue in appropriate fora (the project pages, for example, but not across a dozen different articles),. Thus, I think that a restriction on Nikki either editing or removing infoboxes would be appropriate, as she appears to have lost perspective on the issue. Nikki, is this something you could live with, at least for a while? Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a one-sided discussion with all the pro-boxers out in force, and those who have reservations about boxes absent. I only found it by accident. (The common non-specific title Persistent edit stalking minus Nikkimaria’s name serves to obscure the discussion — assembled admins please note).

In my experience, Nikkimaria has been reasonable and considerably less aggressive than Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt. The latter have been developing new infoboxes and applying them to articles without notifying concerned editors. (In this connection, see for example here and here).

I was surprised that Andy Mabbett should make this kind of accusation against Nikkimaria, given that he consistently reverts my own edits (for example: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]], [65], [66]. As I observe WP:1RR and never complain here, I guess I'm an easy target. I am not sure what 'edit stalking' means in a WP context, but I assume it involves watching another editor's contribution list and then jumping in with an edit or reversion. Well, is anyone seriously suggesting that Andy Mabbett doesn't do this? Kleinzach 04:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, for what it's worth. Pigsonthewing's behaviour with regard to infoboxes at WP:COMPOSERS has usually added nothing but bad vibes to many talk pages. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I have noticed editor Nikkimaria's work, it has been very thoughtful and helpful. I think she deserves full backup here. It's Pigsonthewing who is the big Wiki-problem; he's an incredibly disruptive editor who wastes a vast amount of other editors' time through harassment, wiki-lawyering, and forum-shopping. This guy has been banned before, and it's really time now to make it permanent. Opus33 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been called aggressive above, and disagree with that as well. Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles other than mine, such as Sparrow Mass, and found the agreement of the principal author. No, I have not added an infobox on Bach, just suggested one. No, I have not even suggested to use one for Talk:Richard Wagner, knowing that the principal authors are against it, I only showed how could look, following an advice of Nikkimaria to have an infobox on the talk page if it was not wanted on the article. The way "vibes" are raised every time something that should be factual and simple (an infobox) is mentioned doesn't cease to surprise me. - What do you think of the compromise that in cases of a known conflict of interests on the topic, changes are not made to the infobox but discussed on the talk? This includes adding one and socalled "cleanup". - This was done for The Rite of Spring, have a look at the ratio of facts and vibes. - If it had been respected for BWV 103 - [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], ... [75]) - we would have wasted less time. Btw, the cantata title translates to "You will weep and wail" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am repeatedly surprised by the passion that this infobox thing arouses in the classical music project. For someone who spends most of his Wikipedia time hanging around middle east disputes, where the fate of nations seems to hang on this or that word, this particular issue seems so, so bland. That said, the agreement achieved in the last major discussion on this seems to me a good one- that you should seek consensus on the talk page before adding an infobox. I have done this occasionally at articles about those extremely esoteric composers who interest me, gotten no feedback whatsoever, and then did what I wanted. The one who has consistently ignored this agreement is Pigsonthewing, who goes about planting infoboxes in articles as though they (the articles,I mean) were the octopus's garden. So I join (without a great deal of enthusiasm) Toccata's and Opus's assessment that it is Pigs, and not Maria, who deserves censure here. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we had an edit conflict, - see the above examples, - I think we agree on less passion on the topic, - censuring anybody seems not the right approach to achieve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)

Your statement that prior consent is needed to add an infobox to some articles (presumably classical music) puzzles me. I read both Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, both of which discuss article by article consensus, but neither mentions that there are different rules for classical music article. I'm not so sure that such special rules are a good idea, but if the community has decided that classical music articles follow different rules than every other articles, shouldn't this be prominently mentioned in the relevant guidelines?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Censure is indeed not the correct approach whilst one retains any hope that the contenders in a dispute are amenable to reason and consideration for others. Where one or both (or their partisans) show themselves not thus amenable - and in particular where there is a history of such implacability - what then? I put this question as dispassionately as possible. In this particular instance of pot-and-kettle, my inclination is towards the opinion of Ravpapa (talk). However - Declaration of interest: I have lodged a quite separate - but not entirely spiritually unconnected - complaint about Mr. Mabbett here.--Smerus (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone going to look into what the origins of this editorial disagreement is? Its not uncommon for Andy to try and bully his changes through against well-established consensus with wikilawyering in order to avoid actual debate. Don't let him do it. Make him actually make his case and try to achieve consensus.DavidRF (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How does that excuse, in any way, an editor following Andy around the project, including making plainly pointy edits to pages he's just created? It's one thing for the classical music project and its various affiliates to go around owning pages that its members were the primary contibutors to (it's not a good thing in any way whatsoever, but at least it's something everyone is used to by now), but it's quite another to go stalking new pages created by the Filthy Outsiders (Andy in particular) and enforcing that group's idiosyncracies on them as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You've completely misrepresented everyone's complaints about Andy. We'd welcome being overruled by "filthy outsiders" (your strawman characterization, not mine) if someone of authority came in and made the ruling. But we play by the rules, we debate for a week or two, we reach a consensus and update the wikiproject style guide and then Andy ignores the consensus and pretends to be unaware of any debate that had occurred. We repeat the debate for another week, reach consensus again and again its ignored. Repeat again, etc. If you get angry and overreact, then Andy uses your overreaction against you. Its infuriating and extremely hard to assume good faith when interacting with him. I don't understand how debate and reaching consensus is considered "owning" while ignoring consensus and refusing to debate is not "owning", although we're used to it by now too. I don't know User:Nikkimaria very well, if she overreacted way too far, then do what you have to do, but don't go around mischaracterizing people's complaints like you've just done. I thought admins at ANI were the supposed to be the voice of reason, but you guys are just as petty and snipey as any other editor.DavidRF (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

Comment I see a troubling tendency of editors lining up into "Andy's right" and "Nikkimaria's right" camps. That approach is rarely helpful, and rarely correct. I see a lot of links included; I've just started looking at them,and asking each about them. I've found less than exemplary behavior by both, so far. I see both trying to make the encyclopedia better, both with views on how that should be achieved, but the views clash. In some cases, they are on opposite sides of a debate which the community has failed to resolve, and unfortunately, have chosen to push their particular view if what is right. While it is undoubtedly more work than picking one to smack around, it would be better if we identified the open issues and attempted to resolve them.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My comment above was the results of looking at some of the edits identified by Andy, and observing some editorial decisions made by Nikkimaria. In some cases I agree, in some cases I did not. In no case did I feel that it was as clear cut as a violation of policy, rather it was an interpretation or a gray are where we differ. I've commented at her talk page, and see no need to revisit it here, partly because I reread Andy's report, and see no mention that he disagreed with any particular edit, the only charge is stalking.

As all know, the charge of stalking, or Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING is problematic. A common set of facts showing up at this notice board involves an editor who makes some mistake, is corrected by a second editor, and then the second editor decides it would be prudent to check through other contributions of the first editor to see if there are other issues. That results in editor one observing that editor two is showing up at articles they've never edited before and making quite a few changes in short order. It sure looks like wikihounding. This behavior is not just tolerated, it is encouraged. As an extreme case, when some has enough copyvios, we go through a CCI which involves review of every single edit. In more benign cases, it involves review of many recent edits by some editor, the placing of that editor on their watchlist (which may be automatic), followed by subsequent changes. All acceptable. In other cases, some editor gets upset at another editor, and decide to stalk their every edit, reverting often, commenting acrimoniously, and not always within policy. Our policy notes that one set of actions occurs "with good cause", while the other is prohibited, but doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference. It doesn't sound amenable to a simple metric, and may need the Potter Stewart treatment.

Andy wants to know what we are going to do about it. Step one is to determine if, in fact, the evidence supports the charge.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

To pre-empt concerns such as "Our policy ... doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference" I provided a link, above, to a recent Arbcom ruling. Since it clearly wasn't obvious enough, so allow me to quote:

...relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Also, please do not confuse my not commenting on the content of the edits given as agreeing with them; my concern here is stalking, and I deliberately addressed only that. You will note that I have challenged the majority, either by reverting, or on the respective talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, thanks for the link to the Arbcom ruing. I just reviewed five cases of wikihounding, which weren't very helpful. I missed the link you gave earlier, and will review it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy thanks for the clarification that not commenting on the substance of the edits should not be construed as agreement. I do see disagreement about editing policy and appreciate that those were not brought here, which for review of behavior. I had started a post on how to address some of those editing policies, but it didn't belong here, and then I realized you hadn't raised it. I did not mean to imply that your silence here on those issues was concurrence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed 50 edits of Nikkimaria, those just prior to the filing by Andy. (That is probably not enough, but it is tedious, and if viewed as a useful metric, we should find someone to automate it.) In each edit, I checked to see if Nikkimaria was editing just after Andy, or not. In 2 of the 50 edits, her edit followed his. In 48, it did not. This does not preclude the possibility that there were intervening edits, and she was editing something he had edited. That can be checked.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Numbers don't tell the whole story, but here are some counts

Andy identified 22 diffs in the list above in which Nikkimaria edited immediately after Andy. (The list is characterized as examples, so may not be exhaustive.) 22 seems like a lot, and I confess if some editor reverted me 22 times I'd not treat it as coincidence. But it is relevant to look at the count in light of Nikkimaria's contributions. The 22 diffs cover the time range 21 December 2012 to 5 June 2013. If I count correctly (and I did it quickly) Nikkimaria has over 7000 edits in the same time period. That means less than one third of one per cent of Nikkimaria's edits are in that list, which doesn't, on its face, sound like single minded obsession with another editor. It might be useful to have metrics for cases in which wikihounding has been upheld as well as cases in which it has been dismissed, to see if the metric is useful and how this compares. I do not have those numbers, but if a case of wikihounding exists, it will (IMO) have to be on the nature of the edits, not on the counts. I have identified one edit that troubled me, and asked Nikkimaria about it. I'll keep looking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also relevant to look at Andy's count over the same time period. If I counted correctly there are about 9500 edits in the same time period. Which means the 22 edits identified are less than one quarter of one per cent of Andy's edits. This isn't presented as definitive proof, but if editor A targets editor B in violation of policy, I would expect significantly higher percentages.

Suggested close

I'm too involved to close this myself, but I've read enough, and seen too many deficiencies on both sides to recommend that Nikkimaria be sanctioned for wikihouding or Andy for provoking. I know it sounds like the easy way out, but it isn't simply that both have flaws—I've searched several of the edits listed by Andy to look for evidence that either has attempted editing101—go to the article talk page to discuss the issue, and came up empty.

As I posted on each of their talk pages:

I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.

I hope an uninvolved admin will close this and urge that they both start over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth does that have to do with the fact that she's stalking my edits - and has tacitly acknowledged doing so here and when I raised the matter on her talk page?

Here's where I raised one such staking on an article talk page (she didn't respond): [76]; and another: [77] (which is clearly linked in my fist set of links, above( and another: [78].

But even had I not done so; stalking is prohibited, with few exceptions, that are not applicable here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:David-golota disruptive editing and personal attacks

Since I don't want to start breach WP:3RR rule, I'm reporting here User:David-golota disruptive behaviour in List of Polish football champions article. He simply copypasted a content from Ekstraklasa[79] article and put into existing list[80] which include all Polish championships (not Ekstraklasa only), and also includes second and third places like you can see there[81]. So now, the list of champions is incomplete, there are no champions from 1946 and 1947 listed and there are no runners-up and third places like in other similar lists: List of German football champions or List of English football champions. Also two other tables he copypasted from Ekstraklasa articles [82] are incomplate as they don't include Polish champions from 1921-26 and 1946-47 when Ekstraklasa was not played.

Also this user is not able to comunicate in civil way and always personal attacks me in his comments like[83], [84], [85] or User_talk:Oleola#Not_the_BOSS.--Oleola (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I remind people that this complaint seems to have been left unresolved due to the unrelated drama below? From a quick look, it appears that User:Oleola's complaint is justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oleola is a Wisla Krakow fan and many users have complained about him and his way to ruin alot of Polish soccer articles. He always want to make Wisla Krakow a team with 14 championship. But they only have 13. Way do he want to make the article about Polish football champions ugly and bad? Beacuse on the article Wisla only have 13 championship and Ruch Chorzow 14. Im not fan of neither team. Im not fan of any polish football team. I just want to make the articles better.

Oleola did NOT create any of the boxes or any of the text that is in the article of Polish Champion. It is not his work. Somebody else made all the graphs and statistics. He is just being childish. He always wants the articles to be like he thinks they should be. Look at my editing history. All of my work has been legit. Oleola just cant handle something not going his way.

David-golota (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC) David Golota

who created the graphics and statistics is irrelevant. What matters is whether they are correct according to sources. From what I can see, the article doesn't cite any sources at all, and without them, nobody can possibly say who is right or wrong. I suggest that rather than slinging insults you find the necessary sources, and then discuss this on the article talk page. If you can't agree after finding sources, you could perhaps try one of the suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

David-golota your accusations are ridiculous, nobody ever wrote in List of Polish football champions that Wisła was Polish football champions 14 times so please stop lying. If you can't understand that 1951 Ekstraklasa season was not a competiton for Polish football championship, that's your problem. And don't know why are you talking about Wisła, because that's not a point. You removed runners-up and third places without any explanations (just beacasue you copypasted from Ekstraklasa the list with one change in 1951 season) and copypasted two incomplete tables from Ekstraklasa article - that's the point. So please tell us why you do that and stop talking about Oleola and stop making personal attacks because it reflects only on you. Comment on content, not on the contributor.--Oleola (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked both editors for 24 hours for edit warring. Frankly, though, David seems to have some real problems editing at Wikipedia. I don't know how much of it is language, incompetence, or POV. After he arguably vandalized this board, I left him a message warning him and asking for an explanation as there was always a possibility, however slim, that it was accidental. He then left me this clueless message on my talk page. Still, I didn't feel I could block him for edit warring and not also block Oleola.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic diversion regarding a troll

Here be trolls. De728631 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The accused user is currently being invesigated and we will get back to you shortly. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Really? Investigated by whom? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) AlldiRessie (talk · contribs) looks like a troll. The account is two days old. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am not a troll, and the investigation will be investigated by us, the Wikipedians. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Someone who complained about the use of "you're" is going to investigate? No thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) User:Bwilkins, please be civil. Pointing out these silly points is childish. Lets go back on track. I am investigating this matter, just give me some time. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am being civil - this is the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. You've been here for 2 days, have caused a ruckus, insulted people, told people they need mentoring because they used a contraction on their talkpage, and now you're leading an investigation? Seriously - step back. Your comments may be welcome, but you're not the "investigator", so don't tell people to back off (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting text on User:AlldiRessies user page: "User:Kauffner is my friend. I am a product of User:Kauffner and his team of sockpuppets". Thomas.W (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) This warning on my talkpage is also interesting ... the sheer lack of a clue here is overwhelming (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) See [86]. Faking posts by Jimbo Wales? Clueless beyond belief... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC) ... and that is the nail in the coffin. Indeffed. Someone disagree, go ahead and change it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

major blp vio needing revdel

Talk:Ted_Nugent#BLP_VIO Gaijin42 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Dianna (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please contact oversight directly about these issues in the future; I happened to notice this thread, so I suppressed the content in question, but it's much more efficient to just point us to the content privately in the first place if you're an editor pointing out a BLP problem or an admin carrying out an RD2. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fluffernutter. For those who don't know, there's a list of admins that can be contacted by email at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. The email address for oversight is shown in an edit notice at the top of this page. My experience with that service has been that the response time is excellent (within minutes). -- Dianna (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware that that was the preferred process in situations like this. I will do so going forward, thanks! Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Adamlouismarre

It seems that the only purpose of this account is to make disruptive edits to this template. I already opened an ANI notice six months ago about this very silly question, and just now I have written him a message on his talk page that he saw fit to delete immediately and went back to revert without even giving an explanation. Could someone please take care of this troll?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

While I've found some problematic edits by Adamlouismarre (battlefield mentality: "I will continue to revert the changes made to match the sourced document", and removal of an other editor's comment), I'm currently trying to understand the statistics behind that template. It's linking to the UN's Human Development Report 2013, and the issue in this slow but long-term edit war seems to be about the number of countries in the document that are ranked in the so-called Gender Inequality Index. On page 31 of the current report, they write that "Based on 2012 data for 148 countries, the GII shows large variations..." That is also the total number in the template as restored in this edit by Underlying lk. At the talk page, Adamlouismarre wrote that one of those countries should not be considered at all because it doesn't have any programs that actively enforce changes in gender inequality. The counter-argument is that the template links to a table of countries rather than to the explanatory text in the document. And that's where I'm having a problem with the current data: The Gender Inequality Index (GII) table starting at p. 156 of the 2013 report lists 186 countries and territories sorted by their Human Development Index, but 37 of them are not ranked in the GII. 186-37=149, which is still incompatible with the statement on p. 31 (data for 148 countries), not to mention Adamlouismarre's counting of 147.

So instead of reverting each other, I suggest the following: don't try to publish your own version of statistics; both the subjective counting of countries in a table, and the equally subjective exclusion of one country from the list because of its perceived inappropriate preconditions can be stamped off as original research. How the UN calculated their index is explained in the summary on p. 31: "data for 148 countries". That, and only that, should be reflected in the template – not what you think might be the 'real' base of calculations. De728631 (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The bigger issue for me is not this (relatively petty) dispute, but the complete and demonstrable unwillingness of this Adamlouismarre to discuss matters in a civil manner, and to make a serious argument to justify his edits. He can't even decide how many countries should be included: one time is 145, another time 147. It's like any number is fine with him, as long as his opponent doesn't 'win'. That's hardly constructive behaviour.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Blue Water Bridge vandalism mentioning "Laurel Robinson"

Please take a look at the Blue Water Bridge article and the talk page at Talk:Blue Water Bridge. Please take action against the IP address 108.66.8.65 who is the latest one to mention "Laurel Robinson." In the past, the article was vandalised by changing the bridge name to that of "Laurel Robinson." Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They seem to have been much busier last year. I've warned the latest IP and will keep an eye on the article: if it continues the course will be WP:RBI and report to WP:AIV. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Forbes Magazine's List of The World's Most Powerful People

After all this time, why hasn't Forbes Magazine's List of The World's Most Powerful People been indef semi-protected yet? The issue has been brought to RFPP many times within the past few years already, but each attempt is met with "there is no significant increase in vandalism within the past 24 hours" or something. There is no need for this page to be updated regularly; a new list only occurs once every year, and this can be done by registered users, which means that there is no need for IP editors to edit this page. This page is regularly vandalised by IP editors, who think it's funny/cool to add their own name to the list. Practically 95% of IP edits here are vandal edits, but they occur so infrequently (once every 6 days or so), that people who patrol RFPP think that it doesn't need protection, due to the assumption that a page needs to be vandalised every second in order to warrant protection.

Can someone justify why IP editors should be allowed to edit a page, that only requires constructive editing (read: non-vandal) once every year? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is intended to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If someone casually browsing the article notices a mistake, or a way to way to improve the wording of that article, they should be able to without creating an account. That means there will also be silly stuff added to that article. How is this an incident? --Shirt58 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not an incident, but the edit notice at WP:AN says "If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you.", which suggests that this is the correct place to bring attention to this. RFPP did not work, so the next logical step would be to take it to ANI, which brings more attention.

Yes, many of the things you say are correct regarding this encyclopedia being one that anyone can edit, and I do not disagree with you in regards to that. However, exceptions do exist, and likewise, I cannot edit pages such as Barack Obama or Scientology without logging in. My question is, why, for this page, do we need IP editors freely making edits? How likely are there going to be mistakes, that registered users cannot fix up? Having contributors clean up messes created by vandals every now and then is a pain in the neck, and it would be beneficial if the page was indef semi-protected. If it wasn't obvious already, this article is a vandalism magnet. Think about it: it's a list of the most important people on this planet - which 12 year old kid wouldn't find it cool and awesome to put his own name on there? If I was ten years younger, I'd probably do the same thing too. A overwhelming majority of pseudo-anonymous IP edits to this page are not constructive, and I honestly cannot believe that we're doing anyone a favour by letting non-autoconfirmed users make edits on that page. These vandal edits happen frequently and constantly, but not frequently enough to be convincing enough at WP:RFPP. Until semi-protection occurs, these vandal edits will continue on a regular basis, and reverting these wastes man-hours of good-faith editors who can do other things instead. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A total non-issue and a brilliant way to scare off potential new editors. What if there is a spelling mistake to correct? A formatting error to fix? What if a page is moved and a re-direct needs sorting? etc. GiantSnowman 15:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

All these "what ifs", but given the history of that article, how many of these hypothetical "what ifs" occurred in this real world? And no, we're not "scaring away" potential editors, because there are plenty of articles on botany, zoology, popular culture and history that these new editors can freely edit. This one article isn't going to kill Wikipedia if it becomes semi-protected. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not everybody is interested in "botany, zoology, popular culture and history". GiantSnowman 15:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

But many are interested in vandalism. My goal here is to minimise or prevent that for this page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Another question for you: Does the Barack Obama article scare off new editors? Article talk pages have a purpose, and if new editors cannot edit mainspace articles, they can make suggestions on the talk page. Now that pending changes has been mentioned (I've never thought of that in the first place, but it's a good idea), that too is a valid way to fix this problem, and I'm open to having this as a compromise. In fact, it might even be a better option, given that pending changes are intended for "Infrequently-edited articles that are experiencing high levels of vandalism... from unregistered and new users". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A broad - and incorrect - generalisation of anonymous editors. Many are actually here to improve Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not generalising IP editors in general. I'm generalising IP editors who edit this particular article. My justification is based on anecdotal evidence based on the article's edit history, which shows a statistically significant correlation between being a new editor and making a vandal edit. The trends in this article are not valid for all of Wikipedia, due to the nature of this article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That is generalising IP editors. GiantSnowman 15:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to my earlier comment "But many are interested in vandalism", "many" does not denote "majority". "Many" refers to any sizeable portion. I don't see how my judgment was incorrect - are you saying that vandals don't exist? Look, I know how IP editors can be beneficial to the project in most cases, and that the large majority of IP editors do make good edits, but in the case of this article, the benefits just don't outweigh the hassles. When calling for semi-protection or pending changes, the means outweigh the ends, because we see very little constructive behaviour on that article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Would pending changes protection be an option here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, pending changes is also a valid alternative solution. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No admin issue here to be resolved, please close and discuss in the appropriate place such as Village Pump. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Premature archiving of Talk:Newport County A.F.C.

Discussion at Talk:Newport County A.F.C., the most recent contribution to which was made on 16 May 2013, was archieved on 21 May 2013. Surely this is premature? Can someone look and revert the discussion back to the main Talk page if appropriate? Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Owain (talk · contribs) moved Talk:Newport County A.F.C. to Talk:Newport County A.F.C./Archive 2; that is not how archiving should be done (ideally a bot should do it automatically), let's wait for his explanation before reverting. GiantSnowman 08:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the problem that a week after the discussion ended was too soon or that the archiving was done in an improper manner? Are there any guidelines as to what constitutes premature archival? The "move" method is how I have always done archiving in the past. If one looks at the history of the page the size and time intervals are the same between the Archive 1 and Archive 2 pages. Owain (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We have bots that do archiving so that nobody ever does it manually. On heavy-traffic talkpages, archiving may be set up to archive discussions that are a month old ... it's usually longer than that, and a week is ridiculous in 99% of cases. And no, we don't move the page. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am just old school, but the move procedure is the way I have always done it. I was not aware that it had fallen out of use. Apologies for that. Owain (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Barring any objections, I intend to merge the history/content of the current talk page and the two archives at Talk:Newport County A.F.C. - there is not enough talk page content to justify one archive, let alone two. GiantSnowman 12:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't fallen out of use. On low activity talk pages it is still done manually. The bots that do it even have notes in their instructions stating that automatic archival should only be added to article pages if there has been a discussion to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the discussion was archived while still potentially "live". I see no reason why it should have been archived so soon and think it ought to be restored to the main talk page. Mooretwin (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

By all means merge them all back together. Maybe my old-school tidiness instinct got the better of me! Owain (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, full history restored to Talk:Newport County A.F.C., I have manually archived everything pre-2013. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not you want a bot to automatically archive in future. GiantSnowman 12:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking for help

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

---

I am looking for some help for Wikipedia. --Long Live The Workers Party of Korea ! ! ! (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Anti-Socialist Activity by User:Dodger67

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

---

I do not want to cause too much attention but User:Dodger67 is posting under an anti-socialist pretense. Please do not draw too much attention, but please look at his edits. Thank You Comrades. --Long Live The Workers Party of Korea ! ! ! (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Jangsu Juche Sasang is just another troll. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What is a troll? Anyway, User:Dodger67 must learn and study Juche and the teachings of Kim Il Sung. I can teach you. Go to your nearest North Korean embassy. --Long Live The Workers Party of Korea ! ! ! (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Jangsu Juche Sasang, your editing pattern and attitude are becoming of increasing concern. GiantSnowman 12:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Was funny for five minutes. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

• Oh gawd, D LOLz D LOLz, saltwater LOLz...
  

I've seen so much earnest nastiness of late —on the wik— that it just cracked me up to come across a bit of irreverent frivolity. On ANI no less. It blindsided my funny bone. While I don't wish to encourage Long Live The Workers Party of Korea ! ! ! to escalate (or even to continue) —in the interest of honest disclosure— I have to thank him for the laugh. Improper though it may be. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s. The above apparently picked up the pretty colored field while I was in the edit window as I got an edit conflict and had to merge. As I started it well before the thread picked up it's present décor I'm leaving it here. If this causes anyone to feel overly irked feel free to strike (<s></s>). --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy Family Vandalism By Sock Puppet

User has been constantly reverting cited information, removing family members, page blanking, and he/she refuses to heed to warnings given to myself and other contributors. It is too much for us to continue having to revert the stuff, and it clearly is just being done as a joke

There is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArleneCavendish (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Being Vandalized

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

---

The User:Beerest355 has been vandalizing me for quite some time now. The user has been tracking my edits from various articles like for example, Bob's Burgers (season 4); The user has been getting into edit wars with me about the user's own opinions, then the user changes from Fall to September. I undid the user's edit for a reason, when I clicked the reference link next to what the user typed in, that website took me to a Tumblr website created by someone and actually thought to be dumb enough that Fox created the page on Tumblr. I undid it and told the user if he undid the edit, it'd be considered vandalism and I'd report the user. Obviously, I guess he wanted me to report him because what do you know, he undid my edit and told me to check the reference which the user knows that I already did. Honestly, the user has been variously turning my words on me for other articles like Family Guy (season 12), The Simpsons (season 25), Bob's Burgers (season 4), and etc. I don't know if the user is trying to get me annoyed by this or the user wants to cause problems with me. Honestly, I don't even care what the user's trying to do. If the user continues to vandalize me because the user thinks that I have spelling/grammar problems, the user should be blocked. --Archcaster (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• He isn't "vandalising" you (see WP:VANDAL) but he is insisting on using a blog for a reliable source, and it isn't a reliable source. You forgot to notify him using the {{subst:ANI-notice}} tag, and I've done that for you. It is required, ping/linking isn't enough notification. You both are edit warring a bit there, and really this is a matter for WP:DRN, not WP:ANI since it is about content. I'm not sure if he is following you, or just that you have similar interests ('toons) so not ready to jump to that conclusion. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't think you need to capitalize fall, summer, spring per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS as they aren't proper nouns. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, can you tell him to stop following my edits on various articles, the user is acting like a know it all. What kind of user puts a blog as a reference? I already undid his edit earlier and we all know that he's gonna add it back on when he logs on. --Archcaster (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it could be that he has similar interests. Don't edit war, and again, file at WP:DRN if he keeps reverting. Continuing to revert back, even if you are right, can get you both blocked. As for "what kind of editor", he might say the same about capitalizing the seasons, so it is better to just assume good faith and try to engage outside of an edit summary. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember also that this is a global encyclopedia, so fall in the US is spring in the southern hemisphere. For that reason it is good to avoid the use of those seasons, except to the extent they are in quotes, or otherwise relevant, so I would support changing fall to September.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless the user or you has proof that the 4th season of Bob's Burgers is premiering in September, it should be remained fall. --Archcaster (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And the seasons are relative to the country to which it is being released. I haven't looked at all the sources, but I bet they are saying "this fall". Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! That's why it shouldn't be changed to September "whatever" 2013 if Fox or the other sources didn't announced anything yet.--Archcaster (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is more for WP:DRN or better yet, the talk page of the article first (per our requirement you try to work it out on the talk page first). This just goes to show that you might be right on some points, wrong on others, and not everyone agrees on yet more. ANI is about incidents, and I'm not convinced he is stalking you, and more likely he just likes 'toons as well. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So, if anything else happens like if he reverts or undoes again, I report you, the WP:DRN, or both? --Archcaster (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It means you need to stay calm, go to the talk page of the article, present your case in neutral terms, and invite him to do the same. If he won't participate, or won't in good faith, then go to WP:DRN. Our goal here is always to solve problems with the least amount of interference as possible, and most of these kinds of issues can be solved by the two editors themselves if they will remain calm and just discuss the disagreement. This also allows other editors of the same article to participate. You might read WP:BRD and he would be good to do the same. Regardless, stop reverting back and forth or you will end up getting both of you blocked for WP:edit warring. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, you being unwilling to discuss this with User:Beerest355, Archcaster, while the former has made attempts to discuss it with you puts you in a not-so-great light. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Like I asked before..., do I report to you, the WP:DRN, or both if anything else happens? --Archcaster (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I did answer your question if you read it fully. You never "report" to me, I'm not in charge. No one is. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What if I report to the WP:DRN, and they don't do anything to make the vandalism of the user stop? --Archcaster (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your first step is to raise it on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user. So far you have done neither, so it's nowhere near the stage for WP:DRN or WP:ANI. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please start back at my first comment, and read slowly. This isn't vandalism. There is no need for me to repeat what I've already said. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Archcaster: There is no vandalism going on. On Wikipedia, vandalism is defined at "adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Disagreements between editors is not vandalism. And you don't go to WP:DRN to "report" someone. You go there so that uninvolved editors can help resolve the disagreements. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

and (edit conflict)For the record DRN rarely acts until a dispute has been thoroughly discussed on the talk pages for the article in question. WP:3O or WP:RFC would seem to be the more useful steps at this point in the process. Once again please stop calling the edits vandalism because that is not what they are. MarnetteD | Talk 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Archcaster: You should first attempt to resolve the issues on the article talk page which neither of you are using. Attempt to explain why you made your changes, and give them a chance to respond. Continue discussing the matter until you can come to some sort of agreement. If you can't, follow WP:DR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I planned to do if he keeps vadalizing the articles. Also, if he's not doing vandalism, what exactly is he doing? --Archcaster (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I count five times in the text above where people have explained to you that it's not vandalism. Vandalism usually involves the word "poop" or similar juvenilia. You have a disagreement. Discuss it with the other party and see if you can come to an agreement and stop making accusations of vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Archcaster: Wikipedia's explanation on what vandalism is and isn't is here: WP:VANDAL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I linked that in the first few words of my first comment, and that isn't the only thing that has had to be repeated. Archcaster needs to slow down and actually read what has been said here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I can read, just to let you know. Second of all, I'm not repeating anything, y'all are not being reasonable to the words that you say, that's why I ask the questions that you think that I'm doing on purpose so y'all can repeat yourselves, I'm not doing that. --Archcaster (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, so here I am. I just want to say that the Behind Bob's Burgers blog is indeed the official blog of the Bob's Burgers writers. Here is the official Bob's Burgers Twitter account posting about it. I should've stated that, sorry. It is a reliable source, and seeing as how the blog states the new season will start in September, I think it is appropriate. "actually thought to be dumb enough that Fox created the page on Tumblr" isn't really nice, or civil. I also really truly fail to see why you are mentioning the Family Guy/The Simpsons articles. I have already told you several times that capitalizing "fall" is not correct. Beerest355 Talk 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you forgot to tell me about how you got "behindtheburgers.com" from, you should of told me on my talk page when you send me a message yesterday. Anyway, I understand now that fall being capitalized is incorrect, obviously. I didn't know that you got the website from their Twitter. I was mostly concerned because when I went on the link, it looked like someone created a blog of the website on Tumblr, that's why I undid your edit. Next time, be specific about what you type in and what it's about. --Archcaster (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, "reliable source" is a reasonably well defined term in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. While blogs can be used in some rare circumstances, they are not generally reliable sources, even if they are the official blog of anything. So please do not assert that the blog source is a reliable source, it almost certainly is not.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how this blog is related to and is run by the show, I think this one can fit the bill. Beerest355 Talk 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Not unless you get it approved at the RS noticeboard, which is possible, but unlikely. Someone would have to show that it is subject to editorical control, which is possible, but not easy to prove.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources such as blogs can be used as reliable sources in either one of the following two situations:

• When its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party reliable sources. This means that we can cite Stephen Hawking's blog (assuming he has one) on black holes if we want.
• Self-published can be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-promotional or exceptional
2. it does not involve claims about third parties
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources

This means that we can cite the official Star Wars web site on AT-ATs, for example. See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both Archcaster and Beerest355 have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. A page protection request was denied for a very unusual reason. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think that adding another revert to the edit-war is the way to solve a content dispute.[87] Why not start a discussion on the talk page? Or if the reliability of this source is in question, take it to WP:RSN? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For several hours now the two editors involved have been told to start a discussion on the talk page yet it is still pristine. Page protection in such circumstances is normal. Why should GSK have to start a discussion at RSN, or the talk page for that matter, when the two involved editors have ignored all attempts to get them to engage in conversation? MarnetteD | Talk 01:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Because edit-warring is never the way to solve a content dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion for Behind Bob's Burgers at the WP:RSN. I also do not think this is an ongoing conflict anymore, as Archcaster's reply to me above seems like he is content with the explanation. Beerest355 Talk 01:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know that and GSK was not edit warring. Unless one edit can now be considered an EW. All I can see is that GSK has tried to protect the integrity of the article, has taken the time to file the proper reports and is now receiving unwarranted grief for it. That is sad. On the other hand I am glad that the two involved editors seem to have settled things. MarnetteD | Talk 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• @GSK, the reason for denying protection was sound. I don't like fully protecting an article because two editors are edit warring. If there are more than two, then protection may be warranted, but why should other editors suffer because two editors are misbehaving? I'm not sure what to do with the ANEW report at this point. I'm inclined to leave it open to make sure there is no further disruption to the article. Beerest has made the somewhat novel assertion that one of his reverts was not a revert because it was done with permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both editors have been blocked for 48 hours by User:De728631 at ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Slight problemo

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

---

I am not sure where to post this, so I am posting it here. I have tried to edit Demographics of Uzbekistan about 6 times now to no avail. I have clearing up and updating some statistics on the page, and when I try and submit some information , none of my edits go through. I have e-mailed WikiCommons and some other Sysops, and no one has gotten back to me. I even tried editing under a proxy (Slovenian proxy) but to no avail.

I am literally at the point where I want to throw my office chair across the room. I have already broken some keys off my keyboard (the C, H and F keys) and punched a small hole in the wall. I am very angry now, 6 times I have tried to edit this page. I have a bit of a short temper and I am known to take out my anger on inanimate objects. It took the Helpdesk like 4 hours to answer my question about proxy servers. I am very close to vandalising Wikipedia in my anger but I have such respect for Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia foundation in general, I will not do so. --Warrink Lubjublana (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I find all of this extremely difficult to believe. In any case, click here, make your edits, include an edit summary, and press 'Save Page.' — The Potato Hose 20:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Sawwooddoow

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

---

Obvious troll: [88] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I gave you AGF and several mins to notify said user about this thread; but you still didn't and even made other edits in the mean time. Please make sure you follow policy by notifying users, and it's common courtesy.Camelbinky (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in whether you give me AGF or not - User:Sawwooddoow is aware of this post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

1. You two need to stay the hell away from each other, for reals.
2. Did you even bother looking at the contribs, Camelbinky? It's Technoquat, and notifying them after they have outed themselves merely to satisfy some stupid bureaucratic point is a waste of time, at best. — The Potato Hose 20:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Re CamelBinky and me staying away from each other, that's fine by me. I suggest that CamelBinky starts by not following me around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Charles J. Hynes

The article for Charles J. Hynes is almost entirely in a negative POV, for which I tagged it as such. I also removed a number of portions which are copied word for word from various media sources. The negative information has been added by a couple of editors who have edited this article almost exclusively. One has undone my removal and is now edit-warring to keep the plagiarized material in the article. The editor has also refused to engage me on his talk page. Some additional eyes would be appreciated. Grsz 11 23:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also opened a thread at the BLP noticeboard [89]. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• One of the two warriors is now blocked. The other is practically an SPA and is not playing by the BLP and NPOV rules. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Omdo

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

Omdo seems to have one main focus which is to add bits of 'content' to articles with a view to reinforcing the position that Sabah and Sarawak should have more rights because of "agreements" at the time of the formation of Malaysia. The result is often to transform articles into WP:COATRACKS for these views, with difficult to understand, unbalanced content and irrelevant pdfs/links/documents.

He also makes edits such as adding the 2 states to lists of sovereign nations. He never explains any of his edits, in summaries, or on talk pages, and he won't join discussions even when invited.

The most recent 'incident' is his creation of the formation of Malaysia as an unattributed copy/paste of the stuff we had cleaned out of the 20-point agreement article, from its history. Related posts are at User talk:Omdo#The formation of Malaysia and Talk:History of Malaysia#Proposed merge of any suitable content from The formation of Malaysia.

Talk:20-point agreement is a good example, and provides a good overview of the pattern I'm trying to describe - it's only a short talk page, and illustrates the issue well. This diff, in particular, helps to explain: [90].

Here, there is a short edit war over the inclusion of irrelevant material relating to one of the 'disputes' [91], [92], [93], [94]

Here, [95], he adds North Borneo to the List of sovereign states by date of formation .

At User talk:Omdo#Sarawak Sovereignty Movement logo, it was necessary to create and upload a new image to replace his copyvio image, and to rewrite most of the content so as to be intelligible and accurately reflect what the sources say.

There are many more diffs, available on request, but I didn't want to make this ;tldr. I discussed this with Dennis Brown at User talk:Dennis Brown#Advice before bringing it here, but sadly I think I'm now left with little alternative. I believe that a block may now be the only option to enforce some sort of proper communication and understanding. Omdo does have content and a point of view to contribute, I just wish he could 'play nice' with other editors. Begoon ^talk 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't dug through all the contribs, but what I did see seems to be consistent with Begoon's description. Hopefully, Omdo will show up with a new found desire to communicate, cooperate and and edit in a neutral fashion that doesn't include copyright infringing. Otherwise a block may be needed. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting that the reaction since being notified of this discussion appears, so far, to have been to again remove the maintenance tags on 'the formation of Malaysia', and continue adding content with only a very minimal response, here: Talk:The formation of Malaysia. I am stepping away from the issue completely, now, as I feel anything I say or do will not help at this point. Begoon ^talk 04:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Begoon has summarised this well, and has commendably gone out of their way to try and gain cooperation from Omdo before bringing this here. It is true that Omdo represents a POV that is rarely seen, which has its benefits, but they are singularly focused on this issue. Their edits also contain quite a bit of synthesis based on a variety of primary sources. Discussion with them is difficult, as they usually just state points and refer to various sources without elaborating. (It is made harder by what seems to be a poor grasp of English, but this in itself isn't a fault.) I wouldn't like a block, but as Omdo doesn't discuss the only other options are expending great effort cleaning up the better edits and continuously having to revert the more extreme ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

edit warring, misinformation, and BLP vio

24.130.62.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be disrupting Hossam Mohammed Amin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He would like to claim Iraq has WMD, despite the many sources to the contrary in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, in a BLP no less, and he's way over 3RR. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for misrepresenting sources and edit warring. Had to go and read the whole Huffington article first, so it took a few minutes. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have offline source he says claims that Iraq has WMD; given the immediate BLP considerations present, I've removed it for now. We can decide later whether "Seal Target: Geronimo" was being misrepresented too, in which case it can be restored, or whether it is an extreme WP:FRINGE work, contrary to essentially everything in the Iraq and weapons of mass destruction article, which should be permanently excluded. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That can be decided on the talk page, and if there are conflicting sources, that can be handled there. Warring over content when the first source contradicts, however, isn't fruitful. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Slandering CT Senators

Somebody has been slandering former Senators Dodd and Lieberman. [96] Jehochman ^Talk 03:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Charmlet

An illustration from Category:Animals with transparent background --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey all.

So, after the month, and talks with many people, I've decided that I really should return to editing, if okay with everyone. Many of you know about, or have at least heard of, the issues with my old name, and so I'm dropping that and carrying on with this one, if fine with everyone.

Since the circumstances surrounding my previous retirement were "under a cloud" to use the Wikipedia term, I feel it's only proper that I notify everyone here to continue any discussion of sanctions or whatever may have come of that if I hadn't retired at that time. If the community chooses something, I'll gladly stick to that.

Thanks, gwickwire/Charmlet (Thanks SineBot...) Charmlet (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to WP:FISH. (I wasn't aware there was any viable discussion ongoing at the time you stopped editing. Could be wrong.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I remember that particular ANI. I think it resulted in a desysop ofan admin resigning their bit followed by said admin and gwickwire retiring. As far as I remember, there was no real bad blood just a lot of fish being thrown around and Facepalming. (Will need to look for that ANI, it wasn't that long ago) Blackmane (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, here we go. Blackmane (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi gwickwire/Charmlet. It looks like if you wish to have rollbacker and reviewer rights at some point in the future, you will have to re-apply, as you resigned these bits "under a cloud". Continuation of editing was not discussed, because you had stopped editing. So in absence of such discussion, my opinion is that you have tacit permission to carry on -- Dianna (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why WP:FISH? Perhaps you meant WP:TROUT? Anyway, as the admin who actually removed the rights, I'd be willing to restore them upon your request. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Your account was created the day after your "retirement". Did you retire to avoid sanctions from the account sharing incident with Riley Huntley? Optimom (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The notification is noted as is the notice you have placed on your userpage. I counsel Chamlet for the foreseeable future to stay well clear of the controversies and types of discussions that led him into disputes under his prior username. I do not believe any further action is required here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your Brad (absolutely definitely on the staying out of trouble, avoiding the usual hotspots for administrators, i.e here, there and elsewhere) but I'd like some clarification on why the new account was created when he had retired, told everybody who asked that he wasn't coming back, but had covertly created the account a day after his retirement vanishing act. Are we being led up the garden path and could we get a clear explanation on everything that happened. It just seems like this was to evade potential sanctions and a proper mark against the account. Instead of a proper bollocking, there's a triumphant return by a lost hero instead.

Oh, and I would prefer Charmlet edits without any problems for 90 days before applying for or receiving any advanced permissions. Finally, given I don't see it anywhere, can we get confirmation this is indeed gwickwire and not someone playing silly buggers, an edit under the gwickwire account to confirm ownership of Charmlet would suffice. Thanks. Nick (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing

Hello! I came here to bring IP Users 2.133.54.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 217.76.79.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 217.76.68.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...... to your attention. I am exhausted of correcting their POV edits on facts about religions and races. As you can see on [[97]], [[98]]......, their contributions have been continually reverting good faith edits from different users on these pages for a long time! Could any admin decide what to do about this editor? Thank you!Chris1636 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Cluckwik

Has apparently opened an account for the main (sole) purpose of declaring an edit war on me and Chongkian. I have asked him or her to cease, and the only response is to harass me on my talk page with two irrelevant, if hypocritical templates. Cluckwik has continued a short pattern commenced by an IP. FYI, this may be of interest and bears some similarities. GotR ^Talk 06:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Chongkian made en masse changes about the name of Taiwan/ROC without disscusion and I was reverting them.

GotR attacked me in Edit summarys [99](shabi means "stupid cunt" in Chinese),[100]etc. so I added the NPA templates.Cluckwik (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No startup user should begin by combating established editors, period, since the edits were not unconstructive (unlike your edits). The wording here is coarse, but not at all an attack. And let me remind all that Cluckwik added the stupid templates (two of them, in fact) before the edit summary (s)he was referring to. Typical dishonesty from Taiwanese anons/edit warriors. GotR ^Talk 07:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There was another edit summary calling me "sihaizi", which means child that should die, before the templates.Cluckwik (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Another shameless attempt to dodge the subject of this thread, which is YOUR conduct. GotR ^Talk 07:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to you, who is notorious for pushing anti-Taiwan independence POV in articles, to decide which edits are constructive.Cluckwik (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whose sock are you? You sound horribly familiar to this set of IP ranges. How else would an otherwise seemingly novice editor be so rash to jump the gun and falsely claim, with not an iota of evidence, that I am "notorious for pushing anti-Taiwan independence POV in articles"? GotR ^Talk 07:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see obvious problems about the IP range's edits and there was no consensus in that discussion. However, Hilo48's comment in the thread about the IP range proves my claim. Cluckwik (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a silent consensus by Rschen's (or whoever the blocking administrator was) to block that IP range. That you don't "see any obvious problems" is worrisome. Harassment is the most undisputed of them; WP:POINT in a clearly disruptive manner. Perhaps you yourself were the operator of that range? GotR ^Talk 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything about harrassing in the thread and there was no consensus about which point of view is more neutral. By the way, Rschen, with the last name Chen, seems to be Chinese. It is clear that what point of view he holds about this issue.Cluckwik (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The point of the Nov. 2012 AN/I thread was NOT to establish consensus on which POV is more neutral, which is also NOT the purpose of almost any AN/I thread. The aim was to clamp down on that clearly disruptive IP range, which may be continuing to manifest under the name of Cluckwik. The surname "Chen" implies Chinese by blood, which most people in Taiwan are. But does it imply (mainland or PRC) Chinese? No. You rebels' beloved Chen Shui-bian is a marvelous counterexample.

That you continue to (pretend) not (to) see anything harassing in the thread flies in the face of clear evidence in the form of relentlessly stalking my additions or corrections to DAB pages (links later...I'm going to bed soon). If you are indeed connected to this IP range, then your recent actions and rhetoric show that you are wholly unrepentant and deserve severe sanctions. GotR ^Talk 08:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Accused of personal attacks?

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

---

User:Ï¿½ has put a personal attack template on my talk page, but I am unsure why? I have not made any personal attacks. It is my 'last warning' apparently ? I am confused. --The East is Red (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. You might wish to read WP:BOOMERANG

I see no specific "personal attacks" as such, but your habit (and almost your only edits) of placing a random quote from Chairman Mao, together with a large portrait, onto other editor's talk pages certainly isn't going to win you any friends. Please desist. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, socking. Time to close. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Copyright violation

Chartered Institute of Management and Leadership is unambiguaous copyright violation of here and here. I added a CSD G12 tag and it was removed twice by 197.255.175.22 (talk) diff 1, diff 2. I warned the user after the second removal (here). The template has now been removed again by 197.242.106.101 (talk) diff.

I suspect that the two IP's are the same person and could also possibly be the page creator Israel henry (talk | contribs)‎. Their user page also contains the same content and I have also tagged that for speedy deletion. I think that its pretty clear that this page is in violation of copyright and should be deleted so can someone please do that because I don't want to get into an edit war trying to keep the CSD template on the page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nuked it. Looking into the IPs involved... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hard to say exactly what's going on without a full SPI (which I encourage you to file if you feel it's appropriate). I think it's clear that User:Israel henry = User:CIML USA, which suggests an American origin, but although the IP edits are jolly suspect, they geolocate to Nigeria... My advice would be to keep a close eye; report Israel henry if they add any further copyright infringements, but otherwise don't worry overmuch about it. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong page moves

User:Chanderforyou moved Aanchal Munjal to Aanchal munjal, then he manually moved all source text from 'Aanchal munjal' to 'Aanchal Munjal' and redirected 'Aanchal munjal' to 'Aanchal Munjal'. Now everything looks ok except that history is with 'Aanchal munjal'. I tried to revert but got error message. He has done such experiment with 4 articles. I could move and restore talkpages with history but can't do with articles. neo (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best to resolve it. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've moved Ravi dubey to Ravi Dubey, Aanchal munjal to Aanchal Munjal, Ashika Bhatia to Aashika Bhatia, and Sargun mehta to Sargun Mehta. Is that it? Please note that moving the talk page without the article isn't that helpful — it makes the fixing process confusing, if nothing else because the software wants to move the wrong talk page on top of the right talk page. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no experience of this move thing so I was confused. neo (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood, and you're welcome. I figured you weren't familiar with it, so I did my best not to sound as if I were objecting. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh User:Carolmooredc, canvassing and other

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

---

I first became aware of this user due to some disputes she is having with SPECIFICO, srich, and some others regarding economics. As I also was having disputes with them both on content and behavior, I was inclined to sympathize and side with Carol, but as I have watched the interactions unfold longer, it seems clear that she may have a WP:COMPETENCE issue. She has been warned multiple times about edit waring, personal attacks, canvassing, etc, and making improper accusations of the same against others. Most recently, she came across an AFD and !voted keep, and made some decent arguments and attempted to find additional sourcing (all good, and good faith actions), however, she then proceeded to WP:CANVASS with multiple postings, in a non-neutral manner, to non-neutral forums, including off-wiki, and further she did not notify the AFD regarding her postings. [101] [102], [103] I propose that Carol either needs blocking, mentoring, or perhaps a (topic?) ban from some of the administrative/maintenance forums until she develops a good understanding of what our policies are, and how to apply them correctly. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In Carol's defense, I notified her this was canvassing, and she struck the non-neutral parts of the notification on the project site.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, what BS, in so many ways. First off, calling into question the competence of a user with just under 25k edits and 7 years experience...and a grand total of 1 egregiously-long block (later thankfully shortened) 2 years ago...in this project is beyond the pale. Invoking WP:CIR should be reserved for the clearest of cases, e.g. non-English speakers, very young minors, or brazenly disruptive POV-pushers. I have known of this user for several years, particular work in the Israeli-Palestine topic area which is notoriously nasty and hot-button. Many editors, particularly those sympathetic to the Palestine side, who spend time there get hit with "edit waring, personal attacks" accusations, the bulk of which are completely unfounded. As for canvassing in this case, as I noted at the AfD, there have been long-standing and serious issues regarding women editors and articles, including editor retention, dearth of coverage, and biased coverage. The gender-gap mailing list is not secret or private, it is a WMF list that non-members can view at any time. If Carol's message there broke the technical letter of WP:CANVASS, a guideline, then IMO that can be set aside if the aim is an honest intent to improve the encyclopedia, or to bring wider attention to a critical problem. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be invoking IAR rather frequently. The problem is, your defense of canvassing in the name of IAR and "improving the encyclopedia" can be legitimately used by ANYONE - e.g. "I think the Israel article is not getting a fair treatment, so I'm going to send an email to the Israeli list and bring more editors from my side" - and then a Palestinian-supporter could do the same thing. Someone might say "The Men's rights article is getting trolled by POV pushers" - so I'm going to send an email to the mens' rights reddit to bring attention - I just want to improve the encyclopedia! As I said elsewhere, notifying a list such as gendergap in this case is ok, but the notification should have been neutral, and she should have notified other relevant wikiprojects, not just those she thought would be sympathetic. IAR applies to everyone, and should not be misused as you're proposing here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That said, I don't think much else is needed here, I disagree with the need for blocking, mentoring, or a topic ban, and a simple minnow across the cheek would suffice. Tarc should be trouted for a useless invocation of IAR OTOH.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, put a cork in it. I invoke IAR rarely, and honestly don't care for it much at all as it is misused 99% of the time. It just happens that in 2 recent cases I have been involved in, there is really no other way to get past the institutional bias and knuckle-dragging inertia that is preventing the right thing being done. Those being this AfD and this movie discussion.

well, the wiki is certainly lucky to have someone who knows so well when to use IAR. Now that I think about it, why don't *you* put a cork in it. Your general incivility across every thread I've seen you in is disruptive. Why not take a little break and let the editors do their work without your bullying.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I must say I really enjoy when those who are screaming "BIAS!!!" use such wonderfully sexist language.[104] Arkon (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And I equally enjoy when people profess a belief in reverse discrimination, a thing which doesn't actually exist. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooo! Ooo! Who said such a thing? I bet he was just a teenage boy, or an editor acting like one. We all know that's the problem after all. Arkon (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be deteriorating rapidly. It does not appear to me that there is any action that needs to be taken here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The AfD is caught up in (a) one or two people who routinely oppose any deletion of articles on "non-mainstream" topics, and (b) a steady stream of people who see that there are sources and do not address the criticism of those sources already recorded in the AfD. Tarc's rant against keeping fancruft and deleting this article meets my approval halfway, but he is now one of several people turning what I see as a routine case of undersourced puffery into a crusade for ostensibly neglected topics. I don't really see that there is anything for an admin to do here other than be aware of what's going on when it's time to close the discussion and make a resolution. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Complaint

sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am here to make a quick informal complaint about User:AndyTheGrump, he called me a troll, just for asking a question at the help desk? I did not mean to do anything wrong but I think this is out of order. Look at this please. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Actually it was me that raised the question, not Andy. Anyone else reading this, just look at contribs for the basis of our suspicions. At the very least, WP:NOTHERE seems to apply. — The Potato Hose 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Meh. The Potato Hose should not have asked if the OP was a troll, Andy should not have agreed with them, and the OP should not expect any action to be taken because of this. Does anyone disagree with that assessment? --Jayron32 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC) If you think so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, I do. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC) What is the basis of The Potato Hose and Andy believing this editor is a "troll"? GiantSnowman 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Did you read the contribs? This is also relevant. — The Potato Hose 16:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Admins are (believe it or not) regular people, not Mystic Meg - we don't know the editing patterns of every blocked/banned user. The SPI was submitted one minute after I posted my question so forgive me for not being aware of it. GiantSnowman 16:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Don't get snippy with me. Did you read the contribs? I pointed out that the SPI was relevant in the knowledge that you had not yet seen it. — The Potato Hose 16:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC) What in the contribs was supposed to make me realise this was a sockpuppet? GiantSnowman 16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC) WP:BEANS, if you catch my drift? — The Potato Hose 16:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I find it very odd that when I go and make a minor complaint against another user, it turns on me. I think there is a small number of high-up admins that think they are superior and can rule the roost, while us ordinary Wikipedians have to be subjected to this nonsense . --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Neither The Potato Hose or Andy are admins. No they should not have called you a troll, although I agree with them that your edits are slightly suspicious, but you should not have brought your admittedly "minor complaint" to an Admin noticeboard. GiantSnowman 16:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC) If I want to make future complaints then where should I go? --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Future complaints about what? Please note my good faith towards you is rapidly wearing off, I suggest you drop the stick, pronto. GiantSnowman 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Future complaints against agitators and other provocative editors. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Why would a "new editor" like yourself worry about having to complain about people? Final warning - either drop the stick as previously advised or I will block you indefinitely for tolling, regardless of the SPI outcome (though I have my suspicions as to the result). GiantSnowman 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for answering my question... not. I still do not know how to go about complaining so I am drafting an e-mail to Jimbo Wales as we speak. the following users will be mentioned: User:GiantSnowman User:The Potato Hose User:AndyTheGrump Good day to you, sirs. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Ivilbderoneday blocked for trolling, also increasingly likely they are indeed a sockpuppet. GiantSnowman 16:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC) You do know that now they will put in their letter that an involved admin blocked them to hide the truth, don't you? ;-) And yes, I had previously endorsed the CU at SPI in my clerk capacity and I agree with this block. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I'm just happy that Jimbo will get to see my name! GiantSnowman 16:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:May122013 and issues at Rob Ford

May122013 (talk · contribs) - Rob Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For clarification, I have not edited the Rob Ford article or talkpage, I was made aware of this issue via BLP/N.

The facts: in May, Gawker reported that a staffer had seen a video, allegedly of Toronto mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, and making homophobic and racist statements. The Toronto Star picked up the story, and two of its reporters saw the same video. Since then, the story has been picked up by approximately every single news outlet there is, been discussed on talk shows (Leno, Letterman, Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Stewart, if my memory is correct), and generally become Kind Of A Big Deal. The article as written at the time of this post is neutral, sourced, and reports factually on what has been said in media outlets.

User:May122013 has tried everything they can to remove this information from the article, including:

• At least a dozen outright removals of the content, all of which were reverted quickly, with multiple edit summaries telling May122013 that there was no consensus for the removal
• Many attempts on the article talk page to remove the content, starting here with an attempt to paint it as unreliable when Gawker and The Star had a minor difference in one thing that was said about the video. Then a claim that the video is a hoax. Then attempts to (mis)use policy to remove it, different attempts at BLP/N to have the material discredited, most recently claiming that Gawker and The Star are primary sources. I could go on but I'm tired of combing through diffs. Just see the user contribs and the talk page. Basically May122013 wants the material out and will use everything and the kitchen sink to try and remove it.
• And has wrapped it all up with accusing me of sockpuppetry, refusing to offer any proof of the accusation, and refusing to retract. (Including an attempt to evade responsibility by saying they only said 'possible', and they suddenly have 'time committments' until June 18 which do not allow them to address the accusation. Which is without merit, by the way. I removed the accusations after telling May122013 twice to do so. An admin has also told May122013 to provide proof or retract.)

In summary, May122013 is essentially an SPA, is editwarring (in slow motion), and refusing to listen to consensus. I suggest either a topicban or a block until s/he agrees to stop disrupting the article and talkpage and wasting everyone's time. — The Potato Hose 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment on the sockpuppetry accusations, I did indeed ask May122013 to retract or take to SPI, which has been backed up by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) here. GiantSnowman 16:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

BLPN link - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rob Ford. GiantSnowman 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I had already warned the user previous that a WP:BLPBAN or block may soon follow if they continued to edit war against consensus. There is a lot of wikilawyering going on with this user, and a single-mindedness that smacks more of agenda than neutrality. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier - but some of their concerns are, indeed, BLP concerns. I find it hard to totally dismiss a person who is right on something at least -- too many are right on seemingly nothing at all. <g> Collect (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Currently the article is in decent shape [105] and a number of editors have ensured it is neutral and not violating BLP concerns. Then we have an editor who many times a day shows up and reverts and wikilayers attempting to expunge a neutrally reported incident. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't edit 'long thread'. Request to move this to thread /* User:Rahul RJ Jain and his Jainism agenda */

So as User:Rahul RJ Jain is blocked, as per admins decision he used his previous account User:Rahuljain2307 and reverted my edit on Chanakya. He said on article's talkpage that Indian Goverment site, academic site of Chanakya National Law University, Bihar Chief Minister are unreliable sources. Further he said that being 'Brahmin' or reading Vedas does not mean he was 'Hindu' (nobody can say he was Hindu because 'Hindu' or 'Hinduism' term came into existence after 15th-16th century). Basically user is trying to say that being Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra does not mean that they are Hindu. I don't understand how to respond to this. I am saying that sources are conflicting, religion field should be blank but user is hellbent on POV and edit war and admins are silent. Please resolve this matter. neo (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that being Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shutra does not necessarily mean they are followers of hindu religion. I can point out why most of the sources you mentioned were unreliable, but the fact is, none of those sources mention anything contradictory to any of the claims that is made in the article; therefore attacking their reliability is useless as of now. As I mentioned here, if you provide reliable source which mentions anything cotradictory, we can give it their due weight in the article. I was willing to discuss the matter on the respective talk page, but it seems you don't really want to talk. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look that you are in your senses when you write outragious things like Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudras are not necessarily Hindus. Are Catholic and Protestants followers of Christianity? Are Shia and Sunni followers of Islam? And please teach us whether Earth is flat or round. neo (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Oleola disruptive editing and statements of me being blocked

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

---

Oleola Accused me of a lot of things. He says that my article dont have any source, when they cleary do in the external links. He also keeps acting like he is an admin or boss. He keeps posting things on my talk page, that I will be blocked. Then he puts me on this page, when cleary he is not better than me at all. He has disruptive edits too.

David-golota (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC) David golota

So... What administrative action are you requesting? From a look at David and Oleola's page, they seem to be involved in an edit war on Polish football players. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:DracoEssentialis

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

---

I suspect these edits [106] [107] [108] are worth some attention. --Cyclopia^talk 17:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like trolling to me. Their knowledge on the Commons situation suggests that they are quite familiar with Jimbo's page. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem, Cyclopedia? I would feel honoured if it were me, and it seems a pretty good likeness. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if some dude stuck their penis in a bucket of paint, then rubbed it on canvas to produce my likeness, I'd be all like "wow". Tarc (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How sure are you that that hasn't already happened? Maybe even more than once!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is, the edit to Jimmy Wales is not vandalism, it's a content dispute. Cyclopia should have followed WP:BRD and especially shouldn't have used Twinkle to template DracoE for vandalism. Discussion about that is here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not vandalism, even if the editor in question seems has some questionable methods and summaries. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And in fact I templated for disruptive editing, not vandalism. Or am I missing something? Calling it a content dispute is quite amusing. --Cyclopia^talk 18:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering he made the same edit to Jimbo's userpage (which I reverted, and then he reverted me, before being reverted by someone else), I think we can lighten our stranglehold on AGF here. I didn't see anything wrong with Cyclopia's warning; it was for disruptive editing (and a very light warning at that). Replacing a photograph of a person with a painting from some random person is mildly disruptive (emphasis on "mildly"), regardless of what body parts were used in the painting's creation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask around Jimbo's page to see if should be added. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And it looks like Jimbo didn't take too kindly to the art. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy wasn't interested. I'm still a bit disturbed by the brush, admittedly, but if you take the painting at face value and ignore the brush, it is actually a decent portrait and manages to captures some of his essence. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries and image caption show quite obviously that the editor wanted to troll by calling attention to the, ehm, brush. --Cyclopia^talk 18:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think, in light of the caption and summaries, the editor knew what he was doing. Maybe a little hasty of me to call it trolling, but I still think he knew. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course he was being pointy in the addition and the image caption made that obvious, but I'm not inclined to block for that one act. Others may feel differently. I can't fault the artist for the act, only the editor. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was more than "one act", apparently, she did several times. As you wish anyway, let's see. --Cyclopia^talk 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Holocaust denial trolling

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

---

95.150.129.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) With the exception of one edit last year, the IP's only contributions have been:

• to repeatedly troll the talk page of Zyklon B using classic Holocaust denial language, using a piped link to describe the Holocaust as a "great lie", insisting that the extermination camps were instead "resettlement camps for enemies of the state", and referring to "the Jew who fabricated this lie" (the "lie" being that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill their victims)[109] [110] [111] and
• to respond to messages on their talk page with further Holocaust denial language[112] and to call me a bigot and mock Wikipedia administrators[113].

I sought a second opinion yesterday regarding the original edits from an uninvoled administrator (thread here), confirming my basic premise, but would prefer that someone else revert again. There are plenty of discussion boards on the Internet for anyone who holds these views and wants to chat with like-minded others; there's no reason we should host their propaganda at Wikipedia. Block requested. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm the admin Rivertorch approached for a second opinion., as listed above. I'm not previously involved with the topic, I don't know the editor under discussion, and I don't believe I've edited this or any related articles. While I understand that detecting the line between POV edit warring and trolling can be subjective to determine, I came to the conclusion that this is the latter, in large part based on the quote from 95.150's point 5 that Rivertorch quotes above. I'd support appropriate any policy-compliant measures consistent with this determination. Give me a ping if you have questions, I'm not intending to follow this thread. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours and reverted the comment again. It doesn't matter whether this is trolling or POV-pushing, either way it's disruptive. Hut 8.5 18:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope a few more people will add the article to their watchlists. It's subject to this sort of thing on occasion. Rivertorch (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Indefblocked editor User:Shaushka and his disruptive socks

A SPI was already filed this morning by another editor here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaushka however the wheels of justice seem to be cranking awfully slow today, and the editor is being very disruptive, as soon as his IP was blocked a moment ago for breaking 5RR on Yazdanism, he comes right back with a new IP number. With the level of constant disruption, attacks, contentiousness and bigotry I'm seeing from this user, I would like to see his IP rangeblocked soon. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think the wheels are cranking slowly - I think you're cranking fast. :-) I'm having trouble keeping up with the many IPs and with you, even though your heart is in the right place. I've removed one report filed by the IP at ANEW. I've closed your report at ANEW. I've commented at the SPI. On balance, I think SPI is the right forum for this, although SPI is often slower than ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Raycom Sports

• Raycom Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a farce, and an abuse by well-meaning accounts; I've tried numerous times to remove a wholesale copyright violation and purely promotional content, placed by the articles' subject, and am persistently reverted by numerous accounts. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• You do have to wonder what the hell those three editors are doing. Perhaps they're under the impression that a large removal of content by an IP editor is automatically vandalism. Well, they're clearly wrong, and they need to be far more careful in their editing. Anyway, it's been removed now, and I shall watchlist it; it may be worth others doing so. Thanks for reporting it here. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that's probably the thinking, but I wouldn't want to presume to know others' motives. But I am more hopping mad than a man at a computer ought to be. I've reported the eponymous account. Thank you, Black Kite. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Have learnt that lesson myself tonight. Apologies again 229. You really should get an account lol. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Have one, mostly retired, as several admins know. Am also the subject of a well sourced Wiki article, but prefer to work here anonymously for the most part. Especially when I am through the roof angry; who wants their temper tantrums to go public, other than Ms. Bynes? 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)