Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dennis Bratland (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 1 January 2012 (→Bullying, canvassing, forum-shopping, railroading?: ty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    Subtle date vandalism

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

    This IP address over the past few months, and possibly longer, has been going around to articles and changing the dates on various people and events, often making them much older than they are. All unsourced, of course. It seems pretty clear that these are acts of subtle vandalism, considering how very unhelpful their edit summaries are when they use them ("GOOD MUSIC", seriously?). While it does appear that there are helpful IPs editing through this city of Memphis IP, the vandalism rather offsets any good the others are doing. Since this appears to be a long term ongoing thing, I wanted to report it here rather than to AIV. Not sure if this should have gone on AN instead though. SilverserenC 00:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Did I type something in wrong, is my browser not updating or what? Because I can't see this section on the page. SilverserenC 00:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There we go. Weird. SilverserenC 00:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If dates are sourced, they should be set to whatever the source says. If the date isn't sourced, it should be removed altogether, whether it's this IP's edit, or the original contention. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is theorectically the case, in reality we work with the de facto stance that a basic fact which has been in an article for a long period of time and has withstood scrutiny and not been challenged has a certain amount of status, and should not be replaced except with a sourced fact, or, at the very least, a convincing explanation. Although the hope is that all facts in Wikipedia should be sourced, the truth is that the encycylopedia would be decimated if we removed every single unsourced fact in it, so we utilize a kind of triage to prioritize those that need sourcing the most. Changing dates and numbers is a very serious kind of sneaky vandalism, because it's frequently overlooked, so -- at least in my mind -- I'm immediately suspicious of any change of this kind which is made without explanation or sourcing. In the case of the IP here, the one change of fact that I investigated -- the change of the birth date of Hasbro CEO Brian Goldner from 1963 to 1943 -- was incorrect, which tends to support the allegation that there may be sneaky number-changing going on, or, at the very least, sloppy editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put a non-templated warning on the IP's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I want to thank BMK for expressing a reality so well. Second, I have seen this kind of vandalism before by other IPs, and, and as BMK said, it's far more damaging than obvious vandalism, which, of course, normally is easily caught.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now looked into a number of other date-related edits, which were also bogus. I would support a block, but the IP hasn't edited recently, and there appears to be at least one other user of the IP who is making good edits. (Parent / child?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban. Clearly, there are multiple users of this IP, at least one making valuable edits. But there is at least one long-term vandal, making the bogus date changes described above. IP has received numerous warnings for various types of vandalism since July 2010, when IP began active editing, but no bans as yet. I'd be happy to see a lengthy initial ban handed out here (I'm a hanging judge on these matters), but I think the main problem is that this wasn't brought to AIV earlier. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Far be it from me to suggest that Wikipedia needs a sign-in-to-edit policy, which would make edits of different users distinguishable, individuals bannable, and automated undos of serial vandalism like this conceivable. Whoops, I just did. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but good luck in getting a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that SITE, as I recall, got a pretty solid consensus behind it last time it was discussed...and had WMF go "LOLno" when the results of said discussion/petition were passed on to them...better keep an eye out for porcine aviators in the frozen Nether before it happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've dealt with this kind of subtle vandalism for a long time, coming across at least one prolific sock that did this sort of thing over the course of years... it's a very serious problem, to the point that I wrote a script to help me identify some of these changes (I'd be happy to share code with anyone interested). I didn't look into the details of this case, but we should all be aware of the "date change" vandalism (also there's height change vandalism on sports/models articles). There's probably other sneaky factual vandalism out there but those seem to be the most prevalent (and easy to screen). BMK says it perfectly: we have a kind of loose rule system that we subconciously apply... longstanding facts shouldn't be changed without some explanation or source. That helps provide a nice brightline for most of these issues... and that's what I tell users when I'm doing RC patrol for these kinds of changes. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Conduct of BabbaQ

    Resolved
     – Caaaan you feeeelll the looooove tonight struck for the humour-impaired. Editors are working it out together, and should continue to do so on one of your talkpages. That is always the first step before ANI. A minor suggestion: you can never force an apology (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel the loooooove???? A new editor (and the rest of us, actually) deserve a more respectful closing statement that than. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou Nobody Ent. Now BabbaQ's friend, the admin who banned me (with no warning or discussion) is also accusing me of being a "sock".[1] Doubt if anyone will object though. One rule for the new users, another for established users.
    It appears someone else is also unhappy with this admin [2] Twafotfs (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not been banned. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    I joined Wikipedia on Dec 24th after reading an article on a woman who was kidnapped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Lindhout), who used to work for the television of a neighbouring country to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRESS_TV).

    The article said she worked for the rather more respectable France 24. I knew this was false. And the source didn't say she did, it only said "she went to Somalia" with the intention of filing reports for France 24. (The source was in fact also incorrect about this, but I understand that according to Wikipedia policy the truth or who is right doesn't matter, but conduct. I understand this, although personally I think it is wrong and is really against common sense, but that's neither here nor there).

    I made the required edit. And then the user "BabbaQ" clicked "undo", without any discussion, and inserted a generic warning on my Talk page [3] Repeat. This time accusing me of "vandalism": [4] Then he made this contribution: [5] So he's accused me of being "unconstructive" and a "vandal", and, what I've since come to learn, is called a "sockpuppet" - all without bothering to actually check the source, or engage me in discussion.

    Then, he clicked "undo" (reverted) on my only other edit (a totally uncontroversial one) upon joining [6] - again, with no justification or discussion.

    I had no idea what planet I was on, so I said as much on the Talk page: [7]. I then said in my edit summary: "i don't think you understand how freelancing works. I could go to Somalia with the intention of filing reports for the NY Times, BBC, and Le Monde Diplomatique. But if I'm not published - I can't say I ever "worked" for them. Get it?" [8]

    Unfortunately, the administrator that BabbaQ contacted, seem to simply assume that BabbaQ was right, and I was wrong because I was new, and clicked "undo" on my edit, so that BabbaQ wouldn't be in breach of the 3RR (I didn't know about the rule at the time) by doing it himself.

    When I questioned my block on my Talk page, and explained my circumstances, BabbaQ reverted my own edits on my own Talk pageItalic text [9] saying "reverting back nonsense threats and harassments". Is it just me, or is that perfect irony? my "threats" and "harassments [sic]" amounted to me saying I was going to complain about BabbaQ's behavior, which I am now doing. I hardly see how that is a crime.

    Still, he insisted of accusing me of all sorts, on what appears to be his favoured admins' Talk pages, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights&diff=prev&oldid=467755856] (asking that I be blocked for longer!), here: [10] (he says of me: "Seems to me like the account will only be used to vandalize Wikipedia.") here: [11], and here: [12] ("Hi, user Twafotfs is now harassing me and threatning me on his talk page.")

    Finally, he then accused me of trying to "evade" my block. At first I thought he was talking about my own talk page (where I accidentally logged out and edited just with my IP information instead of being logged in with my username) [13], but it turns out he was talking about an IP address on the Amanda Lindhout Talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.97.39.230. Unfortunately, BabbaQ was able to get an admin to act without checking first, because I have absolutely 100% nothing to do with this IP, I swear on my life. I happen to be on the other side of the planet as this IP address. And I encourage any admin to look at my details to confirm this. In fact, it just occured to me now, that maybe BabbaQ made that edit to "frame me" to get me banned longer? Sounds crazy, but looking at the pattern of his behavior, I wouldnt' be surprised...

    Ironically, as I said on my Talk page, BabbaQ is the one who's actually been blocked for "sockpuppetry".

    Anyways, all this aggressive behavior, accusations, personal attacks ("vandal" etc), and I was banned for 48 hrs and yet he didn't receive so much as a slap on the hand.


    So I took the liberty of clicking on his "contributions", and found a pattern of truly bizarre behaviour of "edit wars", personal insults, making mistakes and "refusing to apologize", etc. Here is just a taster, I am sure there is much more:

    • [14] - Warned about "canvassing".
    • [15] - Edit Warring
    • [16] - Gets into a bizarre argument with seemingly well-intentioned user "Kevin McE". Accuses him of lying, refused to apologize, making completely non-sequitur comments: "OMG, some users truly cant take that other users has opinions on their behaviour without totally breaking down and attacking them. Its truly sad to read. Its time for you to read trough your latest posts on your talk page, I can see om not the only one having some "controversy" with you. Maybe its time for your to learn some etiquette here on Wikipedia. Just saying that you seem to be very dramatic in your edits which is never appreciated and in the end undermining the very thing you want to happen"
    • [17] - warned not to make personal attacks, and edit war over other people's Talk page (like he did to mine)
    • [18] - warned again not to make personal attacks
    • [19] - warned about altering other people's comments.
    • If you click this [20] he says "Yes thank you:) I wasnt worried but never nice when accused of something like sockpuppetry.--BabbaQ" -------- irony, much?

    I'm sure I could go through and find even weirder behaviour, but life's too short, and the way he dealt with me should be enough for him to be given a stern talking to one would think.... but then, maybe not... oh well, I feel better for having compiled this little report and dossier! Twafotfs (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I will not comment on this any further but to say that you have been told that your behaviour was out of line Twafotfs and these comments above just further proves that you still has not learned.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What "behaviour" are you referring to? What exactly did I ever do wrong? Other than exceed 3RR before I was even aware of it? Did I accuse you of vandalism or sockpuppetry or making "threats and harassments[sic]" - all without any evidence? Twafotfs (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to stop confronting people just because you are upset that you were blocked for good reasons. I will not respond to strawman arguments anymore. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "confronting people" for being blocked, I'm confronting you, after you threw everything but the kitchen sink at me. Twafotfs (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTTHEM.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. Twafotfs (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone seems to be at cross purposes here, and it's worth just disengaging over the issue. Twafotfs; as has been explained the sourcing that was provided clearly suggests she worked for France 24 (or whatever it was). This puts us in a troubling situation because what you know about how the press works is not something we can rely on (see WP:RS). Although obviously the intent is not to be misleading, equally we can only rely on what sources say without our own interpretation. In future the way to handle such a situation is to use the talk page to discuss the matter; explain the issue and work with people to resolve it. We usually refer to this as Bold, Revert, Discuss. And in this case no one did the discuss. As it is, I think you could have made a good case for removal - especially if someone took the time to do research and turn up the subsequent source :) BabbaQ; it's probably best to avoid calling stuff vandalism troo quickly - as it inflames situations. I suggest you go for a helping hand approach rather than warnings. Remember that newbies will have no clue about this stuff. A restrained approach is always good. --Errant (chat!) 11:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually did use the talk page, but I was blocked anyway.
    Remember that BabbaQ, after already being warned twice this year, editing against Wikipedia policy by altering people's comments :(on my own talk page no less!) and then accuse me, of "harassments"! I am not claiming I acted like an angel, but I did not make :false accusations, follow him around and revert his edits, or alter his comments. Twafotfs (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you ErrantX. And on this specific event I agree that we both could have handled it better. Anyway just for the record I feel that the user has showed a lack of sociability by being on attack mode since the beginning. I only react to being attacked I dont attack. Anyway lets hope the situation calms down and that both sides has learned something.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anyway just for the record I feel that the user has showed a lack of sociability by being on attack mode since the beginning. I only react to being attacked I dont attack." Now, that's just saying black is white and white is black. I never "attacked" you. I never accused you of anything or called you a vandal. I never asked for you to be blocked (and then ask that it be extended). I've apologized for exceeding 3RR (even though I wasn't aware of it). Are you willing to apologize for going into "attack mode" without ever actually engaging of one word of discussion with me? Twafotfs (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski

    User:Wtshymanski has performed several unilateral redirects for the several articles, stating that he or she has merged information into the target redirect articles without actually doing so. This is problematic, because it goes against the grain of WP:PRESERVE. In several instances, the user has proposed a merge and then just performed a redirect, without actually merging the data and references in the process, nor positing rationales for doing so on discussion pages for articles. I'm bringing this to the attention of this board for consideration regarding the matter. Here are some of the articles that were redirected without a merging of the information, references, etc., which I took the time to correct. I don't want to have to continue to correct these types of problems.

    Here's an excerpt from the person's user talk page, which could obviously be parody, but nevertheless seems to be incongruent with working together to build a digital encyclopedia.

    Grrr, Grr...go away

    I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right).

    <!-- Or am I? Am I just an editor on the edge who seems to attract unwarranted attention when I refuse to endorse some foolishness? All things considered, I think I'm acting with grandmotherly kindness and restraint.-->

    —I'm not interested in dramatization or confrontation, therefore, I have brought the matter here, and notified the user on their talk page about this query. Signed: Northamerica1000(talk) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's a "unilateral merge"? Is there a "bilateral merge" by contrast? And the content, where there is any non-redundant content, does get moved. Most of these articles were stubs without any references to begin with, which is part of the reason for merging them. I thought we were supposed to be bold? What, specifically, was left behind when I merged the above specimens? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Example: In the redirect you performed redirecting Modular power supply unit to Power supply unit (computer), listed here, a significant amount of information that describes Modular power supply units wasn't included in the merge, specifically, from the "Benefits" and "Advantages" section of the Modular power supply unit article. While it appears that the information you didn't merge isn't referenced at this time in the Modular power supply unit article, I would prefer that the data remain in place and further verified, rather than just removed en-masse. While I understand that unreferenced information in articles may be challenged and removed, in this instance it seems more prudent to work to verify the information, rather than removing it all en-masse via a redirect, thereby removing the contributions of several editors. While I understand the concept of being bold, these matters can also be discussed in the discussion pages for articles. I don't mean to impugn you whatsoever, this was just a concern, and on your discussion page you advise people to "go away", so the matter was brought here. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) In this case, looking first at the top article on your list, it seems that the contributor did merge content; see [21]. There are attribution issues, about which I've spoken to the contributor, and which I hope s/he will soon address in all instances of merging. But I do not see redirects without mergers here. There are mergers, for instance, related to Low-profile Quad Flat Package ([22]); Plastic leaded chip carrier ([23]).
    Merging does not need to be discussed in advance, in accordance with Help:Merging: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such generally does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below." Where mergers are expected to be controversial, discussion is a good idea. I suppose when one tags an article with a proposed merger and nobody disagrees, as was done here, it might be reasonable to assume that the merger is uncontroversial. It's perfectly fine if you disagree to revert a merge, or to bring over more content if you think a "selective paste merger" lost good content, but there does not seem to have been anything done here (aside from attribution issues) improperly.
    In terms of this listing, as a general rule of thumb, it's a good idea to talk to the contributor before bringing them to a noticeboard, as they may be quite willing to correct behavior that troubles you without the need to involve others or might perhaps be able to explain why what they're doing is okay. This can be far less dramatic and confrontational than immediately asking for administrator intervention. This is why the top of the page says Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's a good idea to talk to the contributor before bringing them to a noticeboard, as they may be quite willing to correct behavior that troubles you"
    May be? Wtshymanski? Read the logs. The discussion route was worn out a long time ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wtshymanski, phrases like "I don't recall the merges and am not prepared to waste that much time." and other portions of your talk page envision a deliberately combative and hostile environment regarding any editor who is coming to post on your page. Your posting here is also deliberately hostile. Please consider toning down the rhetoric as hostility like this is a very quick way to having privileges on this site suspended. This reminder brought to you by the WikiCitizens for a civil workplaceHasteur (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    −

    Wtshymanski has been a prolific and highly productive editor for over 7 years.His mergers appear to have been good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, even if they did not comply strictly with attribution rules. His comment about not recalling all the merges and finding and perfecting them by revised edit summaries seeming like a waste of time does (edited to add:) not seem such a hostile and dismissive comment when one notes that such merges date back at least as far as May 16, 2005, when a UNIVAC 418 stub was replaced by a redirect to UNIVAC and a copy and paste there with the comment "(Merged 418)," where the ideal comment per the complaints here and on his talk page would have been "(Merged UNIVAC 418)". Is it really proposed that he or anyone else should spend days searching through all his contributions from then to now for merges, and then add an edit summary such as "(content merged from UNIVAC 418 at 20:28, May 16, 2005‎ ‎ by User:Wtshymanski; see original for attribution)" as in the recent dummy fixup edit by Moonriddengirl on one of the recent merges)? The merged UNIVAC 418 article was later recreated as a longer and better article. The merged text no longer appears in the UNIVAC article in the form as copied, since it was completely replaced October 6, 2005. Is that really required by our attribution rules, and how urgent is it to drop everything else to fix something that no one noticed for 6.5 years, as opposed to adding new dummy edit summaries to correct recent merges, and then to comply with present procedures going forward? Edison (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean "does not". :) If we "grandfather" out the older ones, we're simply ignoring the probability that some (or even many) of them violate license; typically, we don't overlook copyright problems, even if fixing them is a pain in the neck. There's no reason to attribute when the content is all gone, but it would probably be harder to list out the merges and figure out which ones still retain copied content than to simply add a dummy edit for them all. I see that Wtshymanski has been good about noting that a merger took place; not being that up on bots and tools, any chance we could get one that could review summaries and pull out ones that use the text string merge? (In terms of tone talking to me, I haven't been bothered at all. So long as it's within reason, I'm never going to complain about a contributor being dismayed over something like this; I wouldn't be too happy about it either.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A BOLD merge is perfectly permissible. If you don't like it, BRD it. This is the trouble with a lot of ANI threads lately...people create them because they don't like other editor's viewpoints, not because they violate policy Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." -- Wtshymanski
    This ANI report is a good example of why the above is true. Wtshymanski really didn't do anything against policy here. It is true that Wtshymanski has been the subject of multiple noticeboard complaints,[24][25][26][27][28] but most of them, like this one, fail to address the root problem, and if they do, it quickly becomes apparent that the root problem is really not the kind of thing that ANI or WQA addresses.
    The root problem is this: Wtshymanski is rude -- but almost always not rude enough to be actionable. He attempts to delete articles using every avenue that Wikipedia has, often engaging in minor policy violations -- but almost always not enough to be actionable. He engages in just enough discussion to stay within policy -- but he has never, ever changed his opinion based upon any argument put forth by any editor. If he does cross a line and gets warned, he modifies his behavior so as to not cross that line again. And finally, he does a lot of good work, and we all know that editors who do a lot of good work are held to a looser standard than those who clearly are out to harm Wikipedia. This behavior -- always pushing the policy envelope but rarely crossing the line -- cannot be addressed by ANI. And as frustrating as it can be to deal with, I really cannot make a case for it being addressed at all. You have to draw the lines somewhere, and somebody is going to stand with his toes touching that line. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a longstanding issue. Wtshymanski has a remarkable lack of respect for some policies here, collaborative editing for one and WP:PRESERVE for another. His obsession with dubious merges is just part of it. Whilst no doubt well meaning, he edits the electrical engineering articles he understands well enough, but move slightly into electronics and it's another story.
    There appears to be no real solution to this, for as long as WP and the WMF sees article quality as such a low priority, far behind editor inclusionism and simplistic policies. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy is right. This does hurt the quality of the electronics articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. It's been a few hours since I read the page. Comments in order as I read down:
      • The "benefits and advantages" of modular power supplies were already described in the power supply article. It's a fairly trivial advantage and it doesn't seem to require great amounts of references.
      • Yes, I'll put links to merged articles - that will satisify the copyright attribution requirement.
      • WP:BOLD used to be a concept here. I'm pleased to see my understanding of merge is as per the description at Help:Merging. I routinely put a "mergeto/mergefrom" pair of tags up at least a few days before I carry out a merge, but almost never do I see any commentary.
      • I do regard the extra accreditation template as a waste of time. I have not read every line of every policy on Wikipedia, nor do I propose to do so. I wasn't award that clicking "save" was equivalent to a "shrink wrap license". I can put in a link to the former version of the article, which would satisify admins here that the attribution requirement is being met. In all the thousands of talk-pages I've looked at on this project, I would be surprised to count as many as a dozen examples of this merge template; since I suspect merges are pretty common, I am probably not the only editor who does not use (and until today, was not aware of) this template.
      • It's barely 7 years. It took me a year to get to 1000 edits.
      • Would anyone care to speculate as to how many technical violations of the GFDL exist in the 3.8 million articles? Granted, millions of those articles are written and maintained and read only by bots, and bots can't sue anyone.
      • It would be impolite of me to speculate on the motivations of some editors.
      • It is demonstrably not true that I have never changed my opinion. For example, there was some business about "sounding lines" and "depth sounding" and "echo sounding" where I changed the destination of a merge based on comments made in response to tagging articles with mergeto/mergefrom.
      • I don't think I have a remarkable lack of respect for the policies here. My lack of respect is quite typical; the policies are doing the best that can be done under the circumstances, and we don't need to hold obscure guidelines on en-dashes and em-dashes in the same regard as the Magna Carta.
      • I don't think one needs an extraordinary understanding of electronics to realize that a bunch of stubs on itsy variations of an IC package do not constitute a basis for individual articles. People who write books on the topic of IC packages tend to treat all the variations of a package in one area, instead of atomizing the description. It would seem to give a reader a more coherent picture of what IC packages are all about if the variants are all described together. Don't make articles for red paint and blue paint and yellow paint if the subject can be adequately described at paint. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've explained to you multiple times that the template is best practice; it is the edit summary that is mandatory. Anybody who omits it, if copying content from another article that was authored by somebody other than themselves, is violating the license under which content is contributed and thus infringing copyright. These are not technical, but actual violations of license. Our contributors retain the right to attribution. These issues need to be repaired. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of Wtshymanski's reply above is about content disputes, and this is not the place for resolving content disputes, only conduct issues. Re: the claim "It is demonstrably not true that I have never changed my opinion", yes, there are areas where he appears to have no strong feelings one way or the other and thus can "change his mind" at the first hint of someone wanting it the other way, but the kind of changing your mind that shows cooperation and seeking consensus is completely lacking. Once Wtshymanski makes an argument, that's it - there is no convincing him that he is wrong. Perhaps we might also find a place where he corrects a factual error based on a reliable source having new information, but in every case where there is a spirited debate about what a page should contain, whether it should be deleted, etc., Wtshymanski sticks to his guns and is never ever persuaded by someone else. This is another area that cannot be resolved, because in each individual interaction he might very well be right and the other fellow wrong. Yes, he appears to believe that this is true 100% of the time, but there is no policy against that, and the consensus process works just fine in resolving these sort of content disputes. As much as I would like to have a knight in shining armor ride in and make Wtshymanski be more collegial, I really don't see anything for ANI to do. He says he is within policy, and I must agree; he is (barely) within policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From User talk, "Well, you're only infringing copyright if someone takes you to court and you lose - "
    Has anyone seen where I left that cluebat?
    This is a fairly busy editor (nor are they a teenager). Can we afford someone making that volume of edits, when their idea of copyright is so confused? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important Comment– Sometimes the optimal route is to perform verbatim content merges to other articles, and let other editors sort through the information and decide upon the final result based upon consensus. The user I brought to the attention of this discussion has been unilaterally deciding what data to include in the merges, and conversely, unilaterally deciding what to omit. Verbatim merges are much more congruent with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. After all, should one editor unilaterally remove the work of many editors? No. It's much higher to just copy and paste everything, and then allow time for other editors to contribute to the articles and edit their contents. This is essentially, in many ways, how Wikipedia functions. It is my sincere hope that the user strongly considers this advice. Wikipedia is not censored. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes one editor may remove the work of many. The goal is to achieve an encyclopedia; the reader is best served by concise, accurate information. All those editors agreed: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. However, some of the merges were sloppy, to varying degrees, in my opinion, and were against the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Again, sometimes the optimal route is to perform verbatim content merges to other articles, and let other editors sort through the information and decide upon the final result based upon consensus. Also, sometimes it's better to discuss matters prior to performing large-scale merges, because Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this were not the case (and I agree that it is), this would not be an administrator matter. Selective paste mergers are long standard on Wikipedia, and any argument to change that would best be addressed elsewhere, such as at village pump.
    At this point, my outstanding concern is what will be done to repair copyright issues created by these merges. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been thinking about this issue, and have re-read the appropriate policies. I don't think "there are a lot of them and it will be a lot of work" is a valid argument. Wtshymanski has been shot down again and again when using AfDs, PRODS and Speedy deletes (with some success too, of course) and has gravitated toward selective merging as a method of removing things from Wikipedia without having to collaborate -- so there are a lot of merges. Each and every merge was made directly above the standard "By clicking the 'Save Page' button..." notice.
    I just reviewed the notes I made when I first started editing Wikipedia, and back then I read that notice carefully and made a bunch of notes. I asked myself whether I was liable for what I write (I am), whether Wikipedia is liable for what I write (they are not) and -- a question that speaks to the issue at hand -- whether I could possibly be held liable for something someone else wrote. my notes say "my writing will always be identified as mine, any changes will be identified by who made the change, and in those rare cases where someone from Wikipedia erases part of the history for legal reasons they kill the text too -- they don't leave anything hanging with no history." The bottom line is this; if someone tries to blame me for what someone else wrote I can easily point to the username or IP address who actually wrote it. If a merge breaks that, the merge needs to be fixed.
    I would like to see a bot that fixes or at least flags any merges where history or the pointer that leads to the history was lost during a merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Combing through one user's contribs (in this case, Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski) is doable, but an undirected search among all edits is difficult. If users wish to evaluate Wtshymanski's contribs manually, they may tag affected Talk pages with {{Copied}} or flag for attention with {{Copying within Wikipedia}}. Neither adds the required edit summaries, but the templates' categorization helps with future processing. Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Appealing a Ban from August

    I am requesting that two bans from August (with no specified duration) be lifted. I've waited this long to ensure I would approach the issue with some perspective and clarity. They are the only bans I have ever received in over five years of editing.

    In August, I was reading the Barack Obama article and was confused that he was described as "african american" rather than biracial or mulit-racial. While there was an embedded warning and a FAQ, there didn't appear to be an underlying consensus for the FAQ. I made this edit to change his race to "multi-racial."

    Upon an undo by another editor, made a single revert and raised the issue up on the talk page here. Attempting to argue the point led to me being banned here from both the subject article and the talk page.

    Having never been banned before, I confused it with a block, and posted an edit to test whether it was in place. That led to me being briefly blocked.

    While I remain concerned that editors on that page seem to discourage attempts to question or develop a new consensus and merely refer back to a FAQ (e.g. here), I realize I didn't approach it constructively.

    Since August, I have honored the bans and have otherwise constructively contributed.

    I would appreciate it the bans are lifted.

    Thanks. John2510 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) When someone is requesting relief from a restriction, it goes a long way for them to show a decent body of (edit: added "subsequent") subsequent contributions, as evidence that whatever problems led to the restriction are firmly behind them. Since the ban, you've made 27 edits; I don't think that's evidence of anything. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether my feelings on it were justified or not, the ban dented my enthusiasm about editing here. I've never been a daily contributor, but over the years I've authored a couple of pages, contributed photo media, etc. I may or may not ever choose to edit that page again (the ban arose from my first and only edit there), but I think a lifetime ban is excessive and inappropriate under the circumstances. John2510 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You then misunderstand the difference between "infinite" (lifetime) and "indefinite" (until the community is convinced problems will not recur). In order to have an indefinite topic ban rescinded, you need to prove your body of editing since has been appropriate. With so few edits, how is the community to judge? I repeat: it's not INFINITE, it's INDEFINITE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While a criminal may redeem himself through his good works, redemption usually comes through mere abandonment of criminal activity while trusted with limited freedom. I've had unlimited opportunity to revert other articles on probation and commit myriad other violations over the last few months, and haven't done so. I submit that's adequate to jusitfy adding one more article to the almost infinite list of those I'm allowed to edit. John2510 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia did not, does not, and will not consider you a "criminal", just an editor who screwed up. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a look at your contributions since your August block, and I see (1) constructive edits and (2) no sign of the type of edits that prompted the ban. I therefore support lifting the bans. 28bytes (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • John2510 only has 643 edits -- let's AGF here and lift the ban. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, the original ban seemed a bit excessive/BITEy to me. Lift it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lifting ban -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lift of ban --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lift of ban. I agree with Nobody Ent. It's true that John has had few edits since the ban, but he doesn't edit all that much, anyway. And although it's true there's no reason why he really needs to edit the Obama article (as others have noted), it's also true that the ban is a kind of stigma. We should give him another chance.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lift of ban. The initial ban seems to be the result of a conflict between reality and the social construction of reality. FOR THE RECORD, I support the social construction point of view here, BUT, beyond the FAQ, I did not find it easy to find the alleged consensus behind it (could someone provide a link? I am actually interested.) In the time since the ban, this editor has made more contributions than 99.99% of editors and 99.99999999999% of WP users (yes, I'm estimating--prove me wrong, please.) Are "oppose" editors here genuinely fearful that this editor will sneak in undetected, inappropriate edits here, or are they being punitive? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In my comment, I wanted to know why, after only 30 edits, John2510 wanted the ban lifted; his appeal was silent on that point.
    The first edit he cites is not just changing AF to biracial; the edit also removed the all cap comment saying "PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE OBAMA'S RACE FROM "AFRICAN AMERICAN", per existing consensus. See discussions and FAQ on the talk page". Instead of blowing away that comment, he should have gone to the talk page. I searched the ANI archives for John2510; he has a small presence, so I get the sense that he is at least a little sophisticated.
    Phearson warned him at 3:38. He was banned at 03:53 August 5. Here's the edit at 3:28, followed by Phearson's revert at 3:34, followed by John2510's revert of Phearson at 3:47.
    Having shown contempt for consensus, he was banned from the article's talk page at 05:23. In the appeal, he claims he "tested" the block, and here's his talk page edit at 5:47: "since I've been told I've been banned from editing this discussion page...".
    Here's Phearson's [48 hour block] of John2510.
    In the appeal, John2510's statement, "While I remain concerned that editors on that page seem to discourage attempts to question or develop a new consensus..." does not show AGF re other editors and raises the possibility that John2510 wants to go back to Barack Obama and raise the biracial issue again. I would have a problem with that; it would show that John2510 cannot let go.
    Your statistical claim is easily disproved: population of the earth * 10-13 = 0; in other words, your claim becomes there are no other WP users who have made more edits. However, User:Hobbes Goodyear has made that many 50 edits in five days. There are 16,000,000 en.WP users; 99.99% implies that John2510 is more active than 1600 users; however, there are 5,000 editors that make more than 100 edits per month. See [29].
    I'm not punitive, but I am wary.
    Glrx (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Phearson did not block John2510, I did. I stand by the block, as it was a clear violation of his topic bans. Since the block, however, he appears not to have engaged in any concerning behavior, which is why I support lifting the ban. I believe he can let the race issue go, and if I turn out to be mistaken, there are plenty of remedies available. 28bytes (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies to both 28bytes and Phearson (who was involved and therefore would not have blocked). At this point, roughly 5 months later, John2510 would have to be extremely foolish to do anything odd with Barack Obama, so he can have the WP:ROPE. I hope he rereads his edits following the ban and learns from them. Glrx (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User adding incorrect CSD, canvassing, blanking making personal attacks. - warned repeatedly.

    Resolved
     – Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't know about that, and this is not about Fastily, it is about the user above. Fastily was just mistaken and he restored. --lTopGunl (ping) 03:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He just makes the odd mistake every now and then, like the rest of us. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 03:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, no issues with that. I just mentioned that to emphasize what the tagging editor wanted to attain (that too with a hoax tag). --lTopGunl (ping) 03:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I watchlist and maintain war/military articles and some contentious ones. And, maybe the email feature? --lTopGunl (ping) 04:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it bother anybody that the sections marked as hoaxes were entirely unsourced, that there are still many unsourced or poorly sourced statements in that article? Just saying, while maybe the tag was incorrect, wanting those sections gone isn't. Buddy431 (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking Magog to leave administrative actions to other admins in matters related to TopGun's content disputes

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    This is an unfounded complaint. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an issue with Magog's use of administrative rights here. He as an administrator should make very cautious use of his rights, but now he has taken a side in a content dispute describing one side which consists of many unrelated editors (which have never encountered before but all separately have content disputes with TopGun) "Indian nationalists" (when many aren't even Indian). He is talking about some "off-site Indian nationalist canvassing" conspiracy which in fact has not occured so far - at least from the editors I encountered in my content disputes. He is also calling one side in a content dispute "lousy editors" and has started taking onesided actions by blocking only one side, although there are several reasons (which will be outlined elsewhere) to put under scrutiny the other side also. Magog should refrain from taking further actions in matters involving TopGun and his content disputes since several editors do not perceive him as being fair anymore. Magog has made personal attacks against me and others.[33] I am sure there are enough administrators on wikipedia who can take care of this issue from a more distanced position. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    JCAla has a pattern of suddenly calling any person (esp. admin) who joins in to be on the other side. User:TParis joined in to our dispute at WP:NPOVN... JCAla labelled him as a party on my side just because he said what JCAla didn't like. Now after he couldn't get a consensus, he by his own choice, called in Magog in some non-neutral words - which even Magog agreed were not so neutral - but we agreed to consider him an uninvolved party. Magog set some conditions to prevent comments on editors which were getting too casual and it worked until JCAla reported me for 2 reverts on an article with no recent reverting history and got blocked himself. Now JCAla considers Magog unfair too. I'll even invite TParis to act in his administrative capacity on articles other than one where he's involved as a participant (though he came in there as a mediator as well). How many admins do we have to put on "my side" before JCAla agrees that there's no cabal? Funny JCAla never chooses to inform any of the involved editors after filing any of the reports. --lTopGunl (ping) 14:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not question User:TParis' integrity as an administrator. I questioned the neutrality of his position on a highly discussed content dispute in which both sides had equal editors arguing in favour or against. This can happen and happens a lot on content dispute discussions in the heat of the discussion. It is not noteworthy. This is not about him.
    I never reported anyone other than vandal User:Lagoo sab/his now confirmed socks and User:TopGun while on wikipedia. There are different reasons for me reporting User:TopGun (one being that alone in one week he was involved in six edit wars - one with me) and the arguments I made for reporting him have been shared by many other unrelated editors on wikipedia.
    This is not a report against Magog (I am going to address this issue in another more appropriate way elsewhere). This is a comment and a note to Magog who I suppose is watching this discussion since he was part of it. If he has no stake in this, I ask him to let other administrators (which can keep the distance to the subject matter and do not engage in personal attacks, conspiracy theories and comments on nationality "Indian nationalist") deal with any dispute related to TopGun or me. There are enough administrators out there who can handle this.
    JCAla (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A note to Magog would be best left on their talk page. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are right. But my comment came explicitly in response to his statement (about "Indian nationalists", "off-wiki" conspiracies and "lousy editors" supposedly discovered by TopGun) above - which for me was the last sign that he should not deal with this issue any further. So I responded here. JCAla (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • JCAla should read WP:INVOLVED. An admin is not considered involved if they have made nothing but administrative actions, and yes, that includes administrative action against you. This is not a personal attack, referencing to canvassing by editors with an Indian Nationalist POV is not an attack. Wikipedia is not about 'sides', and your use of the term indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which is troubling. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This I do consider as a personal attack. How do these editors have an Indian nationalist pov? Some are not even Indian. The label "Indian nationalist" as such is undue. The "off-wiki" canvassing is purely a conspiracy theory and as such is also undue. JCAla (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not a personal attack. Not even nearly something approaching vaguely resembling something related to a personal attack. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Abuse of Twinkle by User: Jamcad01

    Resolved
     – user agreed to refrain from use of term "vandalism" Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamcad01 has been using Twinkle to edit war: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and to revert warnings on his talk page that he doesn't like with personal attacks: [39]. Radiopathy •talk• 02:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh. I count two uses of Twinkle in all of your difs. Yes, this is a problem. Yes, he should be told this is a problem. If these two uses are the sum total of problems, however, I don't see where these two edits account for any sanctions as yet. If other difs can be presented to demonstrate a long-term pattern of twinkle abuse, edit warring, or personal attacks, that would amount to a different issue. But what is presented doesn't seem to me to warrent more than a warning, as yet. --Jayron32 02:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, it was two days ago. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He only started using Twinkle two days ago. He does, however, have a longer history of genre warring, which he now seems prepared to carry out with Twinkle. Radiopathy •talk• 02:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you say. Difs would help the rest of us make a judgement of that sort. --Jayron32 02:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They're simply wrong here, but the other one simply reverted an unexplained removal of content—which you promptly undid for no good reason that I can see. Clearly nothing here that constitutes 'abuse'. Swarm X 03:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did what? --Jayron32 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, indentation fixed. 03:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

    The biggest problems I've seen apart from the very disruptive and pervasive genre warring are things such as [40], [41] and [42]. There is simply no excuse for personal attacks and egregiously misapplying the label of vandalism. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the additional diffs. I am clearly seeing enough problems to revoke Twinkle access. Continued problems, including misidentification of edits as vandalism or more personal attacks should lead to further sanctions, including blocks if necessary. This now looks like a problem that needs fixing. --Jayron32 05:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok I am getting fed up with these two users. (Mr Pyles and Radiopathy) They have constantly been wikistalking and harrasing me. First of all the two edits that I did use Twinkle on have explanations for both and should not be counted as abuse since I wasn't genre warring. Secondly I am allowed to treat my talk page how I want to. As for genre warring it has stopped and had been taken to the talk page on Rush and I have stopped doing it on Van Halen. As for Van Halen, Mr Pyles reverted one genre out of hidden text which is classified as vandalism. (If it isn't then from now on I won't say it's vandalism) Also if calling someone a biased troll (Wikistalking, harrassing, getting treated unfairly etc.) is a personal attack then how come when I got called a genre troll and a dick (See User_talk:Mr_Pyles#Def_Leppard) nothing was done about it? --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI from now on I will add sources to my genre changes to keep users happy. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You, Jamcad01, should not call edits vandalism if they are not vandalism. That must stop immediately. I know that Twinkle makes it very easy to do so; please do not use Twinkle to call edits vandalism either. If you find yourself unable to use the word vandalism correctly, as defined by WP:VANDALISM, then please stop using it altogether. As far as your talk page, yes you may remove the comments of other people from your talk page, but you may not call those comments vandalism. --Jayron32 06:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine I'll stop. It's just everyone is exaggerating. --Jamcad01 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we're not. Calling non-vandalism edits vandalism is a major no-no. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, calling non-vandalism edits "vandalism" is exaggerating. Er, and "from now on you'll use sources"? You're always supposed to use sources! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, sheesh, I didn't realise it was such a big deal. I always thought those edits were vandalism but I guess they're not. I've learnt my lesson so just please leave me alone. Also you don't ALWAYS have to use sources you just have to use them if someone thinks they're needed or they disagree or if it is controversial or if it is a major revision. That is why "citation needed" exists.--Jamcad01 (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you maybe re-read the first few paragraphs of Wikipedia's verifiability policy and maybe re-think your position (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, wrong, everything must be cited to reliable sources. Anything that is not cited can be removed by any editor at any time - {{citation needed}} is a courtesy but is not required before summary removal of uncited content. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything." Wikipedia:V. Now please leave me alone. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also what I meant by using sources is actually adding the citation. Sorry if I confused you guys. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Controversial moves

    User:Thomas280784, an apparent SPA, has made numerous controversial moves to non-English titles in violation of Wiki-policy WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. This user has been warned that such moves are controversial,[43] but, in a violation against Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI, has stormed ahead with another dozen moves just today:

    I request that these articles be moved back to their original title names per WP:BRD, and that admin action be taken against Thomas280784 to prevent him making such controversial moves outside of the WP:RM procedure. Dolovis (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought it was usual policy that accents were included in article titles where they were proper names not in the English language. WP:UE applies when looking at something like Munich, a place with an English name which differs from its local name, but not when dealing with a person. See WP:TITLEFORMAT: "Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics ... In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters". Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is most certainly not usual policy to use modified letters in an article's title. The policy of COMMONNAME stipulates that the article title should follow the name as used in reliable English-language sources. And in the above cases, those sources do not use modified letters. In any case, BRD does apply, so these article moves should be reverted before the RM discussion takes place. Dolovis (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's a "modified letter"? Surely that's the one where a native accent has been stripped for the benefit of illiterate ASCII. Fortunately we have no technical reason to do this. Use the correct form, with the accent, and set up a modified redirect to cope with cases using restricted keyboards. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia Policy of Wikipedia:Article titles states that we are to use the Common Name as found in reliable English-language sources. These moves go against Wikipedia policy as there are no sources to support the name with modified letters. Dolovis (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and a reliable English-language source will correctly and competently report a European name with the necessary diacritics. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see (a) this isn't an ANI issue, (b) Thomas280784 is not an SPA, merely an editor with an interest in ice hockey and (c) DJSasso's response to Dolovis' warning is also worth reading. Number 57 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas280784 was warned that such moves are controversial, but forged ahead anyway, in violation of Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI, and ignoring the policy, protocol, and spirit of WP:RM; but regardless, these article moves should be reverted per BRD, and RM should be followed if Thomas280784 wishes to argue policy in support of his proposed moves. Dolovis (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Dolovis! The only cotroversial thing is that you're still allowed creating such ridiculous stubs and not even mentioning that there are diacritics in these guys names... So save your energy and start moving the following ones: Teemu Selänne, Patrik Eliáš, Éric Desjardins, Ossi Väänänen...just to name a few! But there are still many left especially when you look at Category:Czech ice hockey players, Category:Slovak ice hockey players or Category:Finnish ice hockey players... Thanks to User:Sam Blacketer, User:Number 57 and User:Djsasso for supporting my moves! --Thomas ✉ 17:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The moves to diacritics titles are not supported by any sources, which amounts to original research.Dolovis (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is just ridiculous, using non-english sources to back something up does not make something original research. You have a very poor grasp of policy. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    One last question: ANI and SPA seem to be abbreviations. What do they stand for? --Thomas ✉ 17:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A capitalised acronym is usually a shortcut like WP:ANI (You're here already) or WP:SPA (a single-purpose account), which is usually a WP:CIVIL(sic) way of implying that an editor you disagree with is a WP:SOCK, without any evidence to support that. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not implying that anyone is a SOCK. A SPA refers to an account "whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose", a lable, which looking at the edit history for Thomas28078, appears to apply. Dolovis (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record... my main account is de:Benutzer:Thomas280784. --Thomas ✉ 17:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I heard, even hockey player names were supposed to have their title in English, but redirects with diacritics were ok (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The diacritic titles seem consistent with the Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen examples given at WP:UE. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We follow policy here, not Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI. The policy is to revert controversial moves per WP:BRD, and then to open a discussion concerning the controversial move at WP:RM. Dolovis (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas28078, should've went the RM route. Such unilateral page moves, merely cause disruption. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't get it... Why are those moves called "controversial"? I'm not wrong by moving those pages... For example Jiří Sekáč... --Thomas ✉ 19:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think they are. In any event WP:NOTBUREAU is still one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, so I don't see anything wrong with moving them without discussing them first. Dolovis can move them back and start a discussion if they'd like. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did somebody say "new"?--68.9.119.69 (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    These reason these moves are wrong is that Thomas was warned that such moves were controversial, and he was told that he should proceed through RM. He ignored such warnings and made the controversial moves anyway. That is not how we do things here. If someone will just revert these moves so Thomas can proceed to make his case in an RM discussion, then that would be one way to conclude this issue. Dolovis (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide a diff to where the consensus was established the moves are controversial. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, just to sum this up... Moving the pages to the correct spelling was wrong because I didn't request to move them?!? That's disgusting... And as the talk goes on, there's only one person who thinks that my moves were "controversial"...And that's you. I don't need those discussions because I'm not wrong in any way! Please tell me, why you didn't move pages like Patrik Eliáš? Why? --Thomas ✉ 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That phrase -correct- is viewed by many on the pro-english/anti-diacritics side as being arrogant. I'd wish you'd strike it. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Edwardian England is alive and well somewhere. Maybe if you explain it loudly and often enough, these funny foreigners will realise that they're spelling their own names wrongly. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If I recall correctly, the hockey WikiProject consistently gets their collective panties in a knot whenever an Eastern European hockey player's article is moved from the lazy title that lacks the proper diacritics present in the player's name in their native tongue, which are viable article titles on the English Wikipedia because the use of diacritic marks. Their own guidelines are no longer valid on the matter. This is a perrenial issue and someone who always feels one way about diacritics will raise a stink when pages get moved to the opposite version. I don't think there has been any sort of concrete decision about what should be done because the hockey fans on Wikipedia appear to be in some sort of ceasefire over this content.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh. WP:HOCKEY did come up with a resolution on this matter, listed under WP:HOCKEY#Wikiproject Notice:

    • All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required).
    • All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics.
    • All non-North American hockey pages should have diacritics applied (where required).

    (Their emphasis, not mine). So it appears that on all articles on players themselves, the diacritics are to be in article titles. When the names are used on articles on the NHL and other North American leagues, the diacritics are not used on those pages, but are on others, and the diacritics are always used on other hockey league pages. So Thomas280784 is in the right on these moves.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A recent discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Create_a_special_status_for_project-level_style_guidelines indicated project wide policies should be followed in preference to Project policies; Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(proper_names)#Diacritics indicates the diacritics are appropriate. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And WP:HOCKEY agrees. Diacritics should be in article titles, which is contrary to Dolovis's preferences. They merely do not use the diacritic names (relying on piping or redirects) on pages on NHL teams.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus within the ice hockey project on the use of diacritics within the article's title. Following the MOS, diacritics are properly used within the article. Even if there was a consensus within the ice hockey project, that would not trump the Wikipedia policy of WP:AT which dictates to use the WP:COMMONNAME as established by English-language reliable sources. But this entire line of discussion just goes to illustrate the point that the moves made by Thomas are controversal, and so they should be reverted prior to an RM discussion, which is where all of you points concerning the proper title should be made - not here. Dolovis (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Opening an ANI thread and claiming the resultant discussion proves controversial is not a compelling argument. Repeatedly asserting your opinion is not a compelling argument. Not providing diffs to support your claim are not compelling arguments. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 04:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing diacritic marks does not English or common name make, either.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that Dolovis had a hand in preventing the proper use of diacritics in this debate. Per the hockey project's own guidelines, the diacritic form of the titles should be in use for all those affected pages.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    When referring to WP:AT, Dolovis always omits this sentence: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. (my bold). And, oh, this thing about "ignoring the policy, protocol, and spirit of WP:RM", Dolovis would know all there is to know about that, not to mention WP:FAITACCOMPLI and gaming the system. Dolovis had (or has) a page move ban imposed on him for this. (I guess he hasn't mentioned that either.). Recently, he has returned to his old ways of gaming the system, for which he has been reported in a section below. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It is getting to the point where Dolovis wastes so much of the wikis time that his diacritics move ban should be changed to a full out diacritics topic ban. -DJSasso (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I was thinking along the same lines. What is the net worth of Dolovis's contributions? HandsomeFella (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban discussion is appropriate. However, as this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, discussion of an editor's "net worth" is not an appropriate topic of conversation here; it is personal attack by innuendo. Nobody Ent 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • support topic ban (or even a general block) for Dolovis on anything related to diacritics. This is a new one to me, but looking briefly back over history this is clearer a far bigger pattern of behaviour than just this one incident. Taking an inappropriate contrary position on their use is one thing, this clearly tendentious mover-warring is quite another and now as here, bringing another editor to ANI for acting correctly is quite unacceptable. Given their responses in this thread, and the time for which this has already gone on, they appear unlikely to change either their views on diacritics, or (more seriously) to accept that they're beating a dead horse with incessant vigour. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved here, but I have to agree with Andy - looking at the previous discussions (thank you DJSasso for pointing to WP:RESTRICT where the indef move ban is listed w/ links) and what is being done here, this has pushed past acceptable. In a way it's a shame, but an extension of the current ban to include disusing or acting on article titles that contain diacritics is supportable. The disruption involved and the bad faith exhibited by Dolovis in the OP and their contact with Thomas280784 speaks volumes that Dolovis needs to be kept - and I'd really prefer that it be "stay" but that degree of voluntary disengagement does not look even remotely likely - away from not only directed page move related to diacritics in the titles, but also initiating or participating in discussions of the same. - J Greb (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a Wikipedia issue The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Complain withdrawn

    There is a wiki at Wikia which has been involved with harassment, trolling, impersonation, and copyright infringement. They have several articles which are plagerized from Wikipedia. In addition, they have a user who is a troll who impersonated User:Paul Siebert. They also have an admin who has engaged in trolling and has not appeared to make any useful edits; the majority of his edits seem to be just designed to fill up his number of contributions. Regarding becoming admin on the wiki, it isn't difficult, the admin is only like 14 years old or something, and doesn't require much at all of prospective admins. The user JosephAsherFord, who I just mentioned, claimed that I sent him harassing emails, which is a total fabrication. I've reported some of the trolls to Wikia. I think it would be the job of someone here to report the copyright infringement to Wikia.

    • JosephAsherFord was renamed JAF1999 BTW.

    Limited list of infringing pages at world-war-2.wikia.com

    • Malmedy Massacare
    • Many others I will add later.
    Wikipedia has no control over what goes on at Wikia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, Wikipedia's text is licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 license; so it simply needs attribution. HurricaneFan25 — 19:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor continuing to insert POV content

    After being warned, user Pepeleyva continues to insert personal commentary and POV regarding author Jon Krakauer in various articles. Diffs here:

    • Jon Krakauer article: [44]; [45]; [46]
    • Mount Everest article: [47]
    • Anatoli Bourkeev article: [48]
    • Regarding POV violations, editor was warned: [49]; [50];
    • Regarding 3RR violations, editor was warned: [51]
    • I have communicated with the editor on his talk page: [52]; [53]
    • I have also communicated with the editor on my talk page: [54]

    Based on the number of edits under his account, editor is relatively new, there seems to be a possibility of a language barrier (based on his writing), and he's certainly displaying a severe case of WP:IDHT as other editors have attempted to communicate with him as well. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oltlfan2011 and disruptive editing

    Oltlfan2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I've never opened one of these before the whole time I have been here. So I hope it is relevant, I just got refered from AIV after a report their concluded the vandalism was not as transparent.

    Oltlfan2011 fan has been engaging in fancruft edits, disruptive infobox changes such as making text small to read, adding unsourced dates and unsourced claims. I'm not familiar with the series One Life to Live, but they started adding dual relations (which are technically impossible from the real world perspective) so I looked online and asked another editor familiar, who confirmed that this editor was making things up. So I started a discussion recently about "cluttering" these infoboxes on fictional character pages. This is done via fan type editors including as much in universe detail as possible, always unsourced and the end result is a hefty infobox with excessive information not presented in a concise way. The discussion here shows that there is still support to keep the infobox home to a concise run down of information. Aside from that, as RM pointed out in the discussion, the project already reached a decision about keeping Infoboxes concise which is in view at Template:Infobox soap character, where it states that adding excessive information to it's fields is not permitted - a template that has been long talked about at WP:SOAPS - so it gained consensus and the guide to the infobox is there.

    I've warned this user for their edits, but they did not listen - so I tried to reason with them, asked them to review the relevant pages. They also have been carrying out a number of edits to fictional characters in the in-universe manner - going agaisnt MOS:FICTION. So I talked to them about that. They have not replied yet and carried on doing what they like, regardless of those style guides, consensus at the Wikiproject etc. They have not made any effort to reply or discuss their edits. They carried on, however began using edit summaries stating "I'm not vandalizing".

    This editor is generally problematic when it comes to editing fiction, so I'm going to demonstrate how they have been executing various edits.

    • Adding their own excitement into edits - "On December 27th, Shane is reunited with his MOM!!!!" - [55]
    • They removed the source and uploader from an image that requires the source (I know the rationale is poor at best, but why make it worse?) - [56]
    • Adding unsourced dates - [57][58][59][60][61]
    • I began removing their edits from these two articles - [62][63] - Now, I reverted twice - but they just ignored and added the information back. On the second link, you can see that User:Musicfreak7676 reverted his edits, but he added them back. If he had of reverted instead of doing so manually, he would have been picked up for breaking 3xR.
    • When Oltlfan does include edit summaries they are "This looks better" - "I'm not vandalising" - [64][65][66] - So I can see they think they are doing it for the greater good, but there is a guideline on the infobox they are ignoring it, and from that they are obviously knowingly ignoring consensus in favour of their own view.
    • They keep bolding out the character's romance they thing is most important, here is a few - [67][68][69][70]
    • Examples of cluttering are: Adding that character have a "ONS" (One night stand) - [71] - Adding too much info - [72][73] (Claims she has a "half-sister/adoptive sister; twin")

    Anyway, they're highly active and if you skim through their edits you'll see they are putting <small></small> in everywhere. I'm not sure if you temp block editors for being disruptive through engaging in fancruft - so is there anyway to enforce something that makes them respect consensus and follow fiction guidelines etc?Rain the 1 21:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ownership

    Bwmoll3 has vicious WP:OWN issues. Attempts to redirect non-notable song stubs he has created have been undone bluntly. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Ways (Patty Loveless song) for more reference. All of those articles have been redirected at least twice each by me and Eric444, with Bwmoll3 playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card here when an uninvolved editor pointed out that the songs didn't meet WP:NSONGS. I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    With all respect, TenPoundHammer blanks articles with a #redirect instead of proceeding through the AFD process. His short-cutting though the proper Wikipedia process is a judgmental process which does not permit the established methodology to function, and then he gets upset when he is reverted after not leaving any comments in the edit after him and Eric444 have done what they have decided to do. If they are self-appointed administrators, then they have to conform to the established procedures for what they wish to do. In addition, I was not notified of this clandestine discussion by him as shown in the above heading. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also must bring to the Administrators attention the Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski on this page, as TenPoundHammer has in the past done this on several occasions to articles I have edited, and presumably to thousands of other articles which has has effectively deleted by the misuse of the #redirect command, which goes against the grain of WP:PRESERVE. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "....I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. ...." There is no factual truth to these statements. I request he supply the logs of his false accusation. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD is not required when merges or redirects are involved. --MuZemike 01:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    TenPoundHammer does not merge articles with #redirects. He abuses the #redirect function to circumvent the RFD process Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I am still waiting to see my comments on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song). As I never made any comments on that article, I'm curious to see what TenPoundHammer is falsely accusing me of writing Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bwmoll3, there are some clear guidelines for when a song is notable - I believe you've already been directed to WP:NSONGS. If it doesn't meet the guideline, and isn't notable separately under WP:GNG, then redirecting it to the article on the album (or the artist) is the correct course, and does NOT require an Afd. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood Elen, however, if a #redirect is used, does that also not imply that the information in the song's article be merged into the album's article as part of the #redirect process? Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two choices: either a redirect like the ones of which you're complaining, or a deletion debate that will result in the same redirect. Why force the bureaucratic AFD? Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the RFD is the proper procedure for deletions. A #redirect is used when merging articles, or when a title of one article is another name for another article. Using #redirect in lieu of a proper RFD is a misuse of command, and does not allow a full and proper RFD which users can comment and a consensus reached. Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm sorry, that's not how things work. RFD is for the deletion of redirects; AFD is for the deletion of articles. There is no need whatsoever to discuss before redirecting a non-notable article; it is called being bold, and no content is deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    " 'Bwmoll3 has vicious WP:OWN issues. Attempts to redirect non-notable song stubs he has created have been undone bluntly. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Ways (Patty Loveless song) for more reference. All of those articles have been redirected at least twice each by me and Eric444 Bwmoll3 playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card here when an uninvolved editor pointed out that the songs didn't meet WP:NSONGS. I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC) "

    I find this entire statement very rude, childish, immature, as well as the statement being absolutely false and a blatant attempt to besmirched my reputation by presenting false statements as facts. This editor should apologize publicly to immediately and also be sanctioned severely for this false, slanderous accusation against me. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You had better lose the quasi-legalese terminology, or you risk being booted from wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have we not spent enough time on this issue now? There's no need to have an AfD or RfD before redirecting an article (although there now is one, the likely result of which will be, er, redirect). TPH has been doing the right thing in redirecting these unreferenced permastubs. Bwmoll3 - this is not the massively important thing you think it is. Read the guidelines, get a grip, and put your undoubted enthusiasm for content creation to better use. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I didn't start this. This incident was started by TenPoundHammer with his false and inflammatory comments on this page. I'm simply making my comments with regards to his actions. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    IP readding material to Talk:Muhammad after warnings from two administrators

    This user was warned by me about adding contentious material to Talk:Muhammad. They were then warned again by Ohnoitsjamie and Dougweller that they would be blocked if they continued to re-add the material. They have added the material again and have even requested that they be blocked on their talk page.[74] Could an administrator please oblige? Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks and Happy New Year from France. Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad this has been properly taken care of; but I would suggest that you avoid the use of the term "blasphemous" in such notices, since the term is inherently going to constitute an WP:NPOV violation. --12.232.7.194 (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make smart alec glib comments like this somewhere else. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please cite the policy or guideline which forbids "blasphemy." Edison (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He was blocked for disrupting the talk page, if you follow things through a little more carefully. Mathsci (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is criticism of a controversial person who died 1,300 years ago not tolerated on Wikipedia but blatant anti-Semitism like this is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruraldave284 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    People post all kinds of stupid non-sense on their talk pages. It isn't presented as fact and reads like a rambling pseudo-historical non-sense rant. It isn't a big deal.--Adam in MO Talk 01:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I think it is offensive, unnecessary, and violates WP:UP#POLEMIC. I have posted a message to the editor's Talk page asking them to remove it ([75]).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else has shifted it. As history goes, it's about as valid as Erik von Daniken. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is based on valid sourcing and notability. "Blasphemy" does not figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, you say that only because you delight in being blasphemous. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The block was for disrupting the talk page after separate warnings from two administrators, not for blasphemy. Edit summaries which read "mass murderer and pedo" are not a good sign. In addition the newly created account Ruraldave284 is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the blocked IP. Oh and sorry to ruin your fun by changing the title I chose for the thread. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Awwww, but is it true? If so, is it already in the article, and if not why?--JOJ Hutton 01:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Baseball Bugs on this. The IP editor in question hasn't behaved well, but blasphemy cannot ever be a reason for removing content. It's pure non-neutral POV. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the ip only got a bit disruptive when his/her opinions began to be removed from the talk page. And for blasphemy no doubt. even I would get a bit ticked off if someone used that as a reason for removing any of my edits, or trying to keep me from asserting my opinion. Wikipedia is not Censored. If any one doesn't like it, tough, get another hobby or go start your own censored wiki.--JOJ Hutton 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect because the first problematic edit summary read, "‎mahomet the humanitarian chopped naked ethiopian women for fun". Mathsci (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it true?--JOJ Hutton 01:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP also asserted that I was a Muslim. Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathsci is correct, the IP was obviously trolling. Though the header here at ANI probably shouldn't have included the word "blasphemous". Better would have just been "disruptive". Now that the IP is blocked though, perhaps we could all just swim away? --Elonka 01:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct, the IP was nothing but a troll and there's no point in defending him. He could have been civil and serious in suggesting that Criticism of Muhammad be incorporated into the Muhammad article, but he wasn't. He was intentionally and openly confrontational, and pushed for an anti-Islamic POV. He is no better than anyone supposedly trying to push for an Islamic POV. Complaints about "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Blasphemy is POV" are completely ignorant of that editor's behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't read my post, did you? HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did. Regardless of the reason given for undoing his actions, his actions were not acceptable and started off pretty trollish. If the reason given was "this editor is being disruptive" from the get go, the ban would still be in place. Is anyone going to defend the IP or appeal his block? If not, complaining is unnecessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read my post, you ignored half of it. I said that blasphemy must never be a reason for removal of content AND that the IP editor's behaviour was unacceptable. You missed the second bit I think. Both parts are important to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I bolded my point on that. It changes nothing whatever reason was given. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really concerned about defending what the ip did, but more concerned with what they said, and why it was removed and reverted, even when the ip to tone down the language. Mathsci's first revert, came with no explanation at all. If Mathsci found the passage blasphemous, then he/she should have asked the ip to reword or clarify, rather than systematically removing a comment he/she found personally offensive, without even giving a reason why. I personally found nothing offensive in the passage at all, and in fact it peaked my curiosity to try and discover more potential atrocities. If true, killing 900 people is not really one of the highlights of someones life story. The allegation about sleeping with a 9 year old girl, concerns me much less. In a time period when the average lifespan was 29, getting a head start with the baby making, made loads of sense. Probably should give him a big pass on that one, if true.--JOJ Hutton 02:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mathsci's motives here are transparent. He saw a disruptive editor and dealt with him. I would have dealt with it differently, but these things are a hard call. I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty, Mathsci is not acting out of bias, one way or the other, with regard to Islam. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Imagine the article on Mao Zedong, or perhaps Adolf Hitler, stated he was a humanitarian and a philanthropist. Would we get so block-happy about an IP getting similarly heated on the talk page about the inappropriateness of such a description in those articles? Probably not. I don't think the IPs edits were disruptive at all – the way I see it is 1) the IP made a comment on a talk page 2) an editor/some editors didn't like it, removed it, and told him he wasn't allowed to add it again (despite the fact it contained no personal attacks or BLP violations) 3) the IP, quite rightly, wouldn't take that lying down and re-added his comment (as I probably would if someone tried to remove a comment I made on a talk page on the basis that it was blasphemy) 4) repeat several times 5) more experienced editors call in the cavalry at ANI, crying foul 6) IP gets blocked simply because he didn't make it to ANI first. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 02:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.....You are correct sir. What have we got for him Monty?--JOJ Hutton 02:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather big difference, though. Mao and Adolf would never have said "if any one slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." Also, Mao and Adolf aren't the founders of a by-and-large peaceful and respectful religion that gave rights to women and religious minorities that Europe wouldn't give for another 1200 years. Your reductio ad Hitlerum is invalid. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well congratulations Ian, I was wondering who would be the first to mischaracterise my argument as an ad hominem – not every statement that mentions Hitler is reductio ad Hitlerum. I'm not saying "Muhammad did the same things as Hitler, and everything Hitler did was wrong, so we should let people say Muhammad is wrong" (reductio ad Hitlerum), I'm simply saying that I think that objection to the IP's edits is based on wide international support for the subject he's criticising, rather than for any actual disruption they're causing. I'm not saying Muhammad is like Hitler. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 03:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify further, I'm just curious as to whether we'd be so quick to discount the IP's edits as unacceptable if the opinion he is attempting to convey was less controversial (e.g. if he was criticising a subject much more widely-criticised, such as Hitler). There shouldn't be a discrepancy – if the IP had made similar criticisms at the Hitler talk page and wouldn't have been censored for it, then we shouldn't be censoring him here either. Does that make sense? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 03:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And as brought up on the IP editor's talk page: If you are not comparing Muhammad to Hitler, then "Imagine the article on Mao Zedong, or perhaps Adolf Hitler," is a completely useless and unrelated non-sequitur. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "by-and-large peaceful and respectful?" I know a number of Muslims who are indeed peaceful and respectful of the beliefs of others. Then there are the Taliban, al Queda, and theocracies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, who are not at all peaceful or respectful, and who commit evils in the name of the religion. Similar criticisms could be aimed at movements and theocracies based on other world religions which claim to be peaceful. Edison (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Citing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is like citing the KKK to counter the claim that Christianity is racially open. Most Iranians don't want war, it's mostly their president (who has to get the approval of a couple of councils of clerics to do anything but make empty threats), who has universally terrible approval ratings and only remains in office because he can get America to pay any attention to Iran. You also forgot Malaysia and Southeast Asia in general, where the majority of the world's Muslims live and don't cause any problems. %98 of the world's Muslims aren't even close to being terrorists (being a different sect and all), the Arab spring demonstrates that a similar number values equal rights and opposes theocratic oppression. I'd say that's safe to call "by-and-large peaceful." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Folks, what's relevant here is the actions of the IP, of those who reverted, and my block. I thought the IP's actions were deliberate provocation (judging by the content and the summaries), and that's why I blocked - not because of censorship or blasphemy (I follow no religion myself). What anyone thinks of Hitler, Muhammad, or anyone else is not relevant here and this is not the place to discuss them. (And, as usual, any other admin is welcome to act as they see fit without needing to ask me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, and suggest archiving this discussion as the heat-to-light ratio is skewing. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. And recommend that the content-related discussions in this thread be moved to a more appropriate venue, such as Talk:Criticism of Muhammad. --Elonka 03:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Newuser2011

    Newuser2011 (talk · contribs · email) has now three times in 24 hours removed some tags from Post scarcity on an addition of his that fail to meet basic Wikipedia criteria. His addition does not source the claim and is about an organisation (Technocracy Incorporated) that seems non-notable. I have warned him twice ([76], [77], but he continues. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    They've already been blocked for WP:SOCK ... not much more to see here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WölffReik and his "personal library" of articles.

    Can someone have a look at WölffReik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his "personal library" of articles on kick boxing here, a number of which are copyies (without attribution) of deleted articles (such as User:Minowafan/Hero's 4, User:Minowafan/SuperKombat: Fight Club ,User:Minowafan/Local Kombat). Mtking (edits) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I opened a dozen or so of these pages, and all of them were copyvios of similarly named articles (for example, User:Minowafan/SuperKombat: Fight Club was a copyvio of SuperKombat: Fight Club), and thus I deleted all of them. I don't have time to check the rest, but since every article I've checked is a copyvio, I strongly suspect that the rest are; I'm just going to delete every subpage except for any individual pages that don't look like copies, due to (1) WP:IAR; (2) the copyvio status of everything I checked, and (3) the fact that blocked socks generally don't need subpages anyway. Anyone know a way to delete them without openening and deleting everything individually? I've already found that these pages are too old to be nuked. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if you know of a way to delete these rapidly, leave a note on my talk page; I'm going to be busy enough deleting them that I won't notice a reply without an orange banner at the top of the page. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed autoreviewer status, doesn't seem appropriate for someone with this many copyvio issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. I'm done deleting; if my count is right, there were 433 subpages, and I deleted everything except the sandbox; it seems to be a directory for all of the other pages. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    maybe one more User:WölffReik/Sandbox looks to be a mix of K-1 World MAX 2011 −70kg Japan Tournament Final and K-1 World MAX 2011 -63kg Japan Tournament Final (as deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World MAX 2011 -63kg Japan Tournament Final). Mtking (edits) 07:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with this user is that they utilize a wide variety of socks and ips to maintain this content. Immediately after this DRV and this following AfD I'd brought several of these sandboxes and the continuing gaming behavior to this forum (asking for an indef block), but because the editor was not actively violating policies and guidelines, nothing was done at that time. I'd like to think that at some point, an administrator should block this account, if for no other reason than we could see other user accounts exposed. This editor is a dedicated disruptor, but the disruption is done purely to build and promote this content area, even if against consensus. Does a Kickboxing/MMA wiki exist? It might be better to get the editor to utilize knowledge and willingness in such a space; instead of deletion, we could transwiki and the user might be able to contribute meaningfully there with little interference from WP. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WölffReik's sandbox deleted; it's distinct from Minowafan's sandbox, which is purely a list of names, and thus no more of a copyvio than is a library card catalog. Yes, someone please block here; I've probably done enough on this project and expressed enough opinions in the deletion that I'm past the point of interacting with him/them purely in an administrative role. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bullying, canvassing, forum-shopping, railroading?

    We've got something of a situation brewing over at Talk:Association of Global Automakers. An editor hired by a company to write "their" Wikipedia article is (successfully) canvassing and forum-shopping for accomplices to come in and bully, railroad, and shout down all those who question the rectitude and balance of the article:

    On 21 December, Association of Global Automakers was started by WWB Too (talk · contribs), who declares he was hired by that company (as he has been hired by others; here, here, here, and here, for example) to write "their" article. WWB Too discloses his ("potential", as he sees it) conflict of interest in each of the several arenas where he discusses the article including the article talk page and the automobiles project page.

    On 22 December, Jenova20 (talk · contribs) added what look to me like warranted templates to the article with what looks to me like an appropriate edit summary, and initiated discussion on the talk page, under which WWB Too objected to the templates on grounds of having stated on the automobiles project page his intent to write the article and posting a link to draft versions in his userspace. There was fairly civil conversation, which I joined on 28 December. Biker Biker (talk · contribs) joined in the discussion; like Jenova20, he and I raise our eyebrows (and support the templates' inclusion) at what looked like an overtly promotional piece written by an editor hired to do so, with no content that could shed less than warmly glowing light on the subject organisation.

    On 29 December, WWB Too requested backup from Youreallycan (talk · contribs), who went to the article talk page, belligerently and incorrectly accused two of the wrong editors (myself [78] and Biker Biker [79][80]) of adding templates, twice disregarding the diff showing the actual origin of the templates.

    Meanwhile, YouReallyCan seemed to take the position that reinstating templates unilaterally removed without consensus is the same as adding templates from scratch and appears to reject all disagreement (e.g., [81]) with that opinion. S/he repeatedly harassed me on my talk page [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]—with odd demands that I cease removing "good faith discussions" from my own talk page and a strange threat to disregard my contributions to the discussion (which gives the appearance of a belief that s/he is an arbiter or otherwise privileged editor of some kind), and also badgered Biker Biker on his talk page in similar fashion [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]. On the article talk page, YouReallyCan mischaracterised the COI template as a punitive device [95], issued orders that other editors are not to add templates [96] [97] [98], and declared there to be no support for the templates' retention despite the editor who originally placed them stating he is temporarily unavailable for extensive editing during the holidays [99] and other editors including myself pointing out that there's no timeline or deadline for the removal of the templates except perhaps one that might come not from Wikipedia policy but from the agency that bought the article in the first place: [100] [101] [102] [103] [[104]].

    YouReallyCan stated [105] that "templates are of little value to the project", then—just hours after they'd been put up—unilaterally removed the templates and went to war seven times in less than two hours with editors who reinstated them [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]. This edit war gave rise to a 3RR report with black marks for Biker Biker (and perhaps for YouReallyCan; I can't tell) and a sysop's temporary PP of the article [113].

    Also on 29 December, WWB Too requested backup from Tagishsimon (talk · contribs), who declared his own unilateral intent to remove the templates if his demand is not met within 48 hours for their justification to his satisfaction, then gave a nod and a wink to WWB Too ([114], scroll down).

    I started a tangential conversation on Jimbo's talk page aimed at learning if or how his 2009 opinion on bought-and-paid editing has changed; this conversation was joined by YouReallyCan, WWB Too, Tagishsimon, Ebikeguy, and others; as of this writing Jimbo has yet to weigh in. It appears from that discussion that WWB Too counts his or her userspace as "somewhere else" for the purpose of compliance with Jimbo's opinion that it is perfectly fine for someone to set up an independent writing service for GFDL / CC BY / CC BY-SA content, to be posted somewhere else, and for completely independent wikipedians to find it useful in some way. I'm not sure that's what Jimbo meant by "somewhere else"; I think he probably meant somewhere off Wikipedia, but I'm not Jimbo so I can't say for sure.

    I also made substantial and reliably-supported content contributions to the article in an attempt to address some of the issues raised in the templates [115]; these appear to have upset paid article author WWB Too, who has done what gives the appearance of additional canvassing and shopping for backup on that matter [116].

    I am not comfortable with what looks and feels to me like a rather successful attempt at distributive paid ownership of an article, nor with the tactics being used to take and hold onto that power. All editors named in this report have been notified of this present discussion and linked to it. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that at least 2 editors pushing to sustain the same COI-fostered edits does strike me as alarming, as a potential WP:TAGTEAM effort, especially when one editor is targetting the individual opponent user-talk pages and re-posting warnings (multiple times within 3 minutes!) to user-talk pages when those users have re-deleted warnings from their own talk-pages (specifically: the edit diff-5507 un-reverting an editor's trimmed talk-page to insist a posted warning remain on that user-talk page). Forcing users to keep warnings on their talk-pages, in at least a 2-person effort to maintain COI-fostered edits, strikes me as very alarming. I will delay further detailed comments, to avoid giving "advice" here for how to be a less-pushy WP:TAGTEAM member. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not comfortable with the article, nor with the idea of someone being paid to write it. Especially since they (WWB Too) are now spending lots of effort to maintain the article in the shape and form that they (or their bosses) prefer to see. Better no article at all, in my opinion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Many of the diffs given as evidence of bullying and harassment etc. show absolutely nothing of the sort. The article talk page is the place for the discussions - the use of this board to gain what one does not have at an article is fraught with peril, indeed. The issue of templates is always controversial, and is best dealt with by seeking consensus at the article talk page - not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree. For example, one diff allegedly showing Youreallycan "issuing orders" to remove templates states: Not a single user has responded to my request to explain the reason for the templates here. Youreallycan (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC). This doesn't sound like an order to me. Another diff of a so-called "order" states: The templates were not there - you added them - either explain your reasons for adding the individual templates below or stop adding them - they were there before is no excuse to add them again. Youreallycan (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC). Again, I'm at a loss to see how this can be construed as an "order". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at more diffs; other diffs do show extreme evidence of bullying and harassment, plus taken as a whole set of posted messages, all diffs considered together show a pattern of obsessive behavior, in the manner of someone re-posting variations of "You had better not do it again" multiple times to a user-talk page within one hour. The problem is not the content of each diff, separately, it is the pattern of so many similar, repeated user-talk warnings within a few hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally don't care who writes an article or if they managed to get a few dollars for doing it. I think it's better to look at it and say to yourself - is it better than it was and if the answer is yes then great. The template bombing of this article appears to be more of a "reaction" to the declaration that the user got a few dollars for writing it, so it must be evil personified and needs exposing rather than there being specific content issues that can be clarified and resolved. Perhaps there is a degree of critical content that could be added, then, it's not finished, just quietly add it. The community is "no consensus" on paid editors and I have found WWB to be a decent writer to GA standard, that says close to policy - there is no reason to demonize him or his work for his good faith contributions. If the energy that had been put into this report had been put into clearly stating what the specific issues with the content are then any issues would have been resolved by now.Youreallycan (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not bothered by the conflict of interest, i'm bothered by writing on my talk page to assume good faith and remove the tags to allow the article to exist unedited though.
    I'm bothered by the sneaky rephrasing of calling this group anything other than a lobby group.
    I'm bothered by the obvious canvassing now.
    I'm also bothered by the clear intent to break rules by WWB to get his own way and ignore the criticism given to him by the article, either by trying to charm his way out (my talk page) or by ignoring criticism (talk page of Mr Choppers).
    Admitting a Conflict Of Interest is good, not acting on suggestions from well respected and knowledgeable editors like our Mr Choppers is another thing.
    I support a cleanup or deletion, either way the article can't exist in current form and this Conflict of Interest clearly runs a lot deeper by the sheer audacity of WWB's actions.
    I'm also the one who added the tags for anyone still wondering.
    Thanks Jenova20 13:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you would respond to my questions on the talkpage then to please clearly explain the specific reasons and related content they refer to so I and anyone else that wants to can address your issues and work towards improving the article and removing the templates. I don't accept your claim that the article can't exist in its current form, there might be minor issues but not more than that a little editing will easily resolve - deletion - well you are welcome to nominate it but I don't see that deletion would be a possibility. - Youreallycan (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The complete absence of any mention of lawsuits brought by the Association of Global Automakers is one glaring example of why the tags are necessary. I don't know if the lawsuits are "dirt" or not, but they do show us that COI editors suffer from a kind of myopia. I suppose the reason might be to softpeddle their activities: mere advocacy, mere friendly persuasion, rather than the truth that the auto industry group is also willing to use courts to force others to do things, or not do things that they wish to do. COI editors typically whitewash conflict and controversy and make everything seem all warm and happy.

      Also, an adequate summary of the lawsuit news stories would include the positions of those who were sued by the Association of Global Automakers. So the page would not longer be only a platform for the views of the Association, but would also contain a fair summary of the views of their opponents. The template {{COI}} exists to warn readers that in its current state, such opposing views are missing.

      Clearly, the correct response to the maintenance tags would have been to spent time finding missing content from the article, rather than running around to talk pages and deleting maintenance tags. Instead of repeatedly challenging others to explain the tags, go do a search at Google News and expand the article appropriately. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Paid editing is a contentious issue, and in my view, in an ideal situation, it would not happen. But there is no consensus against it, and in practice it would be impossible to police. And the author has been open about it, which is a good thing. On the whole, I think decisions about articles like this should be based entirely on the article content itself. Had the exact same, word-for-word, article been written by someone else, would there be the same controversy? I suspect not. So I'm with Youreallycan here, and I think we should work to make this article better rather than just argue about who created it and their motivation. If anyone wants to add tags to any parts of the content, that's fine, but they should be prepared to explain what precisely is wrong with that content on the Talk page so that it can be addressed - and if they can't or won't do that when challenged, I think it is fair to remove the tags -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Mayday, Mayday, Block-evading harasser

    A person has been evading blocks and maki personal attacks agains me and harnessing me. Please see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, Wikipedia:SOPA initiative, an my talk page and Makaton and it's talk page for the relevant ips. Admin EdJohnson tried something but it did 't work. I don't know what to do! Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Response: You're disputing a valid refute to your statement, Ramaksoud2000. You either delete anything that goes against what you're saying, or you don't answer it. You're painting a very one-sided picture here, and that's not the goal of Wikipedia. Don't appeal to an admin simply because someone has a differing point of view. 85.237.211.90 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang thrown by the IP. Blatant personal attacks. Looks like we'll have to block a range (85.237.192.0/19 or if we want to be less bold 85.237.211.0/24) here because this IP user obviously hops IPs. Obvious gaming the system.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to revert all this, but I don't know if I can find it all. Calabe1992 04:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Message to ip: I don't think we can take your claims seriously after all your personal attacks against me. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying a slightly wider rangeblock. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive behaviour of an admin

    There was this pretty silly incidence at the Bikini page (see [118]), though no policy, guideline, rule or directive was violated. In fact, I tried to discuss the issue on both the article talk page (see [119], which resulted in no response from the other party, but positive response from uninvolved editors), the other party's talk page (see [120], which resulted in an inflammatory response, see [121]), and a bigger forum (see [122]).

    That incidence calmed down quickly. But, immediately after I was templeted by User:Toddst1, an administrator, warning me that I could be banned for edit warring. At my talk page, he also told another uninvolved editor that there was no personal attack in the inflammatory response I've referred to here. I immediately posted to his page explaining the relevant guidelines and the incidence (see [123], which generated no response from the admin, though the admin was still busily working at the Wikipedia, see [124]).

    I was wondering about the malevolence, and finally I have located at least on incident where the admin was at odds with me (see [125]). Even at that time I explained my stand, quoting sensible traditions (see [126], which generated no response from the admin).

    If this is how an admin handles someone who doesn't agree to that admin, we have something to worry about. Threatening abusively is bad enough. But, when the threat maker has the administrative powers to carry out the threat, it becomes really dangerous. Will someone see the danger here? Haven't we seen enough rogue admins already, some of whom were actually regarded in high esteem? Someone, please, see into the matter.

    This is not an official WP:ADMINABUSE complaint, yet. But, as off-Wikipedia sources report (see [127], [128] or [129]) abusive behaviour like this from editors with higher level access right is not just alarming, it's detrimental to everything Wikipedia stands for. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You were given a notification using standard Wikipedia templates of a potential issue brewing - the same template being used tens of thousands of times before. Of course, edit-warring and its associated blocks (not bans) don't care if you're "right" in your content/style editing. There's nothing malevolent, and the template is pretty self-explanatory, so follow-up with the admin in question seems unnecessary. I'm hard-pressed to find anything wrong with the warning whatsoever - there's no threat. Referring to their actions as malevolence is probably pretty uncivil on your part. You're grasping at some pretty bizarre straws, IMHO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dolovis gaming the system – again

    User Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has over the past year or so been involved in several disputes over the topic of diacritics (which he wants to rid wikipedia of). The common pattern has been a display of battleground mentality by move-warring, edit-warring and gaming the system (via editing redirects, so that page moves would not be possible without the intervention of an admin). For this, he deservedly received a page move ban (which seems to have been lifted since). After receiving the ban, he immediately started peppering WP:RM with move requests, which would normally have a good chance of going through if no-one opposed noticed it, thereby obtaining the same end result. For this, he was banned from making move requests for a while.

    See also the latest (?) major quarrels over diacritics on Talk:Dominik Halmosi and Talk:Ľubomír Višňovský.

    Dolovis is now back to his old tricks, making deliberate "mistakes" while creating redirects with diacritics, prompting him to edit the redirects again, adding template "R from title with diacritics". Diffs: [130], [131], [132], [133]. This is exactly why he received the page move ban.

    It seems to me that Dolovis is set on having his way in wikipedia, no matter what, kind of a WP:OWN for the whole topic of ice hockey. He displays a total disrespect for other editors, in effect dismissing the whole idea of consensus, hoping to eventually wear other editors down. I think it's time to discuss expanding the ban on Dolovis to at least a topic ban for ice hockey (which is where his contributions are the most controversial) – and to reinstate the move ban and the ban on WP:RM, if indeed they have been lifted.

    I think it's safe to say that Dolovis's pattern of behavior indicates that he will never learn.

    User is notified.

    HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Already being discussed: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Controversial moves Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 10:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues are related, but not the same. Dolovis is reporting Thomas280784 for "controversial" moves, I am reporting Dolovis for gaming the system – again. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not following, sorry ... are you saying the diacritic spellings are wrong, or that he should be making the diacritic spelling the stub and the ascii-7 (non diacritic) versions the direct? Nobody Ent 13:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This report is aimed at Dolovis's behavior. On the diacritics issue, my view is that since they exist, and since there are articles on people, places, etc, that use them in en-wiki, it should reflect them (i.e. use the diacritics) in the title too. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Cohen Cruse hoax starting again

    Apparently an elaborate hoax, perpetrated over several years and involving many editors/socks and articles (see User:Vivisel/cohen cruse ruse) is being fired up again. Involved users may be Nola jew (talk · contribs) and 68.213.171.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).  --Lambiam 10:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Scorpion0422 incident

    I'm reporting an incident that happened yesterday with Scoption0422. He marked my good-faith edit as vandalism, even though I was just trying to correct the page. It was on the article Thriller (album), where I was editing the Track listing section. I removed two tracks from the table because it did not mention those tracks in the infobox (at the very bottom, saying "Singles from Thriller"). Scorpion0422, called my edit vandalism. I was deeply offended. I replied on his talk page.

    Soon after, six minutes later, I worried that I went too far. So I sent an update:

    I then sent the user another message, asking him why he called my edit vandalism.

    Here is the remark he made.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thriller_%28album%29&action=historysubmit&diff=468792441&oldid=468633468

    I hope this is dealt with. I am not a vandal in any way possible. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    First, this probably should have gone to Wikiquette assistance, however, it's here now :-)
    Second, User:Scorpion0422 needs to read the definition of vandalism far more carefully, as this does not appear to have been anywhere close
    Third, as a piece of advice - you might want to get a little thicker skin: to become angry and quote "libel and slander" because an edit (not the editor) was labelled as potential vandalism is really taking it too far. If I saw such an aggressive response, I'd likely become additionally aggressive myself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I know it is going to far. That's why I sent an update. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Right, and I don't see any replies from them at all ... which, by the way, he's not required to reply anyway. He has not been active since yesterday afternoon, long before you left your messages at his talkpage - why could you not have waited for him to reply? I have reminded him about WP:VAND, but there's nothing actionable here by any means - you haven't even give him a chance to respond! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, sorry. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's okay, we're here to help. I'll just add that per the WP:TPG guidelines, it's okay to change your own comments on a talk page if no one has responded; so rather than adding a note you could of (and as of now still can) just edit them. Nobody Ent 13:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=468957591"