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 146.90.43.8 (talk) at 11:08, 13 October 2012 (→‎Is it reasonable to have my integrity questioned and my edits reverted because I am an ip?: clarify). 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

    Attacks on wikipedian and BLP subject

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

    • CU found no links[8], but it isn't magic pixie dust and can't rule out meatpupptry. I do see some disruptive behavior, let me take a closer look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointy behavior like adding to an AFD talk page after it closes[9], likely meatpuppetry at that AFD (I did the SPI investigation, BTW, which is still open). His combative and single purpose intent is obvious here [10], as well as his soapboxing at the AFD itself. (first link). Like most SPAs, he isn't here to build an encyclopedia, that is certain. Many SPAs serve a worthwhile purpose, and just have a single interest, thus pose no problem. This editor doesn't appear to be one of them. The question is: has he passed the threshold for WP:DE? If he hasn't, it is certainly within his sight, if not his crosshairs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI header states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Not seeing that on User_talk:ShowTimeAgain. Suggest this be closed pending completion of that step. Nobody Ent 13:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, Nobody Ent is right. I suppose I worked the SPI and saw all the disruption that was taking place, including likely meatpupptry, leading me to conclude a positive resolution isn't very likely, but that is just my opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "he isn't here to build an encyclopedia," if true, is a facial case for an indefinite block. Furthermore, a cursory glance over the edits suggests that Wikipedia is being abused by this editor as a battleground. --Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to say Prima facie? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much. May have been getting something confused with facial challenge. Somewhere between per se and presumption.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be pointless Bureaucracy. It's self evident that an editor shouldn't go around attacking other editors (which constitutes about half his edits). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Non sequitur -- we have the {{uw-npa}} series specifically to point this out to users on their talk page.
    The thought occurs to me that inviting a new user to ANI for attacking other editors is like putting someone in a prison in the US, at least -- just as likely to learn better ways of attacking other editors as they are to be rehabilitated. Nobody Ent 13:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the rule to discuss at a talk page before posting at ANI is "pointless Bureaucracy", let's amend the rule. While it may be "evident" to regulars that one shouldn't attack, but different places have different rules, so I suggest it is not "self evident".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marcel Leroux is notable, and new citations from paywalled French newspapers have been found to further support his notability. User:IRWolfie- is a participant in this singling out scientists skeptical of some aspect of global warming for non-notability claims, and in the case of Marcel Leroux initiated the attack with either a bad faith or incompetent google scholar search.
    Regarding the dismissive "pointy behavior" characterization above, it should be noted that User:ShowTimeAgain has "respected" the prohibition on editing the closed deletion article itself, despite a precipitous closing of the deletion discussion by User:WilyD while work was still being done.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that editing the talk page of a closed discussion is just as pointy as adding to the closed discussion. It is closed. I also agree that you shouldn't have been dragged into an SPA tag, but none of that changes the fact that there is a battleground mentality at work with ShowtimeAgain/Showtimenow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that sticking to the talk page is showing respect, and if anything makes it clear that you should always have a battleground mentality when WMC is involved, it is the fact that he was in a revert war on the talk page.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but after the close is putting it there where no one will see it, which is pointless, or WP:POINTy. Taking it to the talk page of the editor or another venue is the proper response. As to the article or merits of the AFD, I have no clue and not interested. My focus is on behavior. And now I see that a large amount of off-wiki canvassing took place against Connolly, which appears to be ShowTime's "enemy", so to speak. When SPAs take a battlefield mentality, as demonstrated by the totality of edits (and not the validity of any argument), then it becomes a problem for all of us. It is entirely possible to be 100% right on the merits of an argument, but to be so disruptive in how you present them that you get blocked. I see it regularly. It isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see User:StillStanding-247's behavior over the last 2 months to prove this point. Search these archives for one of his 15 or so visits to this board. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When I was surprised at the precipitous closing of the deletion page, the talk page is the first place I went to look for a discussion of what was going on. Even experienced users like myself, aren't necessarily experienced at page deletions, and a different talk page standards once they are closed. I was far more shocked that someone was reverted on a talk page than that someone was posting on one. I had only seen reverting on talk pages before when vandalism or namecalling vitriol was involved.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, the closing notice even mentions that discussion should take place on the talk page:
    "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page."
    --Africangenesis (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD talk pages are for procedural issues, which is why it is pointless to use them. Like it says, DRV or the article talk page if it had been kept. There is a laundry list of places off-wiki that this AFD was canvassed at, leading to this whole mess and the SPI investigation. Again, my concern is behavioral, in particular, ShowTimeAgain's behavior. I have no idea if they are the one that spammed the canvassing off wiki, but they have maintained a battleground attitude ON wiki, and that needs to stop if they expect to stick around. It is fine to disagree, we all do, but Show's comments indicate he has trouble not being "disagreeable" at times. Several have noted this and brought it to his attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaving a final note of sort on his talk page. If he continues to act in a disruptive way to make points, he is likely going to be blocked. Hopefully he will be wise and consider this, and find a way to contribute without the drama, soapboxing and grandstanding. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just read this and wish to contribute, while I still can: IRWolfie is mistaken. My knowledge of Wikipedia's process is "beginner" and it is obvious: it took me a while to even manage to upload the image of the certificate. I even accidentally duplicated it. Notwithstanding how to include a link in the conversation. So much for knowledge...
    • Connolley's reputation as a Wikipedia editor had reached beyond Wikipedia and it is fair knowledge to anyone watching the climate debate. His bursting in the deletion discussion with inflammatory "delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)" accusations were not an aggressive characterization perhaps? No ANI there. I argued that IRW and WMC had little knowledge of Leroux's works and WMC acknowledged having not read Leroux. He should. When in good faith I showed proof of Leroux's title as Chevalier de l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques, its authenticity was immediately rebuked. Is that the attitude of people wishing to see information shared in a free encyclopedia or is it the attitude of people with an agenda?
    • As for my interventions: Did I go on modifying pages from those I disagree scientifically with? No. I posted on talk pages as I promptly discovered that the conversations were moved over various multiple pages. Aren't these talk pages for discussion? I had not intervened on Wikipedia for a long time as there was no need for me to. But the reputation of Prof. Leroux had to be defended against what became, especially after WMC's intervention and his endless hunt to delete every bit of Leroux on En.wikipedia, including the Palmes certificate used in other pages, a clear biased process. Notability was an excuse. Opinion was the reason, as adequate Google search results by another poster have demonstrated, the notability of Marcel Leroux is among the 1% of scientists [11].
    • I notice in this discussion that IRW is advocating a swift banning process against me. No surprise. To me this confirms that the Leroux deletion was a premeditated action and that these two editors hoped for a quick, eventless deletion of the Leroux page. Tough luck. On a final note, I have made my point so anyone can read our exchanges and draw their own conclusions.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • As the person who did the investigation, I completely understand why IRWolfie brought it to SPI, it did look very suspicious (with the exception of Africangenesis, not sure why he was in there). I will vouch for that. One new user. One user who hasn't edited in over SIX YEARS, magically show up? Coincidence? Maybe, but the amount of canvassing off wiki combined with those coincidences certainly does qualify for someone at SPI to look at it. And I did. And no one is blocked. And I did find ShowTimeAgain's old account from 2010 (which isn't a problem since they aren't both being used at the same time). Now, I've left Show a message, and the best thing anyone can do is help him understand how things work here a bit better, so his actions don't look as disruptive. He came here and it looks like he did in good faith. I don't want to block him and don't expect to. I was hoping to get his attention, which it seems I did, and hopefully he will tread a little less aggressively in the future so we can avoid ANI and the like. Just back the tone up a little, try to cooperate more, ask questions instead of accusing people, and you will be fine, Show. This is expected from all of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis Brown, I created this profile in order to defend against the Leroux page deletion attempt in September 2012 as I thought my original handle from 2010 was not working anymore. So much again for my supposed knowledge. Since you investigated, you therefore know that my first ever contribution to wiki in December 2007 had nothing to do with climate. It however involved someone of immense talent that may be lesser known to the masses. Since my 2010 interventions, there have been many improvements to Leroux page which I did not object to. I came here in good faith and informed, about Leroux's work and publications. Africagenesis was even more informed than I was, and more computer literate (easy...). I was also informed about some of those who worked and pushed for this deletion, who seem to enjoy total immunity despite serious incidents[13]. I have no quarrel with you and find your demands reasonable in an environment of good faith, which in this particular case, on this subject was not the case [14]. Again, a properly executed Google search reveals another picture of Leroux's notability [15].
    • I will leave the discussion of whether or not he is notable or not up to you and the other editors who are involved. At ANI (here), we just deal with short term issues like behavior, not content. Admins shouldn't decide content, interested editors should. You can take the deletion to WP:DRV if you so choose, but it is something I'm not familiar enough to have an opinion on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've also closed the SPI with no action, feel free to archive this. I'm thinking we are done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was canvassing here, and possibly elsewhere. Which is presumably why it looks like socking, but isn't. WilyD 08:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    DRV and canvassing

    • It seems Africangenesis intends to go to DRV. Can an uninvolved admin semi-protect it if this occurs to stall some of the canvassing issues of the last deletion discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot at the same time complain about not finding new water sources and criticize efforts to making other people who could contribute aware of what's going on here and potentially help finding new data. Unless your agenda is definitive suppression.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you are saying. Did you notify people about the discussion off wikipedia? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me restate: why would you want to restrict the flow of information if it can improve the page? Isn't that what wikipedia is all about?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Addendum: That's what I understood from your post. Could you explain further what "admin semi-protect" means and why it may be relevant to this discussion? Others obviously have seen what happened, even suggesting article deletions (see comment section) and not the least because of this [16]ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a tact admission by ShowTimeAgain of off-wiki canvassing of the worst type (canvassing people of a specific viewpoint in order to stack a discussion). In combination with the general battleground mentality and attacks against WMC, I'm inclined to think that this editor is simply not understanding how collaborative editing works and may not be working in the best interests of the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You must mean tacit? What is "the project"? If the project is a permanent deletion of the Marcel Leroux page regardless of information, indeed I do contest this approach and shall work with any wikipedian (?) to revert this decision. If "the project" is to bring a wide range of information pertaining to Marcel Leroux, then I believe to have done my part as demonstrated (certificate, precisions on OMM). Africagenesis has done also a significant amount of work. I have cleared any misunderstanding with Dennis Brown regarding battleground mentality. Now how collaborative is "admin semi-protect"? That is why I requested IRWolfie to clarify what he meant in order not to misinterpret him. As for WMC anyone can read his blog and draw conclusions. BTW I did not recall your contribution to the subject at hand. Did I miss it with so many lines of questions and answers? Thanks.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ShowTimeAgain, On Wikipedia we expect editors to try to work, however they can, for the advancement of the encylopedia as a whole, colloquially called "the project." Editors who are persistently distracted by personal, petty, or single topic disputes are not welcome here. You appear to be such an editor, and in response to concerns about your behavior to run back to the Marcel Leroux article, which suggests you are not getting it. Most, probably all of us reading this thread have no idea who Leroux is, nor do we care. It helps maintain our objectivity. I am inclined to block you since you are not both willing and able to edit collaboratively for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Please show cause otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying what the project is. May I point out you just told me you have no idea who Leroux was. But I do and this is precisely why I edited on his page not someone else's and tried to understand precisely how Wikipedia works. I imagine that knowledgeable editors contribute on the pages they have specific knowledge to share, as the best way to improve the encyclopedia. That is why I refrain to edit where I have nothing to bring.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many ways you could choose to improve the encyclopedia. If however, your sole contribution is on Leroux, and you have otherwise shownyourself to be misusing wikipedia as a place to wage idealogical or personal war, well, you won't be much of a loss, will you? --Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I modestly did not dare to think these fields could require my help. Thanks for pointing them out. I think I'll get more involved now that you invited me to discover them. One has to learn and start as a beginner in every field.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is DRV? Would this semi-protect be the salting thing that WMC was asking for?--Africangenesis (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI WP:DRV ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's deletion review as you have indicated here: User talk:WilyD#Formal request to reverse your decision on Marcel Leroux as recommended before requesting deletion review. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion review is exactly where it needs to go, and yes, I would support semi-protection and consider it not preemptive, since we already have a history of off-wiki canvassing to demonstrate it would be necessary to prevent further disruption. I would also remind ShowTimeAgain that my backing off of a block wasn't an agreement of his actions, only allowing you some extra rope since you are new-ish. If your only objective to being here is to maintain/restore that one article, it will likely be a short career. Most of the editors here really don't care about him one way or another, but we do care about disruptive acts, which causes us to stop editing articles and have to deal with the disruption, a non-optimal use of our time. If any admin this it is obvious that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia and instead to protect one article at any cost, you can expect to be blocked. Off-site canvassing alone is enough to get you blocked because it is stacking the deck and a form of bias, which isn't tolerated in a neutrally written encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it isn't abundantly clear, I am an administrator, and I am still strongly considering placing the block that Dennis Brown has decided not to.--Tznkai (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a Rennaissance man, I just edited on a painter, is that far enough from climate?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Do your best to comply with Wikipedia policies and norms and you'll go far. My suggestion is spending time getting your feet wet around here before returning to climate-Tznkai (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I should start with spelling Renaissance perhapsShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Africangenesis is persisting with the battlefield mentality:

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

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


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

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

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

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

    I've taken Africangenesis to arbitration enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ShowTimeAgain is continuing to make remarks about WMC (or at least I assume the reference is to him): [20]. "Wikipedia page in spite of vandalizing attempt by some Edimburgh based user." Can an uninvolved editor/admin warn the editor about discretionary sanctions in this area perhaps? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I haven't looked at the recent couple of days, but if an admin thinks that the last fragment of rope I granted Show has already been used up, I am not going to take it personal. I am not the law, just the janitor, so if I missed a spot, feel free to clean it up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspension of article movepage rights of User:Kauffner

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

    • On 12 September, during a the requested move discussion at Talk:Buôn Ma Thuột city, I informed Kauffner and In_ictu_oculi that both needed to cease moving articles for the purpose of inserting and deleting diacritics from Vietnamese articles without discussion, as the issue was controversial.[21]. This seemed neither odd nor unreasonable because requested moves of that subject rarely showed a clear consensus.
    • On 21 September Kauffner moved Bắc Kạn city to Bac Kan without employing WP:RM
    • On 24 September, after putting that move up for discussion, I reemphasized that actioning moves that either inserted or removed diacritics was controversial and needed to be discussed.[22]. I also made clear that I was checking their logs of every couple of days to ensure that neither was inserting or removing Vietnamese diacritics in/from names without discussion.
    • On 5 October, Kauffner moved Thúy Nga to Thuy Nga Production (removing the diacritics) [23], without discussion.

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

    • Hey, I am always happy to be on ANI. I want to emphasize that I have never received, or even requested, a privileged status with regard to moving articles, or anything else for that matter. It's not true that I moved Thuy Nga without discussion. I wrote a little explanation here. As for Bac Kan, it's a town, not a city. Even if it was a city, there is no reason for it to have a pre-disambiguator. I was reversing a move made in bad faith. If you are interested in diacritics, I give an exhaustive explanation here. Labattblueboy seems to think that Vietnamese diacritics is a hot subject and that this leads to controversy. No! IIO has a grudge against me, follows me around where ever I edit, has a beef with everything, and complains everywhere. Kauffner (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good Idea, although I don't believe “move” is a right that can be unchecked, so it would be a formal restriction. Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue. cf GoodDay's AC-imposed restriction re diacritics for much the same long term disruption. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As long as Kauffner is willing to see a controversial move reversed, and as long as there is no evidence that a particular move will be controversial, I don't see any need for restrictions here. Clearly there are two opposing diacritic factions and equally clearly neither of them has a claim on exactitude, so we shouldn't be restricting anyone here unless an editor is move warring or obviously moving against consensus. Moving articles is one way of testing consensus. regentspark (comment) 19:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No statement one way or the other on restrictions, per se, but two notes on either side of this: 1) WP:BRD still has Bold as a part of it, if a move he makes is contested, you're allowed to revert it, and then he should discuss it. If you want to contest one of the three moves above, revert and start a discussion. I don't see that that has been done yet (I see lots of admonishments to stop, but that does not amount to a discussion). 2) On the other hand, acting in a fait accompli manner isn't productive: that is, through sheer volume of action establishing a convention which isn't strictly decided is usually a bad idea. I don't see this at that level yet (three moves is hardly a "fait accompli" maneuver). Lastly, I am troubled by the statements by Kauffner that dodge the issue being put bluntly before him. Two of his moves changed diacritics and something else, and his responses are defending his moves based on the "something else", without addressing the point of contention. That should be corrected going forward. If someone is raising the issue of moving articles and changing diacritics in the process, that specific point needs to be discussed without distraction of unrelated issues. --Jayron32 20:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't really have much opinion on the core situation, but just to toss in that at least a small part of this saga played out on a section of my talk page over the last couple of days. This should be added into the mix by anyone examining the recent history of this kerfuffle. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Interesting. Looks like we do have a diacritic war of sorts in progress. There is also this mass move request on RM. I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to assume a move is controversial so perhaps all parties need to be reminded that WP:BRD is an acceptable process and that, since we don't actually have a diacritics or no-diacritics policy in place, each page move needs to be considered on its own merits. I don't see enough evidence to conclude that Kauffner was disingenuously moving articles to non-diacritic titles but that is also something worth watching out for. regentspark (comment) 20:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You make it sound like this is something new and shocking. IIO has been doing dozens and dozens of these mass move requests and also 1000's of non-requests to diacritics across this and every other wikipedia and topic all this year. This is the norm and he and several friends rarely consider each article on it's own merit or whether a rm has recently failed or not. It's not just Vietnamese diacritics, it's all diacritics. I won't get into merits on this one particular incident but it seems silly to talk of the flyswatter and not the fly. I think Kauffner is just reaching a breaking point with this editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Like I say above, I don't see any need for action against Kauffner. Rather, it is the other editor who needs to be reminded about BRD and about proposing page moves individually. If you believe that IIO needs to be sanctioned somehow then that's a different matter and, since I don't follow the diacritic battles, I can't really comment on that without further evidence. regentspark (comment) 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No, the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this. He's made a great many controversial moves and there was an issue with many IPs being used to mess with talk pages to hide old RM discussions so that new ones could be falsely proposed as uncontroversial (somethin' like that, at least;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not possible to revert moves wherein the article is first moved then a G6 is employed to salt the route back. The edit history of Thuy Nga Productions shows this was conduced it this case. The better question would be is an action still considered bold if you are aware that the action is controversial bordering on disruptive. BRD itself states "Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus". The only consensus appears to be that editors are generally tired of Vietnamese diacritic moves of any kind, the requested moved at Talk:Bac_Kan seems to be the clearest indication of that. Given the entire topic is controversial (you need not look further than the half dozen at WP:RM to see that) is the request that such moved be addressed at a central venue that unreasonable?--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Unreasonable, no. But definitely avoidable unless necessary. If Talk:My_Linh#Requested_move is the tip of the iceberg (and, scanning RM/C I see quite a few others), then we're going to get bogged down by these move discussions. The problem with diacritics is that each article needs to be evaluated in isolation (what do English language sources say), so group moves are generally not possible. It might actually be more practical to just ban both of these guys from making or proposing any move from a diacritic title to a non-diacritic title or vice versa and be done with it. It might not be fair but may turn out to be the only way to deal with this without a load of overhead. Just a thought. regentspark (comment) 02:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      RegentsPark, with respect I hope you are agreed that there is a difference between:
    (A) 1600x undiscussed moves - 800x of them counter the Talk:Ca Mau RMs, and 1600x BRD-locks on one hand, and
    (B) putting in a democratic RM to give the community opportunity apply the majority view of both RfCs on the subject.
    There is a difference, yes? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a thought In ictu oculi. Not something I necessarily support. I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything. regentspark (comment) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what I like about you? Your sense of humor.[33] Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - but a hefty caveat: I am not neutral here; although I only became aware of this issue in March 2012 I have been creating Polish bios with Polish names for years and do not have much sympathy with en.wp's English-names-for-Poles lobby. I also was in Hanoi in the early 90s, speak Vietnamese, and believe that Vietnamese people deserve the same lexical respect from en.wp as Polish people. But I am able to detach, and when standing back do recognise that even Slavophile editors may not share my view on the second point.
    As I see it there are 2 separate issues: (1) User Kauffner, (2) diacritics.
    (2) - Let's discuss (2) diacritics first. I wasn't aware of the "diacritics war" on en.wikipedia till March WP TENNISNAMES RfC. During that RfC I also became aware of edit-warring on WP:DIACRITICS. WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:DIACRITICS share the same characteristic of a minority of editors sincerely convinced that foreigners have "English names" - hence Lech Wałęsa's "English name" is "Lech Walesa" minus crossed-L and nasal-e, or sincerely convinced that en.wp should follow the MOS of USA Today/Daily Express etc and not Britannica/Chicago MOS. In terms of a "diacritics war" there evidently has been one on en.wp, as far as I can judge going back to 2010, centred particularly on WP:HOCKEYNAMES, but civily and democratically resolved in terms of articles Talk:Dominik Halmoši. Though unresolved in terms of edit-warring on WP:DIACRITICS is still at odds with en.wp's 4 million articles (or rather 4 million articles minus 9 hold out foreign tennis players). With one exception; Vietnamese. For some reason Mỹ Linh (Asian, no consensus) is more challenging than Lech Wałęsa (European, where de facto consensus exists on 100,000s of articles). Admin JoyShallot characterizes the "English name" thing against Serbian tennis players as "xenophobic" (technically it is only "xenonymophobic") but I note that the editors who turn out in force for Serbian/Czech/Romanian/Polish/French/Spanish/German names are less sure about for example Talk:Ngô Bảo Châu. This despite the fact that the Vietnamese roman-alphabet is older and more established than the Croatian/Slovenian/Serbian one. But whatever, it is legitimate to note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh.
    (1) - Then issue (1), User Kauffner.
    This is much wider than whether the accent on Mỹ Linh should be treated as Lech Wałęsa. The issues with Kauffner are largely behavioural, and cover much wider ground than undiscussed diacritics moves.
    (a) IP puppet activity
    The scope of move interests can be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive (this has not previously been at ANI). This is logged out set up of archiving - minutes after the puppeted Misza archive bot clicks in - launching second or third attempts when the archive is invisible. Although the opinion of those who discussed the Saigon IP cluster's activity concluded the tampering with archives prior to launching RMs from User:Kauffner/RM incubator was User Kauffner, User Kauffner did not admit to it in the SPI and a User check was not done to link user to IPs. Kauffner did (not on the investigation page) admit on Good Day's Talk page that the edits were his, and there is a "smoking gun" in the history of the IP's activity on one of the RMs which shows Kauffner, inadvertently logged back in, finishing the IP's archive reset.
    (b) Undiscussed move then redirect lock
    Up to a point undiscussed moves are reasonable, as regents park says as long as the WP:BRD cycle is not disrupted. (this issue has not been at ANI before). The problem is with Kauffner, as banned-user Dolovis, is redirect edits. If you look at Kauffner's activity in June 2012 you will see 100s of redirect edits, effectively locking the 1600x undiscussed moves made July 2011 to June 2012. This includes 1000x under UserKauffner name, + 600x using G6 involving at least a dozen G6 admins in performing "uncontroversial moves" on Kauffner's behalf. An example of WP:BRD cycle blocking is 15:07, 4 November 2011‎ Kauffner moved Bún chả to Bun cha: Removing diacritics from Vietnamese name for standard English usage) + 30 June 2012‎ Kauffner (added Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics using HotCat). After a Dolovis-style redirect edit June 30 2012 the only way to restore a locked move is an RM - and even then a 3-1 support of restoring a title may be overturned by a closing admin.
    (c) Deletion of failed RM notifications prior to G6 requests
    One of the particularly unpleasant aspects of the G6 moves counter the 2010 2011 2012 Talk:Ca Mau geo article RMs was the deletion (logged in) of notification of failed RMs before proxying G6 admins to move counter RM with a G6 request. (this issue has not been at ANI before). Obviously no G6 admin will move an article if there is a notification of a contrary RM result on the talk page - hence the deletions have to be deliberate intent to deceive admins making (in good faith) article moves as uncontroversial.
    (d) IP archiving prior to G6 requests
    This is distinct from (a) above. In this case the IP archives the failed RM not before launching a second RM, but before/after bypassing RM with a G6.
    (e) Canvassing
    Kauffner has been warned about WP:VOTESTACKING on several RMs. Similar is targeted canvassing for example to WikiProject Conservatism (this is just a particularly desperate example of a longstanding pattern).
    (f) Deleting Talk page requests to stop
    Deleting Talk page requests to stop (these go back to July 2011, long before I was aware, AjaxSmack, Gimmetoo, Prolog, Vietnamese editors, who knows how many more), and carrying on regardless.
    (g).......or alternatively,
    If you agree with User Kauffner's views - on Hauptbahnhof or Vietnamese - then a good cause justifies the methods. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I may stand above as the one who began this discussion but in due fairness to Kauffner, In ictu oculi comments are the pot calling the kettle black. In ictu oculi has an equal sordid history of moving articles when he/she should have known them to be controversial. If I remember correctly, my warning of 12 September at Talk:Buôn Ma Thuột city was initially because In ictu oculi moved approximately 100 articles while a requested moved concerning geographic Vietnamese names was taking place. Further In ictu oculi was entirely unrepentant. The only reason In ictu oculi is not equally mentioned is because he/she as not moved an Vietnamese scope article to insert diacritics since my initial warning of 12 Sept.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Labattblueboy,
    Sure, in part fair, but I'm not sure about "entirely unrepentant" because as you say, I did not continue to restore articles which had been among those moved counter Talk:Ca Mau (among the 1600x total moves). What I did explain was that restoring 80x of the 800x was after RMs restoring several of the moves, after RfC majority, and after admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett (and one more whom I forget) had already reverted approx 40 of the 300 of the 800 geo articles which had been done by using G6. If anyone considers reverting those 80x of 800x undiscussed moves (moves counter to RM) "disruptive" then does that apply to the other 40x reverted by the proxied G6 admins admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett as well? However I was asked to stop restoring the articles and did. In practice it was hard work to restore the articles anyway, since finding any among Kauffner's undiscussed moves which have not been given Dolovis-style redirect-edits to prevent BRD is almost impossible. I estimate that I already found most if not all of the 80x of 800x geo stubs he omitted to lock. There is less of a clear mandate to restore the 800x bios. And there has been more locking activity since. (If anyone doesn't believe me, try and find one that isn't locked... then call the pot equally black).
    As regards the pot calling the kettle black, I am not perfect but, as above:
    (a) I have never used IP activity of any kind.
    (b) I have never followed a move with a redirect lock
    (c) I have never deleted a failed RM notification prior to a G6 request. (In fact I am reasonably certain I have never used a G6 request template at all)
    (d) I have never used Miszabot to hide a previous RM (never even thought of it)
    (e) I have never made the sort of WP:VOTESTACKING notifications during an RM or RfC we are seeing here.
    Unfortunately if you wade into mud you will get your hands a little dirty. This is a filthy area. But is a filthy area which is being enabled by winking at (a)(b)(c)(d) in particular. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel my previous comment was both accurate and fair. You have not at any point accepted during this or any other discussion, to my knowledge, that your own actions were sometimes inappropriate. Your comments above that it’s necessary to sometimes get “dirty” are in the very least unhelpful. Simply ceasing to move articles in a controversial topic area does not, by any means, equate repentance. Equally, simply because you may not have engaged in actions (a)-(d) does not mean your behaviour has necessarily been appropriate in the topic area. If this post concerned actions over the past year or further, and not simply approx. 12 September onwards, then I would be entirely supportive of PBS’s suggestion below that any remedies apply to both yourself and Kauffner. Please see this as an opportunity to turn a new leaf.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there Labattblueboy,
    Thanks for your comment. We probably are nearer on this than you think. I already said, before you arrived, two days before your first comment, that I have no intention to restore any more than the 80x of 800x undiscussed moves counter RM that have already been restored.
    As to "repent", most editors would not, under normal circumstances, view reverting a move made counter an RM a sin to be "repented" of, at least in a case like this where it was carefully preceded by (a.) 40x restores by admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett, (b). confirmation by RfC, (c.) confirmation by a series of RMs: Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên RM, Talk:Hồ Quý Ly RM, Talk Talk:Ca Mau RM3, Talk:Bánh bò, Talk:Cơm tấm, that these undiscussed moves counter RM were not uncontroversial. But again I had already, before you appeared, said, I have no intention to restore any undiscussed moves made contrary to RM.
    I'm really not sure what more you want of me here. (and btw I didn't say it was necessary to get dirty, I only said you will.. this is a filthy area, so that was intended as the opposite, that we should try not to). Are we good now? I'd hope we can be. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am good with whatever solution sees an increased level of civility in this subject area. Move waring in this family of articles doesn't do anyone any good. I'd frankly be happy with an affirmation by parties involoved that any Vietnamese diacritic article moves be first discussed or handled through WP:RM (likely on a case-by-case basis) until such time that a community solution on the Vietnamese diacritics issue is developed. Like RegentsPark, I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Labattblueboy, thanks. I'm 100% fine with everything you say here. I couldn't agree more, since if there's no undiscussed moves, no G6 use, no IP edits, no redirect locks, then there's nothing to revert, no need to put in RMs to restore Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên, Talk:Hồ Quý Ly, Talk:Ca Mau, Talk:Bánh bò, Talk:Cơm tấm, Talk:Mỹ Linh etc. in the first place. We can get back to creating/building articles. Then we're good, very good. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIO is claiming to "speak Vietnamese"??? Trời ơi! I'm sorry, I just can't sit still for this one. We've discussed various language issues. IIO can't get even very simple stuff straight. I live in Saigon, so I edit about Vietnam. I read the local English-language press, so I quite familiar with the fact that the professionals don't use Vietnamese diacritics. Nor is Vietnam promoting their use in English, as you can see here. No published encyclopedia or major media organization uses these marks. Local publications that once used them, like VGP and VNN, have dropped them. They make the copy look amateurish. I spend many hours telling Vietnamese not to use Viet-lish. The editors of Lech Walesa's article can worry about his diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kauffner, I wouldn't doubt that your familiarity of street Vietnamese is better than mine, now, 20 years later. But we aren't here to discuss this.
    (a) Do you now want to give a yes/no answer to the SPI?
    (b) How many articles have you followed an undiscussed move with a redirect lock? The records show 1600x from July2011-June2012, with redirect locks continuing even this week. I estimate 1500x redirect locks. Is that about right?
    (c) Did you (while logged in) delete failed RM notifications from Talk pages prior to G6 "uncontroversial move" requests?
    (d) Did you (while logged out) manipulate Miszabot to hide previous RMs some of them not yet launched from User:Kauffner/RM incubator. yes/no?
    In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WP:BRD does not work when articles are locked on purpose. Kauffner has continued to lock articles even after being asked not to do so. Agathoclea (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, how is he locking pages down. He's not an administrator, and doesn't have the ability to protect pages. I'm confused to this rationale. I don't care one way or another, but this makes no sense to support sanctioning him for using an administrator tool he has no access to... --Jayron32 06:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • By double-editing redirects he makes it impossible for rank-and-file editors to revert his moves, requiring admin rights to undo the move. The issue is tricky as redirects have to be categorised but a) he does that even when he could create the redirect and categorisation in one edit and b) in controversial cases like this it is better to leve the categorisation until the matter is settled or to the other side iE I can without causing any controvery lock redirects from diacritics wheras Kauffner could without any controversy lock redirects to diacritics. Maybe some noticeboard could be established just for that issue. c) There is past precedent for even banning of editors involved in exactly that behaviour. Agathoclea (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe there is another method of gaming the system to achieve this "lock", which would keep an editor's hands "clean" at first glance; but it's probably not a good idea to go into detail right now. If we were drawing up stricter rules on redirect-mischief I'd be happy to add it to those rules. bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not to use diacritics in titles is the subject of much disagreement between editors, so such moves should go through RM. In the last year, we've made a lot of progress on that front. Still, some people persist in making undiscussed moves to diacritic-free titles and sometimes sneakily edit the redirect to prevent somebody else moving it back; that is gaming the system. A previous combatant in the diacritics wars was banned for it. Kauffner knows this. bobrayner (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support move ban Käuffner has been caught many times on this, and knows better. dangerouspanda 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am placing the following bullet points here and my views are based on what I have seen both editors doing over a number of months.
      • Comment Iio wrote "note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh" yet the last requested move was closed with the statement "The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 46 days" support/oppose about 10/11. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest that user:Kauffner and user:In ictu oculi are banned from moving any article that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months. This ban will include initiating WP:RM request that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months. This ban will not include reverting bold moves (as described in WP:RM) and both can still voice their opinions in requested moves initiated by other editors.
      • I suggest that all the editors who have edits that have been diffed in this section for editing redirects after a move has been made (which prevents an non-administrator moving the article back to the previous name) should take this as a warning that such edits are disruptive and in future any such edits by these editors will result in administrative action. Likewise moving an article through an intermediate page name (so that the bots automatically change the original page name's redirect) will be seen disruptive (the correct process if a mistake has been made is to move the article back to the original name and then move it to the new correct name--so that double redirects are not created). -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PBS,
    I'd like to assume good faith, but you see Kauffner making 1600x undiscussed moves, 800x of them counter the Talk:Ca Mau, IP puppeting, G6 and basically NOT using RM, and your solution is........... to ban RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez and Talk:Dominik Halmoši????
    Your personal view (10:30, 11 Apr 2005, 18:57, 23 December 2010, 09:12, 22 April 2012) was characterized as "hysterical"‎ during your 1-8 opposition to É in the Talk:Édouard Deldevez, and also this response from the closer.
    Sorry, but no. RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez and Talk:Dominik Halmoši express the consensus of the vast majority, and the reality of where en.wp's 4,000,000 articles are (minus those 9 tennis players). You know this. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of this is to force controversial moves to go through RM not to avoid the use of RM. Agathoclea (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In ictu oculi that you would object to a restriction on yourself is not surprising. Iio your argument is disingenuous most articles that go through the RM process that are not at descriptive titles are at their common name as used in reliable sources. Agathoclea in the case of these two editors I think that they can be just as disruptive using the RM process, I think it is better for Wikipedia if both take a back seat over such moves for a time and follow rather than lead in this area. -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi PBS,
    First, can I ask a question. Have you ever restored an undiscussed move to an article made contrary to a RM result?
    Second, another question. Have you ever made an undiscussed move and then locked it with a redirect edit?
    These are questions I have answered here ("yes" to first, "no" to the second) it's reasonable for me to ask others the same question I think, yes?
    As regards taking a quid-pro-quo with Kauffner, that wouldn't be appropriate, as I'm not making new moves, I've only restored some. But I'd be willing to consider a quid-pro-quo with yourself, if you would take a back seat from editing MOS pages and guidelines on diacritics/sourcing for 12 months, avoiding this kind of edit then I'd be quite happy to not submit any more RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez for 12 months. Would you consider taking a back seat in this area? I would be (not least since it's getting very difficult to even find mispelled foreigner bios). In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The community [banned] Dolovis from moving diacritic related titles because of the exact same methods that Kauffner has been using to lock the pages so that regular editors can't revert his moves. I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the same restriction that Dolovis was given. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I was going to mention Dolovis as well. This comes down to a very simple issue for me: There is no possible way Kauffner is not aware that moves to or from diacritical versions in this area are controversial. WP:BRD, like WP:AGF is not a poison pill. There comes a point where the bold move simply becomes disruptive. I would !vote the same for any editor on either side of this coin who makes a similar pattern of moves. Resolute 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • With everyone ridding their own hobby horse like this, I obviously can't deal with every concern, so yours may be overlooked. IIO brings up the issue of the page moves I made last year. This was already dealt with here. But while we are on this trip down memory lane, I would like to review a few items. As you may or may not recall, there was an RfC on the issue of diacritics with wide participation in July-August 2011. A proposal was made to increase the use of diacritics, but Vietnamese was specifically excluded. So despite divided opinion concerning other languages, there appeared to be a consensus in this regard. I rewrote the naming conventions for Vietnamese to conform to this understanding of the RfC. So when IIO got involved in this issue in late June 2012, pretty much every Vietnam-related article of any notability was at a non-diacritic title. Thuy Nga isn't the first time IIO has tried to hold an article hostage at a misspelling. He did before with bui doi. IIO and I have a long and complex history. In happier times, we translated Latin and Hebrew titles together. More recently, Vietnam and other countries have been caught in the crossfire. I can only hope that common ground will reemerge when appropriate matters arise. Kauffner (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of that is true, I am actually in favour of English exonyms where they exist (i.e. "John Calvin" for "Jean Calvin", not simply stripping ç to make "FranCois Mitterrand,") and did award Kauffner a barnstar for one of his English names moves. However, that is before any of us were aware of (i) IP puppeting, (ii) G6 proxies, (iii) deletion of the Talk:Ca Mau RM results from talk pages, (iv) the 1600x Dolovis-style move-locks, and none of these items have been at ANI before. As to this latest two-step-G6, move to a self-admitted mispelling and then G6, certainly creative, but that only makes one wonder whether the G6 loophole should be shut down for everyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
    • "The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format," per WP:RE/SG. So the act of putting a redirect in a category is not in itself problematic. In Dolovis' case, he was accused of going against the consensus of the hockey project. The technical means he used to do this are a secondary issue. There is certainly a lot of advise to "take it to an RM." As far as RMs go, IIO abuses these to fulminate at length against me, in the same manner that you see above. I don't know how many editors follow these rants, but they do seem to head off reasoned discussion and editor participation.[34] Kauffner (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per (b), (e) above. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Since the issue of diacritics is undecided, I don't like the idea of a move ban on either editor. My inclination is to warn Kauffner not to lock moves through redirects and to warn iii not to propose multiple page moves in the same move request. Placing bans is not a good way to deal with things for which there is no existing consensus. If bans are the way to go, then we should ban both per PBS, but I don't really like that option. Banning Kauffner alone is a terrible idea. --regentspark (comment) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    RegentsPark, multiple RMs of similar pages have frequently been encouraged, particularly in this area, and are common practice. Please look at the WP:RM archive. If you want to ban anyone posting an RM for multiple page moves you need to propose changes to WP:RM. There is one in there right now at Talk:Comparison of web browser engines by PBS himself. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant only in reference to diacritics. For figuring out whether we should have diacritics in titles, we need to look at common usage in English language sources. That would mean looking at each article separately rather than listing them all together. For example, per WP:COMMONNAME, each listing in your RM multi-move request needs separate verification. Listing them together is equivalent to asking for a stylistic norm to be codified (which is better handled by an RfC). --regentspark (comment) 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well okay, that view is noted but again since use of multiple moves has in the past been encouraged in exactly this diacritics area, if you want to change WP:RM you need to raise a general restriction on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves to remove the community's ability to bunch similar RMs if they involve foreign accents.
    And FYI we just had a RfC immediately prior to putting in the RM to restore the undiscussed and edit-locked moves at Talk:Mỹ Linh which had an evident majority in favour of treating Vietnamese people like any other Latin-alphabet nationality. Even after RfC there still has to be an RM even after an RfC....btw WP:COMMONNAME means Pelé (not Edison Arantes do Nascimento), rather than Daily Express "Pele".... but this isn't the place to discuss WP:COMMONNAME. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose RegentsPark's thought process makes good sense here. I don't like the idea of bans either. Those two warnings should be sufficient for now, with a quick revisit should circumstances change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you promising to bring this to ANI at his next offence? Anyway Kauffner was warned repeatedly about the issue for longer than a year now and instead of stopping he continued. What makes you think he will stop now? Agathoclea (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They've both been brought to ANI in the past year, probably multiple times. To me this argument has these two editors joined at the hip as far as Vietnamese diacritics are concerned but I hate lengthy banning if at all possible. I would do as RegentsPark suggested on the two... a formal warning. If it fails a 30-60 day ban on doing any of the offenses mentioned, and go up from there. It's not like these editors don't do good work also. Admittedly, it's difficult for me to remain unbiased when it comes to IIO, but to say it's all Kauffners fault is really ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is that over 90% of diacritic RM are going in favour of the diacritic versions. Attempts to stop that trend by attempting to change guidelines has failed. Attempting to get the WMF involved on so-called accessability issues has failed. Now the only possibilities left are undiscussed moves in the other direction, socking and other gaming of the system. You are suggesting a 60 day ban from such offences. That means after 60 days he is allowed to game the system again. Sounds rather daft to me. The suggestion of this thread is to stop any undiscussed moves in controversial areas. I am sure IIO can be held to the same standard. Agathoclea (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. About time that something is done top bring home some points to Kauffner, who has for much too long been able to talk his way out of sanctions. This recent comment of his is an example of his disingenuous refusal to acknowledge that his behavior is disruptive. It's not like he hasn't been told before, e.g. here. Favonian (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per RegentsPark. Closing admin should issue a strong warning on both editor's talk pages. If either continues to move such articles without going through RM, or continues to "lock out" moves, or continues to bunch several diacritic-related move proposals together in multi-move requests when each should be considered separately, then a ban should be expected. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Born2cycle, I obviously agree against undiscussed moves and edit redirect locks. That's why we're here.
    But if you want to restrict the community's ability to submit multiple moves you need to propose it at TALK WP:RM. Multiple moves are a core part of the WP:RM mechanism (and useful exactly when dealing with mass undiscussed moves and redirect locks). In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Agree with regentspark comment's as well as Born2cycle's remark that both editors (Kauffner & IIO) should be warned for their disruptive and obsessive behavior regarding the diacritics issue. I think it would would be helpful to 'request' both editors to take a step back from their diacritics crusade and allow a cooling down period of at least 6 months or so. --Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are suggesting that they have to step away from the proper way of resolving controversial moves? If so, it would actually reward Kaufner for gaming the system as the first-mover-advantage. Agathoclea (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at it from a broader perspective. Both editors have their own distinctive ways and means but regarding the diacritics issue they are equally obsessive and disruptive so there should be a balanced approach in how this is addressed by the community. This balance however is lacking and this seems at least partly due to the observation that IIO is supported in his/her conduct by a group of editors who appear to be blind in one eye. Hence my proposal for a cooling off period, preferably voluntary, to be observed by both editors.--Wolbo (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Enough's enough. As one of the admins working at RM, Kauffner's actions have been extraordinarily disruptive to that process. He is plainly aware that his moves are controversial, and yet he's continued making them, despite repeated discussions and warnings for over a year. He has absolutely no regard for Wikipedia's consensus building mechanisms in this area. I won't rehash all his disruptive methods already covered by others, but it needs to be said what effect they've had.
    In the bulk of the dozens (hundreds?) of controversial moves Kauffner has made, or compelled others to make by falsely marking them as "uncontroversial", simply getting the pages back to where they were entails a fresh move discussion. Dozens and dozens of unnecessary discussions, forcing literally weeks of community back-and-forth and many hours of administrator's time (as the moves are almost always reversed, and as his habit of manipulating the redirects requires administrator action to close), further compounding the already dire RM backlog. All just to reverse undiscussed moves. For several months, I don't think I've seen a single day where there weren't several of these discussions in the RM backlogs. Additionally, as I've become involved, I no longer close the many RMs involving one of Kauffner's moves, and I believe other admins have done this too, leaving even fewer people to clean up his mess.
    Simply giving Kauffner yet another warning is obviously not going to cut it. I believe he should be banned from the move process entirely, but in the very least he needs to be banned from making moves, from editing redirects after moves, from requesting uncontroversial moves, and from using any undisclosed alternate accounts.--Cúchullain t/c 15:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. IIO comes here with unclean hands, having wikistalked Kauffner for months and orchestrated disruptive WP:FAITACCOMPLI moves to place or re-place diacritics on titles for which the consensus of editors or sources was to remove them. In many ways, IIO's disruption is even worse than Kauffner's, because Kauffner only deals with Vietnamese articles, and those for which he can make a case based on the reliable sources. Trouts for both of you.

      About the page locking issue: we shouldn't make it easier for users to make controversial changes without going through RM, especially in the midst of a partisan dispute where if the pages were unlocked, Kauffner's rights were restricted, and IIO's rights were left alone, we would see a new flood of tendentious page moves from IIO and other veterans from the Czech/Serbian diacritics wars who are trying to expand their diacritics into an area out of their expertise, Vietnamese. Shrigley (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Shrigley,
    (i) UserKauffner's undiscussed-move-and-lock technique does not only affect the 1600x WP:VN articles moved (1000x under own name + 600x as G6 proxy = 1600x, of which 800x geo articles affected by IP puppeting to hide the Talk:Ca Mau RM2 and deletion of failed RM notification). See (right now) RM at Talk:Dukes of Albret to revert a move which was redirect-edit-locked preventing revert. See undiscussed move of Koblenz-Stadtmitte station to Koblenz City Centre Station, redirect-edit-lock, Talk:Koblenz Stadtmitte station RM to restore.
    (ii) the reason people watch these contributions are for edits such as:
    (iii) As I said 2 weeks ago, I have no intention to restore any more of the 1000x undiscussed moves under his own name - and even if I wanted to I can't because they are redirect-edit-locked. As regards the 600x done by misuse of G6, if the admins proxied want to restore the 600x acheived by G6 that is up to them. Some do, some don't. Though in some cases the G6 admin revert his own G6 twice. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as "Vietnam expertise" - the WP:VN's editors already had the vast body of WP:VN articles at Vietnamese names (same treatments as Czech and Serbian) before Kauffner moved them, otherwise there wouldn't have been opportunity to move 1600x. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    respond on User's Talk page In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So the person cleaning up Kauffner's mess is now at fault? Anyway, since you are quoting your own crusade against diacritics as gospel may I remind you of this reponse you recieved from WMF staff. Agathoclea (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unless someone has serious objections (in which case feel free to revert me), I'm going to boldly close this as largely dealt with as summarised by SPhilbick below, before this derails any further. Blackmane (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • The above message has been posted at NPOVN (where I have replied), and at its talk page. The issue (did Shakespeare write the works that standard scholarship attributes to him?) was the subject of an Arbcom case (WP:ARBSAQ). Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI readers can look at the thread to which the complainant refers Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford#Complaints_from_the_peanut_gallery. It is difficult to respond to an editor who makes such astounding comments as Zbrnajsem does, and this encourages satirical replies. Good faith and patience has already been supplied in spades. 'Bri[n]cknall', btw, for the uninitiated, is a servant who was stabbed to death by the noble earl. Paul B (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Link fixed.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep - while I have considerable sympathy with the suggestion that Tom Reedy could have chosen his words better (as indeed so could I on occasion, before anyone else points it out...), there are limits to how much pomposity an ordinary human being should be expected to bear. It seems to me that Zbrnajsem provoked the comments directed at him by starting a thread with allegations that Tom reedy had a "personal bias" driven by a dislike of de Vere "as a person, a historical person". Given that de Vere has been dead for four-hundred-odd years, this seems an odd suggestion to make, and one hardly conducive to fruitful dialogue. The thread was basically a provocation from the start, as I see it. Regardless of what action (if any) needs to be taken against Tom Reedy, Zbrnajsem needs to be told that goading people into inappropriate responses is itself entirely inappropriate talk-page behaviour, and that issues regarding NPOV are unlikely to be settled by making ridiculous allegations concerning the motivations of editors. I'd also point out that there is no requirement whatsoever that contributors have to like the subjects of biographical articles anyway - were it so, I fear to think what consequences such a requirement would have for say our article on Pol Pot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, I was the one who broke the thread away to separate it from the original section that he had attached his comment to. The ridiculousness was overwhelming the serious editorial section, which I wanted to preserve. So technically he didn't start the thread, just the ridiculous discussion, hence my naming it "Complaints from the peanut gallery" (first definition). Tom Reedy (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Zbrnajsem: I find it distasteful that you have been ridiculed, and in no way condone what is - in my opinion - Tom and Pauls' stepping over the line from robust debate to personal attacks. However, it also - and again, in my opinion - appears you have brought this unpleasantness upon yourself, by advancing untenable positions. While I think the form of Tom and Pauls' responses was unacceptable, I fully support the substance of what they were trying to explain to you.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show where I made any personal attacks. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For starters, the description of Zbrnajsem's contributions as Peanut gallery responses. I make no apology whatsoever for my personal opinion that Fringe theory POV pushers should be treated gently. They have their deeply-set beliefs. Those beliefs should respected, but gently rejected. When push comes to shove, as has occurred here, I still think the general standard of civility should still apply.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to waste a few hours of your life and review his talk page contributions, as well as User:Knitwitted's, with whom he often interacts on talkpages. They both waste time on trivialities while making minimum constibutions to the project, hence the section retitle, based on the first definition from the article: "A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater, which was all too willing (in the view of the performer) to heckle the performer." I can't think of any better description, except possibly civil POV pushers, but I was trying to keep the mood light and--to knowledgeable WP editors anyway--entertaining. Both of them have been repeatedly (and gently) directed to WP help pages, policies, and procedures, but evidently they believe their time is better spent sniping at the heels of those who are trying to build an encyclopedia. This whole thing is just one more example of their disruptive strategies. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat: Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the problem of the William Shakespeare authorship question. I am ready to point out concrete editings by Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow which manifested, in my opinion, their personal POVs without serious historical background. I need only a short additional time for this evidence. I am sorry, but the whole article on Edward de Vere is problematic, and certain passages have the capacity to ridicule him and to make him almost a villain who he, in my eyes, was not. On the other hand, everybody with serious interest in this matter knows that there is a substantial community of very respectable persons, gathered since 1920, who believe Edward de Vere to be the true author of the Shakespeare canon. It is not appropriate to have an attitude to this dispute which leads to personal dislike of Edward de Vere. And there is no right for anyone to suspect me of deliberate actions to get certain responses from Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rubbish. Look at the contribs record. Nina Green made very detailed additions to the page, and virtually rewrote it from top to bottom, accepting as a key source the very work Tom Reedy and several others are using, i.e. the standard academic bio of de Vere. The page has technical and organizational problems, nothing new here. --Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting sillier. I have made no "personal attacks" on anyone at all. My comment about the Earl's "smirk" and "poncy doublet" was an obvious joke, and in any case it cannot be construed as a personal attrack since the guy is long dead. For the record, I have no opinions about his smirk or his doublet, never having seen either of them in real life. Yes, I said that Zbrnajsem was making himself look ridiculous, but that referred to his actions. If Zbrnajsem believes that passages in the article make de Vere seem to be a "villain" he should say which passages they are, and why they are problematic. Many articles on Wikipedia make their subjects look like "villains", that's usually because they record actions that readers will disapprove of. If that's what RS say then that's what we include. Paul B (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, since Wikipedia is not, last we checked, run in accordance with Christian dogma, I'm unmoved by the so-called "blasphemy," and find the notion that the use of "blasphemy" disqualifies someone from being a Wikipedia editor well to the left of farcical. Quite aside from that such hyperbole is unbecoming a Wikipedia editor in my POV, I'm quite interested in what basis Zbrnajsem has for declaring that anyone has a "personal dislike" of the subject ... other than, apparently, that Messires Reedy and Barlow disagree with his own position. Ravenswing 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked with Jesus this morning and he said he forgives me for it and won't file a WP:BLP violation report, so it's a moot point. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really very witty, Tom Reedy. Ravenswing, please read the Talk page on Edward de Vere, you will see that my points concerning the "personal dislike of the subject" on the part of Tom Reedy and Paul B. are simply true. This is, of course, a Talk page. Theoretically, they can say there what they want, if they don´t use unproper language, but their attitude towards Edward de Vere is obvious. I am the only one on this Talk page who criticizes such an attitude, but other persons who would probably like to do so are banned from this topic. Why actually, if they would edit only on Edward de Vere and not on the authorship question? I have the full right to do so, and on all Talk pages concerning directly or indirectly Edward de Vere. There is a lot of pages of this quality, and everywhere it is the same: E. de V. is something like a "minor mole in his molehill" and things like this, sometimes worse. Any person with a sense for historical writing should be critical to this kind of attitude to the subject. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think God needs you to defend him, Zbrnajsem, either with half-baked sarcasm or self-righteous indignation. Your confrontation with Tom Reedy, and your absurd ad hominem attack on him, culminating in an attempt to get him banned, carry no weight with the majority of users, except perhaps to make them think poorly of you. Could you, perhaps, rephrase your central concerns about the Earl of Oxford (rather than about Tom Reedy) in such a way that previously uninvolved editors can make something like sense of them, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Nice work there, adding a huge extra block to your comment after I had replied to it, and doctoring the time-stamp. And yet, despite having presumably seen my reply to you, you haven't answered the question I asked. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a simultaneous editing, AlexTiefling, nothing else. What was then my "absurd ad hominem attack on Tom Reedy, culminating in an attempt to get him banned"?? Where, what? Have I used the words "please ban him"? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In your own words, from the talk page: "And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy, which people probably would call blasphemy. The use of only this one expression, which should not be deleted by anyone because it is a corpus delicti, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia." You repeated the same suggestion at the beginning of this thread. And you've repeatedly accused him of personally disliking the late Earl so strongly as to make him incapable of writing impartially on the subject. I consider this as an ad hominem attack, particularly as he has explicitly denied your claim, and you have gone on repeating it. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    That's a little harsh, I don't see any clear requests in the prior discussion. However, I'd find it helpful if Zbrnajsem could clarify whether this is an issue about POV (which makes it a content dispute, and belongs elsewhere) or a conduct dispute about Tom's post. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here it is primarily a conduct dispute, User Sphilbrick. Thank you for your attempt to clarify. In order to simplify the case, I would then like to limit it on the attacks on my person already recognized by at least one of the participants (different from my person) on this section. On the Talk page to the Edward de Vere article, there were, in my view, personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" by Paul Barlow and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery" by Tom Reedy. I deleted the word "peanut" from the heading of the section "Complaints from peanut gallery", but Tom Reedy reedited it, adding that he would like it better so. I don´t want to reach anything else but an excuse on my address from the two gentlemen. Then we can cooperate on the related "Shakespeare matters" as we did before, I am prepared to do so. The POV matter is then a separate one, and it is being already discussed on WP:NPOV (I do think this is the name). It is, of course, a serious question, but what is not serious in the world of Wikipedia? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Zbrnajsem: again, you appear to be either unwilling or unable to see how you have brought this situation upon yourself. Perhaps Wikipedia is not for you.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what used to be WP:WQA type stuff. Thread needs to closed and Zbrnajsem told that his grievance is a mixture of the trivial (the "peanut gallery incident"), the strange (calling the earl's death "kicking it" is "disrespectful") and the plain wrong (blasphemy disqualifies a user from Wikipedia). DeCausa (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't view being labeled as "peanut galley" as trivial. It won't make the top 100 of the all-time greatest insults, but it is directed at the editor, as opposed to the edit, so I've changed it. Tom has toned down the expression of frustration. (Thank-you Tom), and yes, the notion that an expression of blasphemy disqualifies one as an editor is nonsense. If my count is correct, two marginal complaints have been rectified, and the remaining complaint is not valid, so I hope we are done here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, there was a good advice to me by User Sphilbrick, which I have appreciated very much. I have followed the advice. User Tom Reedy may have a look at the Talk page of "Edward de Vere". I don´t state anymore that a certain sentence written by Tom Reedy disqualifies him to be an editor. (But there should be a discussion on sentences like this one on Wikipedia, as everybody knows about religiously motivated fervour in the world and its consequences.) However, there is something, about which I would like to complain now. What is it that gives you the right for your following sentences, User Tom Reedy, as put down by you in this very section today (just part of what you have written), and directed to my person and to User Knitwitted: "...evidently they believe their time is better spent sniping at the heels of those who are trying to build an encyclopedia. This whole thing is just one more example of their disruptive strategies. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)". First, what disruptive strategies, where? In the article itself? This would be simply not correct. My editings there are really rather minor, because of the difficulty to add something to the numerous editings e.g. by Tom Reedy, and then - what is important - they have never been disruptive. On the Talk page? - I beg your pardon, User Tom Reedy, but there can´t be disruptive strategies on a Talk page. You would probably be happy without my contributions to the discussion, but you have no right to deny me an access to the Talk pages and to contribute. Altogether, you have no reason for accusations like the above ones. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask somebody else to explain it to you. I have no intention of spending one more minute on this. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite alright, I'll spend a few minutes. As it happens, Zbrnajsem, I've read the talk page in question. That on the talk page Tom and Paul had a jocular tone only could conflate, IMHO, to a "personal dislike" of the subject only to those with overdeveloped imaginations or personal axes of their own to grind. I am far readier to credit you - with your paean to Shakespeare on your user page, your insistence that people discuss these subjects in reverent tones, and that your relative handful of articlespace edits is dominated by the authorship issue - with an obvious personal agenda than I am them. Indeed, there can be disruptive behavior on a talk page ... where editors haul out spurious side issues, rather than discuss article building, is one example. Ravenswing 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To my immediate predecessor in this discussion. Would you please explain to me what you mean with my alleged "handful of articlespace edits (being dominated by the authorship issue)"? Have you spent time for adding my edits to a total? It should be obvious that nobody has the right to prescribe me a certain amount of edits in articles on Wikipedia, especially in articles which are so heavily under control as the authorship issue is. You certainly know that a number of editors were banned for a longer time because their editings - as it was believed - supported a so-called fringe theory. And if I say that I also support this theory, and in the same time I perfectly know that any editing in favour of this theory would be reverted and I immediately made responsible for this "misdemeanour" - so what can I do? (I ask: Is such a conduct really fully compatible with the freedom of speech? - I do not think so.) Then I mostly can make only small edits like putting a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence where there was none. Exactly this has been my last editing in the article on Edward de Vere, you can have a look. And this is perfectly OK, or isn´t it??? However, there is no rule on Wikipedia that a supporter of a so-called fringe theory (which has been and still is supported by a number of Assistant Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States) is excluded from any Talk Page on this subject. If you don´t know this fact, please ask someone who knows. And besides this, you have certainly no exact information on the amount of my other editings on English-language and other national Wikipedia pages which have nothing to do with the Shakespeare canon. So what is your point, can you explain it to me? I hope you will do so, because otherwise it would be a little bit strange, given the fact that you addressed me. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Generic discussions are unlikely to produce any progress (although repetitively raising an issue with no suggestion for an actionable outcome based on policy can be disruptive, and that can lead to blocks). Please make a proposal, and supply evidence to support it. If the proposal concerns another editor, it should be made here. If the proposal is a concern about whether content in an article satisfies WP:NPOV, it should be at the noticeboard where you have already made a report (NPOVN). There has been no response to my suggestion at NPOVN that a specific problem needs to be identified. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don´t understand what you mean, Johnuniq. I was addressed by User:Ravenswing, so I replied. I explained my view of the matter to this user in a polite way. As to the other case, please have a look at my statement on the noticeboard of WP:NPOV. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Post-closing addition to thread (per WP:IAR if necessary): All editors are reminded of the principles and remedies contained in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing a CfD discussion

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

    The reason I closed this is as unfortunately given the lack of admins who are willing to close such discussions we are going to need non-admin closures as well to make things happen.
    I do respect how you've handled your issue with my closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I counted 7 keeps, 6 deletes, 3 renames, 1 neutral and a great many tangential comments. I appreciate that Eraserhead1 was willing to look at the weight of the arguments to make a decision to bring the CfD to closure. – MrX 20:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear I didn't count the votes. We are weighing up the arguments - not counting the votes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a good close, no matter who made it. Perhaps the closer would be interested in joining the admins in the usual way? ` DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, "joining the admins in the usual way" appears to be lately less a "community discussion" and more a Trial by ordeal.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone willing to help out in one of our weakest areas and can do so with a level head, is just fine with me as well. If you are interested, I would be happy to do an admin review. Likely, others would be willing if you asked as well. Or if you would rather not, that is fine, too. Just know your efforts are appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to close the discussion the same way as Eraserhead1, xe just beat me to it. The whole 'discussions need to be closed by an admin' is a red herring thrown about by those who don't like the way the discussion was closed. Being an admin has no bearing on whether you can read a discussion and properly weigh the arguments against policy. The are admins that do that well. There are admins that do it poorly. There are non-admins that do it well and poorly as well. Quite frankly, the reason there are so few people that close these discussions is that no matter what, they are never closed right. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the phrasing of the OP left a lot to be desired too. For example, if in reality we had 8 keep !votes and 6 rename !votes, that's really 14 "keep in some manner" !votes (at which point you have to really weight the strength of the rename arguments) - don't lump delete and rename !votes into the same category! dangerouspanda 11:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the original issue was with the (perceived POV) name of the category. "Keep" and "rename" have a different relationship to each other in category discussions than they do in article discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought that this was a very poor close, which simply dismissed one side of the debate and didn't engage with the arguments. The closer took as axiomatic the contested notion that this sort of categorisation is necessary and possible, which one of they key points of the debate. I hope that the closer will reopen the discussion and leave it for an admin to close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I think the closing editor made a very sensible closing, given the weight of the arguments and the applicable policies and guidelines. Perhaps you would have preferred that the CfD stay open so it would continue to attract even more off-topic comments? I would also add that few alternative proposals were offered for renaming, and in the usual entropic fashion, the discussion was permitted to go completely off the rails with repetitive side comments about hate groups and gay marriage, and vague, baseless assertions of POV. The discussion should have been closed weeks ago and I'm glad somebody finally stepped up to the plate. – MrX 02:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion should indeed have been closed weeks ago. However, its closure should have involved an attempt to weigh the arguments rather than ignoring one side of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If I'm reading this right, there's a backlog of about 1500? In these circumstances second guessing non-admin closure should be a lower priority than clearing the backlog. Nobody Ent 02:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a big backlog, and I would love to see it cleared ... but not at any price.
    Unless a discussions are closed by a genuine weighing of the arguments, then the whole exercise has been pointless. That's what happened here: a non-admin made a supervote rather than weighing the arguments. What's the point of participating in a discussion if it is closed so glibly?
    If this closure stands, I will take it to DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You should take a look at WP:POINT. You've repeatedly made the assertion that the editor "ignored one side of the story", without any evidence behind it, and in spite of plenty of sensible editors stating that to the contrary, it was a good close. You don't simply take something to WP:DRV just because you "lost" the outcome of a deletion discussion. Not to mention the forum shopping of it already being determined a good closure here. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues! 07:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite familiar with WP:POINT, thank you, and I suggest that you re-read before citing it. It would also help if you read what I wrote before commenting. I do disagree with the outcome, but that's not what I want that close overturned. I could accept that outcome if it the close made a genuine attempt to reflect the balance of the debate.
    If I do open a DRV, I will explain the deficiencies at greater length. This is not DRV, so I won't do the detailed analysis -here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I read what you wrote -- maybe you need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Looking at this discussion you are the only person who disagrees with the outcome -- even the OP didn't disagree with the outcome (or if he/she did, that wasn't part of the argument), but rather the non-admin component of the process. But you single-handedly, in a stellar display of bad faith, dismiss the closer's argument, without any evidence or grounds to support your position, despite at least one admin (two including myself, though I haven't stated it yet) saying they would have closed it the same way. Where is the good faith? The closer EXPLICITLY stated that he weighed the arguments. Your response is "Nuh-uh, no you didn't." That's a textbook display of an assumption of bad faith, and taking it to DRV because this discussion didn't go the way you'd like it is a disruption simply to prove a WP:POINT. In this page, you've now accused the closer of not making a genuine attempt to reflect the balance of the debate, of not "genuinely weighing ...the arguments", not "weighing the arguments", closing it "glibly", called it a "poor close", and suggested that the closer's non-admin status somehow compromises his/her judgment. And provided no support whatsoever for these claims, nor have you done anything to refute his claims that he did in fact weigh the arguments, which he has stated several times here. That's light years away from the kind of behavior that I'd expect from a fellow administrator, and frankly I think the closer is owed an apology. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues! 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If category discussions are allowed at DRV, then it should definitely be taken there. I wasn't sure, so I posted it here. It certainly is not and was not a case of forum shopping. StAnselm (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The forum shopping comment wasn't directed at you, if that was unclear. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues! 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Swatjester, as I said above, the substantive arguments belong at DRV, and I will make them there. I am disappointed that an admin chooses to allege bad faith and forum-shopping to a fellow admin who wants to have a substantive discussion in the proper forum. The only reason that there is any discussion at all here is that the OP mistakenly thought that DRV didn't handle CFDs, and the reason I refrain from making the substantive analysis here is precisely to avoid forum-shopping.
    In assessing the close, I could only by what the closer actually wrote, which simply dismissed most of the debate. I assumed in good faith that the closer wrote what zie intended to write, and that if zie had intended something difft they would have written something difft. Your view seems that be that is ABF to regard a close rationale as describing an inadequate review of a discussion. You are entitled to that view, but it is an approach which makes DRV impossible.
    I think that the closer's non-admin status is relevant here not as a matter of status, but as a matter of experience. Admins usually develop a lot of experience of closing discussions before tackling the more contentious debates, and their judgement has been vetted by the community at RFA. Non-admins are advised against making such closures, at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate_closures, so my concerns are hardly novel. Anyway, it's time for DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, that argument could be taken as admin arrogance. There are plenty of non-admin that have more experience than the average admin. He has 25k edits, I'm pretty sure that qualifies as experienced, more than many admins, bureaucrats and some Arbs for that matter. I've been encouraging non-admins to close discussions, openly asking them to on their talk pages, and I will continue to do so. The admin bit doesn't make you a better closer, experience does, and he has plenty of experience to be closing. If you want to take it to DRV, then do so, but you are flatly mistaken if you think admin are automatically "better" at closing than someone with that much experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sally Season

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

    I don't understand what the incident is that you are asking about, or what intervention you feel is needed at this time. Could you elaborate please.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See the account's contributions. Basically just making tendentious edits and then edit-warring over them, as well as some other issues. I am not sure what the most appropriate action to take would be, but the conduct speaks for itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't, not at all. The SPI went nowhere, and so there's a different tack tried now? It may well be that this account/editor is up to no good, but you'll have to do better than say "smells like trolling" without providing any evidence at all. Come up with diffs and an explanation for them, and maybe we'll talk. If you don't, this should be closed pronto. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I only looked at the oldest half, because I got bored at that point, but they appear to me to mostly be legitimate content disputes. And per Drmies, this smells like forum shopping, and should be closed immediately, with the reporter sternly warned for such actions. —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per both Drmies and Kerfuffler - close as possible forum shopping and no legitimate issue raised.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't the one who filed the SPI so how can I be forum-shopping? The actions of this account elsewhere are what drew my attentions, not the SPI. Contributions from this account are minimal and the issue can be clearly understood from looking over the revision history of the OPSEC article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This really does seem to be an effort at stifling an editor whose opinions do not match your own. Insomesia (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • [35] - Removes material noting claims of OPSEC being Republican came from Obama campaign, as the source clearly supports, to simply say it has been "described as" Republican.
    • [36] - Reverts RightCow.
    • [37] - Reverts Belchfire.
    • [38] - Reverts me.
    • [39] - Reverts me again.
    • [40] - Fifth revert overall.

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

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

    Koch family

    Americans for Prosperity

    David H. Koch

    Does that suffice? This does not include the conspicuous act of listing editors on the account's user page. Note the following discussion page as well: [50]. BTW, it has nothing to do with my opinion on the issue and everything to do with my opinion on the edits and conduct evident with this account.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion here is also illuminating: [51].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Sally Season has done on Americans for Prosperity in no way even approaches edit-warring. I note that AdventurousSquirrel reverted their edits, after which they were restored by a seasoned editor. It always takes two to tango, and from what I can tell, in that particular case Sally Season was not warring and had the sources on her side. I've looked at Koch Family as well, where we had an edit-war brewing and consensus did not seem to be on Sally's side. There was talk page discussion (humorous to read, since no one seemed to understand Sally's joke) and then it was over. So where's the beef in those two? With those two, you've established that Sally and Squirrel got into it and then it was over. Was a report filed at ANEW? What other avenues were pursued? (I may look at a few more--I do thank you for providing these diffs.) Drmies (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noticed that I messed up on that one. I cited a diff that was immediately after the second revert. Here are the two reverts from that article: [52] [53]. The reverts were perpetuating an edit war over the conservative label for the group.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've looked at the diffs you gave for Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, and you are correct: Sally Season is edit-warring there with way too many people (and they're absolutely wrong in this edit and others like it. I've given them a warning for edit-warring on that article, and I personally think their edits should be undone--but it should be looked at by someone who is not you or a squirrel, or me. Mind you, I'm sort of wearing two hats here (editor and admin), but that edit-warring took place is clear (admin) and that their version is incorrect is clear to me also (editor).

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

    I notice I've been mentioned a lot here but I was never notified about this thread. The reason I started the SPI is because Sally had edited a lot of articles that StillStanding-247 had been editing right before he was blocked, and some of the edits Sally made on the pages were the same edits or reverts that Still had been working on, so it looked pretty suspicious. But it looks like based on the IP's that it's unlikely they are the same user. Sally does seem to have a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality but I wasn't about to bring him/her up here at ANI for any reason. We resolved or are resolving our differences on article talk pages. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're not here on any charges. ;) I saw the SPI as it was happening, and I thought also, for a moment, that there was something going on. Now, I won't deny that there is some battlegrounding going on here, but I think it kind of comes with the territory (dumb politics), and I don't think it's gotten out of hand yet. Again, if there is a larger issue it should be dealt with somewhere else; issues like edit-warring should be dealt with at ANEW and I don't see enough (evidence) yet to block. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I have is that, all of it put together is rather suspicious. "Sally Season" is obviously a reference to "silly season" and the conduct has been almost purely disruptive. I have a hard time believing that this is just another partisan editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll concur on the edit warring part, but as they say, it takes two (or more) to tango, and this looks like the usual suspects tag teaming again. I completely disagree on the content issue in that dispute, though; saying “accused the group to be Republican” is both ungrammatical and horrendously POV; and saying that the group criticized Obama without any indication of why is seriously light on context. —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          02:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Grammar aside, the source in question uses the word "accuse".  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool story, bro! The real story: We were discussing changes to an article when your arguments began to fall apart, sources were shown to disagree with you, and questions were asked that you couldn't answer. So you fled the discussion to come here to disparage me with innuendo instead. "Sally Season" is a reference to "silly season"! OMG, really?? Can I play, too? "Devil's Advocate" has "Advocacy" built right into it, which is prohibited on this website, and nothing good ever comes from the deceptive Devil! There, now we both sound stupid. You linked all my edits above, and called them disruptive when they are not, unless by disruptive you mean they side with the sources that go against your perspective. If you can't make a reasoned argument to support your position, then attack the editor as a puppet or partisan or "rather suspicious". This website is just a barrel of fun. Not.Sally Season (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Your choice of username would be meaningless to me if your conduct were appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anything out of the ordinary here. It's hard to call someone editing high-profile American politics articles a SPAs; there are lots of editors who focus on that. And "Disagrees with me" does not equal WP:DE. If you think this is StillStaning or some other socking editor, file a SPI. I see Drmies has warned Sally not to edit war. That should do it for now. I suggest closing this thread before it turns into the usual bickering surrounding articles on politics. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think it's Still. Also, it isn't about "disagreeing with me" as the account's article edits consists of little other than edit-warring and the discourse is mostly uncivil.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we've firmly established in the Belchfire thread that just got archived that apparently nobody gives a flying fuck about that. —Kerfuffler  thunder
      plunder              16:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently nobody cares if editors lie through their teeth about other editors, either. Take this whopper for instance: "the account's article edits consists of little other than edit-warring and the discourse is mostly uncivil." Does he do this all over the website, or just here?Sally Season (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What I have stated is quite accurate. I would be more than able to prove it, but as you have received a warning about edit-warring I think elaborating further on that point would prove fruitless. Unless someone finds reason to suspect there is more to this situation, the discussion will be archived.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    On and off edit warring at Schmidt Sting Pain Index

    No admin action should be required. Discussion is proceeding on the article's talk page. —Torchiest talkedits 13:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I must be overlooking the sources on the talk page ... can you point me to the right threads on that talk page? Is there a reason they haven't been added to the disputed section of the table? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Immediately preceding the table is an explanation of the origin of the descriptions in which the source is Snopes.com. I'd found a journal article before that mentioned the same thing, but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The descriptions do not come from any papers published by Schmidt. Only one source is reliable enough to back the claim that these descriptions appear in an article by Schmidt, and that would be an article by Schmidt that contains them. If you can't produce such an article, your "my friend says" or "this journalist says" are totally irrelevant. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any reference to Snopes on Schmidt Sting Pain Index or Talk:Schmidt Sting Pain Index, nor do I see a reference to any other article which is claimed to give the source of the descriptions. Could you please reproduce here the bibliographic details of the publication in which the descriptions appear? In the absence of such a citation, it appears that 190.44.158.38 is correct to remove the information as unreferenced and unverifiable. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS does not require that we get claims from the horse's mouth. We just have to get them from a reliable source. Just as an example, I'd like to point out Charlemagne - we have well over 100k of content about that dude, but not a single word of it was written by Charlemagne himself. Instead we rely on how scholar A reported the work of scribe B who described the life of king C. As long as scholar A is reliable, we're happy. However, we do need a reliable source - specifically, we need enough detail so that somebody else can look it up and check that it supports the content. bobrayner (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. I was only asking for a citation to the "publication in which the descriptions appear", not to where they originally appeared, though as the article wants to quote the descriptions verbatim, the latter would clearly be preferable. The descriptions in the table which were removed by 190.44.158.38 had no cited source, primary or otherwise. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If Schmidt said what it is claimed that he said, it would be easy - incredibly easy - to find the source. Scientific articles are hardly kept hidden away, are they? Comparisons of contemporary scholars to historical figures who died 1200 years ago are not realistic. Seeing as no-one has yet managed to find the paper in which these "descriptions" allegedly appeared, I think we can safely say it doesn't exist. The question relevant to this discussion is why User:Ohnoitsjamie has been edit warring to keep unsourced and unverifiable claims in the article? Why did he not discuss it on the article talk page? Why did he not discuss it with me? Why did he go straight to AN? 190.44.158.38 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. The American Entomologist link has the text of the descriptions used in the article, and the piece was from "Summer 2003", two full years before the Wikipedia article was created. Seems like pretty solid and straightforward sourcing to me. And to be clear, that article specifically cites Schmidt's work in its references. —Torchiest talkedits 17:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike apparently anyone else, I actually read the Schmidt articles cited by that article, and the descriptions, unless I somehow managed to overlook them, do not appear. This apparent belief that somehow "reliable sources" can change what is actually in an original text is really mystifying. As is "Ohnoitsjamie"'s failure to even attempt a normal discussion before lodging a complaint, and as is the use of this page now as a forum to discuss the article content. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I made this same comment at the talk page and invite you to respond there. —Torchiest talkedits 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That article does reproduce the descriptions, but does not attribute them to Schmidt. In fact, it quite specifically notes that they are not part of Schmidt's index but rather "colourful" media descriptions, leaving their authorship unspecified. So this article could be used as a source for the descriptions, but not to support the claims that they are Schmidt's or are part of the index (which were the very claims the IP editor removed from the article). —Psychonaut (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant The Straight Dope, not Snopes. The writer of TSD interviewed Schmidt; while Schmidt did not publish those descriptions in an academic work, he did provide them to a magazine. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Straight Dope article also doesn't specifically identify any published source for the descriptions. It says the descriptions were provided for a magazine article in 1996, but it doesn't mention whether this article was ever published, nor does it specify a title or issue number, nor does it reproduce all the descriptions themselves, so it can't be used as a reliable source for them. Again, can you provide bibliographic details of the publication in which the descriptions appear? If not, then I suggest that this ANI thread be closed. The editor was only following policy in removing unsourced (and possibly copyright-infringing, as another poster below theorizes) material. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As Schmidt's list is obviously subjective and represents a creative effort, reproducing the entire list here with or without the very creative descriptions and even with attribution may be a violation of copyright. I think the best way to deal with this is as a general description of the index without reproducing it entirely. Reproducing the "wheedled out" version from Outside magazine is even more problematic in regards to copyright. Please see this essay for a broader and more informed view on the subject of copyright in lists. WTucker (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing again - MatthiasHuehr

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

    There seem to be the same problems with him in the German Wikipedia, with [[54]]. I am just supposing it is the same user, and he gives himself an en-3, so should be able to understand what we try to tell him. Ping me if you want me to message him in German. Lectonar (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I just saw you could do this yourself, messaging him in German I mean. Lectonar (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the links, and left a message on his talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got involved in a previous bout of EL removals, in response to a 3O request - but didn't make much progress as MatthiasHuehr didn't discuss at all. Don't be fooled by the peaceful-looking user talkpage - several other editors have attempted to discuss the issue with MatthiasHuehr but it just gets removed... [55] [56] [57] bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Vitt is a part of Putgarten and the official homepage of Puttgarten is kap-arkona.de! The other links are commercial hotel booking pages or satelite page for them. Wikipedia is not a link farm for commercial use ...--MatthiasHuehr (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)PS The deleting of THE OFFICIAL PAGE by you is the only abuse i can see!--MatthiasHuehr (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bermicourt. Could you clarify. Are you talking about the removal of one external link and the changing of the other? Or are you talking about the removal of the references? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, in each case Matthias has repeatedly deleted several links, which in my view are perfectly acceptable, but won't discuss them in order to reach consensus. I think his point above is that, in reverting his latest round of editing at Vitt, I inadvertently deleted his correction of the link to Vitt's official page. If it is legit, then I am of course entirely happy for such a link to be inserted. Hope that helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The official homepapage of Vitt is kap-arkona.de not the page that Bermicourt linked as "official". Take a look at the impressum! As User of Wikipedia I want to go to the official page of Vitt and not to a booking-portal! Why id he do not link the official page? Why do he not refer the official pages? In the german Wikipedia are such pages not allowed as a referenz. Sorry, but this behavior looks like link selling to me.--MatthiasHuehr (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The policies of the German Wikipedia don't apply here. That said I have no idea if the references are valid or not. But it's something that you should have discussed on the talk page of the articles concerned or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard rather than just removing them. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note also that the "External links" section on the English Wikipedia is not automatically a reference section. Instead it is mostly used to provide additional links related to the subject. Any references should got into a separate section "References". De728631 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brainbug666 -- Post-Finasteride Syndrome

    Brainbug666 indeffed for multiple reasons. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There are a lot more article edits to the article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Post-Finasteride_Syndrome and then recreated as a redirect. Take a look at the AfD itself for a taste of the editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now read the AfD, and frankly it did not give me a good impression of any of the major players, including yourself. Way too much ad hominem. The only editor who seems to have actually made a substantiated argument on the “delete” side is Pondle. —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          16:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meat was a valid concern for that AfD, but the problem that's appropriate for discussion here is the battleground mentality, prompted by what seems to be a personal interest in having specific issues included in Wikipedia articles. Whether there's a lack of appropriate manners on the other side (and I don't mean Mark Arsten, but Grouse) may well become part of this thread. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I´m also very confused here and shocked, what is going on on the english wikipedia. I just came here to make an entry, while I normaly work on another wiki and not the english one. When I came here I wasn´t baised, nothing, just made the entry, but less than 2 hours the article was for deletion, how can someone check all sources in less than two hours? Well, ok but what me realy starts to wonder, was the case that someone started a sockpuppetry what is still not removed. I another case where I started to do the same with some arguments for that, some of the admins here were very very quick. This is not the only example, where I and other can see that some strange things are going one here. Some users, are treated in a diff. way than others, entrys are treated in a diff. way than others. I mention this in the delet discussion. Sadly this gives me a very bad picture of the english wiki. Ohter users can do some things other not? Wiki is not a dictature, please treat everbody the same. If you dont do that you harm wikipedia. You can see this here and here.

    So can one of the admins here please explain me, why my sockpuppetry case is still running since many days and other are done in only a few hours? --Brainbug666 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Re: sock puppetry: your case was obviously bogus, for reasons explained on your talk page, so that's an easy close. The other had some behavioral evidence from the AfD to back it up. Beyond that, I don't know: I don't set the calendar, but I think there was a conclusion of sorts reached at yours, last time I looked. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Users who attack other users are treated differently than users who dont attack other users.
      • Article entries / content edits that follow policies of WP:V / WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:OR are treated differently that article edits that dont. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    • User redpenofdoom, you deleted a link in the article, by claiming they are spam and self promotin. I asked you, whay you did that, there was a source for it and this lil part about that foundation not a medical part, what you called a activist group, the only answer you gave me that it is spam. So, what I dont understand is, why there are links on the merk entry to their side and a non-profit-organisation is called spam, if there were nothing about this Foundation in the media, ok. I would understand that, but in the case that there is a article about it. I thought realy this belongs to the whole entry. As it is done even for company sites. Even calling this a activist group gives the whole thing a very bad taste, cause it is not a acticist group, it a foundation for patients who suffer badly. Would you call this here also a activist group? The lack of compassion and

    humanity here is breathtaking. The way some users here are treated and other not also. Everybody, who likes can read everthing, even what I wrote and make his owen picture. I dont have the time and willing to answer all the time, but when I read such things I must give a comment. Who would not? --Brainbug666 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    • user redpenofdoom, this is exactly, what I mean. You wrote this. Users who attack other users are treated differently than users who dont attack other users.

    I am talking about the user dangerGrouse. look here please. Sorry I still dont get this argument. He attaked me, so when we both are attacking, why he is still treated differently than me? I exactly talked about this.

    Than you say, Article entries / content edits that follow policies of WP:V / WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:OR are treated differently that article edits that dont. That is true, but since when this is not a valid source, keep in mind the source is not for a medical part. --Brainbug666 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because a startup "organization" exists, does not make it notable. There are millions of existing, useful, and valid organizations that do not meet the criteria to be included in Wikipedia.
    A quick glance at User_talk:DangerGrouse shows that you personally do not quite get the purpose of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ... it's quite appalling the number of uncivil accusations you have levelled there - an adult, if "attacked" takes the noble high-road, and does not stoop to attacks of their own.
    Consensus, which is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, has said that the article does not belong on Wikipedia, but that a redirect should. That's more than sufficient considering the "coverage". dangerouspanda 16:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, just because a organization exists, does not make it notable. This is totaly true. But this organization was in in a article of the AFR What you are saying totaly misses the point. Sadly I see this here very often. I said and asked, when we both attaked each other, and people who attak other are treated differently, why he is not treated in the same way. Your statement does not answer that and what you are doing is also attaking me personal. User dangerouspanda and dangerGrous. funny coincidences.--Brainbug666 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Brainbug666 has been relentlessly posting on my talk page and slinging allegations which inlude: single purpose account, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, holding a sleeper account, and most recently, allegations that I am a pharmaceutical employee. A WP:SPI was for some reason opened against me, but the editor didn't name any other suspected accounts. I have been extremely patient with this person, and politely asked (as can be seen on the user's talk page) that this stops. I have declared myself as a junior editor and asked for specific, constructive advice from Brainbug666. Apparently this plea did not sit well with this user, because I have only been met with more allegations. This morning, I found a remarkable 10,750 character edit on my talk page from Brainbug666. I consider this, along with the false WP:SPI as being WP:HARASSMENT. As I mentioned, I am a new editor and still learning the ropes. I honestly don't know how else to deal with this person, so if anyone could offer some advice it would be appreciated. DangerGrouse (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're suggesting I'm a WP:SOCK of User:DangerGrouse, I would love to encourage you to file an WP:SPI. You might also click to my userpage and find that I am indeed an alternate account of a completely different user. Your call. dangerouspanda 16:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1) In your repeated attempts to insert the information about the advocacy organization into the deleted article you were simply using the organizations own website as your sourcing. 2) even with this third party mention, there is no evidence that organization deserved the full section about it that you kept inserting. 3) the article has been deleted and so quibling about content in a non existant article is not something that I am willing to engage with you any more. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I´m suggesting nothing I just said funny coincidences. The only thing I see here all the time, that some users here fully ignore things that other wrote. I wrote something about the treatment of users and you totaly ignore that.
    Redpenofdoom, 1) the source for the organization, that I also posted here many times. 2)This is realy crasy, why some users totaly ignore, what others write? I realy dont want to repat myself the whole time, but igonoring things foces me to do that. You gave one again the best example for that. As we can the this whole things turns about me, where is the user DangerGrouse here? I wrote about that he attaked, but no one is talking about him, I asked, why he is treated in a different, ignored again. I ased for a quote, where I attaked I´m personaly? Ignored. Sorry, but do some users here forget that everbody can read this? This gives such a bad picture of wikipedia and it is a shame. I wrote many times my points. Ignored.

    1) please, look at he finasteide entry check the sources and add that its also inhibits the 5AR type III. Ignored, Why? Wikipedia should be neutral and at the moment it is not. All those endless discusions are totaly useless, when some useres ignores what other write. I look what the user wrote and try to answer to every point. Short example.... Why did you delet this link....spam and selfpromotion........can you prove this, there is a source (AFR).....simply using the organizations own website as your sourcing. .....Source.....no evidence that organization deserved the full section about it. If it does in your oppinion, why haven´t you been constructiv and said, this can be done under public attention? This whould haven been constructiv. Deleting it is destructiv. ITs unbelievable what is going one here. So please, try to be neutral. There are many many other entrys here, who nobody cares about, but about this entry many users pops up and make statements, some users fight against this as their life depending on it and uses everything to downplay everthing other said. sockpuppetry has been used and many more, while they still dont care about other entrys. Even when I haven mention that. They will not change the finasteride entry, they will not work on other entrys. They just fight against one entry. I have to shut up, when someone makes a statement, like this is spam and selfpromotion and the only source is...the owen website, (source AFR) No, but I dont shut up, when people use things like that and if some here believes that I am wrong and just fighting for one simple entry, do what you want. I came on the english wiki, to make only this entry with no baise. But what was showen me here is the worst. This is not wikipedia and it is a shame, what kind of user here can become a admin. This is my statement. --Brainbug666 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    nice methodes you got here now the user Dangergrouse changed the entry, where I showed what he is doing here. --Brainbug666 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As per WP:TPO, I consider your latest edit a harmful post since it is WP:HARASSMENT. If any other editors feel this action was wrong, please let me know. DangerGrouse (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, this is no WP:HARASSMENT Where are here the admins? Do you think, all people are stupid?--Brainbug666 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • BLOCKED - Combination of socking as an IP, WP:DE violation, battleground and WP:HERE. I just spent two hours on this before I saw this discussion, so the only thing that has changed was the duration, which is now indef. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that a block was unfortunately needed here. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, I'm obviously not uninvolved, having raised the original SPI against the editor in question after some very silly meat-puppetry-style SPA contributions. Second, I would have contributed more substantially but the Australian time-zone ruled me out. I, and others, have tried to tread lightly on this one (with, perhaps, occasional frustrated lapses) given the editor's obvious broken English and seemingly limitless passion for this one particular topic. As the topic in question involves suggested pharmaceutical side-effects and ongoing medical concerns, there is an obvious need for editors to understand that those impacted by these issues will be passionate in pushing their opinion. But pushing a legal, medical or commercial opinion by promoting the view of a particular activist group is still WP:PROMO. Refusing to accept decisions made by consensus and responding by editing tendentiously is still WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is disruptive. Raising a bogus SPI to "get someone" for opposing your opinion at AFD is still WP:POINTY. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this and actually took steps to close-out my original SPI so that everyone could just drop the WP:STICK and move on. Unfortunately, the editor in question has maintained a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and for all the reasons outlined by others above, this block was (unfortunately) necessary. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Apparent competence issue

    I’ve encountered an apparent competence problem that in my view has reached the point at which it requires admin attention. The editor, User:Davebrayfb, makes occasional sound edits but most are poorly considered or executed and many require additional attention or outright reversion. Attempts to engage the editor on his Talk page have been completely unavailing.

    Here is a well-abridged sampling of troublesome edits, in generally ascending order of concern:

    • Idiosyncratic addition of information to articles which is generally plausible but unsourced and possibly incorrect. E.g. declaring that because one company involved in the production of a program is in Canada – a fact not in evidence in the article – the program is properly described as “Canadian-American” (see diff); adding “Emmy-winning” to an article when the company appears only to have been nominated (diff);
    • Very infrequent use of edit summaries;
    • Creating a category with a typo, here;
    • Creating superfluous redirect pages (“Mrio” to “Mario”; “Mini mARIO” to “Mini Mario” – itself a redirect to “Mario”) (both since deleted);
    • Removing a proposed merger template (albeit stale) without discussion, here;
    • Undoing, without comment, other editors’ efforts to clean up articles and remove cruft, here;
    • Placing articles into non-existent categories here then doing it again – twice – after other editors undid him, here and here;
    • Low-grade apparent vandalism – here;
    • Unilaterally moving “Nick.com” to “Nick.co.uk” without discussion and inconsistent with the content of the article, which is about “Nick.com” – followed, a couple of weeks later and after a Talk page reminder about the need to discuss most moves beforehand, by another unilateral move (“Viacom (1971-2005)” to “Viacom (1971-2006)”);
    • Adding a “Good Article” designation to article that is not, in fact, a “Good Article”, here (defending the edit by saying that “it’s not a bad article”);
    • Not once discussing any edit, before or after making it, on any article Talk page.

    I estimate that about ¾ of this editor’s edits are reverted by one or another editor. He’s been accumulating Talk page warnings and comments for several weeks; they’re all generally friendly (because the edits rarely seem malicious or completely over the top) but they do not seem to be having the necessary salutary effect, and this editor’s poorly considered edits continue pretty much unabated. I can’t seem to get his attention and thus have concluded that the matter requires consideration here. Thanks for any and all help. JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Again, I'm leaving for the night, but looking at the contribs, in particular the new talk: contribs, does lend credibility to the claim of a clue deficiency here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • First edit less than 6 months ago. Check. Less than 200 edits. Check. Indef as incompetent. Check. Or maybe xe's just new and doesn't understand the culture here. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious and uninformed editing by User:Farwah_khan

    Farwah_khan is an SPA who submitted Nadia Khan Show (a Pakistani talk show) to WP:AFC for review on 5 October. Vexed by the backlog, FK that same day asked the Teahouse[58] how to expedite the AFC process, didn't appear to take the advice from the mentors, and on 7 October went ahead and just pulled the article from AFC and published it solo (see Special:Contributions/Farwah_khan).

    The article isn't horrendous, but rather crufty. Subject does appear to be notable, mentioned in a few published academic books on Feminism and also presumably in a lot of Pakistani media. FK, however, has ignored suggestions to improve the sourcing, follow WP:TV guidelines, and has persisted in repeatedly uploading improperly licensed images, getting them taken down, and putting them right back up again. I've communicated with FK over three days (during which time FK has been actively editing), giving detailed suggestions, and just asking FK for some communication with the editors trying to help FK. No avail, article still greatly lacking, and FK is still wasting volunteers' time by repeatedly uploading copyvio images.

    Can I suggest some kind of short block, or block whose end is predicated on FK demonstrating active listening and willingness to follow guidelines? MatthewVanitas (talk)

    As is typical for me, I started to look at the page, and my editor-hat came out before the admin-hat, and I made whole bunch of edits to the. As such, I'm now WP:INVOLVED. Let's see if Farwah khan tries to revert these or violates policies further. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, Farwah Khan's response to my changes was to just replace most of the same info (non-neutral prose, repetitive details, and links to blogs). I've reverted, left one final message on the user's talk page, but I recommend that another admin (who can actually stay uninvolved, unlike myself) block the editor if s/he makes another edit like this without communicating. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I expected, the reverts continued. As I also expected, the user has just admitted to having a WP:COI--see the edit summary on this edit. I've left a final warning, but another admin is welcome to advise further or even block now, as I don't expect this to get better on its own. Perhaps if the user is blocked we'll get some time to actually talk this out so the person can understand the problems and how to properly proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy who got banned for vandalizing Armenian related pages is back

    He got banned with the name KunoxTxa and more recently with Vagharshapat. Now he is back and using the name haynationalist. Can you permanently ban this guy? Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Done and nuked 2 new articles and the AFD. Feel free to clean up the other edits as needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Community Ban discussions are at WP:AN Hasteur (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ban isn't needed, I just assumed he meant block, so I did since I was familiar from blocking another sock of the same editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did mean ban because the guy will probably come back and continue vandalizing. He has done it 3 times already. Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • A ban cannot technically prevent anyone from returning to Wikipedia under a new account since it is only a formal decision. Neither can an indefinite block because technical blocks are only able to prevent the user's access to selected accounts. All we can do here is watch out for possible returning sockpuppets. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:45abc123 repeatedly creating unsourced articles concerning apparently non-existent events.

    Ever thus to trolls. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As a quick glance at User talk:45abc123 will show, this 'contributor' has a history of producing entirely unsourced articles regarding 'tours' by bands etc that either don't exist, or aren't actually touring. 45abc123 has just recreated New Beginnings: World Tour which was speedily deleted earlier as a blatant hoax, while Paradise World Tour by a band that nobody has heard of called 'Coldplayers' is under AfD - though how it survived that long is rather beyond me. It has footnotes for future events that use the past tense. Google search turns up no results for this tour - which the article claims has already started. And most ridiculous of all, we are supposed to believe that 'Coldplayers' (who?) played alongside Coldplay at the closing ceremony of the 2012 Olympics and nobody noticed the coincidence in names? Coldplay certainly played at the Olympic closing ceremony - but the 'World Tour' described in the article isn't theirs, as our Mylo Xyloto Tour article makes clear, they are currently touring, but appearing at entirely different venues and times - 'Coldplayers' cannot possibly be a misprint of 'Coldplay'. I left a note on 45abc123's talk page to the effect that unless sources were provided, I would report the matter here - the only response has been the recreation of the deleted hoax.

    Note that IP's have also edited these articles - it seems self-evident that this is the same person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the user indefinitely and deleted a couple of hoax articles; the account was previously blocked for a short period for the same pattern of creating hoax pages. I have blocked the underlying ip briefly. Some of the edits appear OK, but hard to tell for someone unfamiliar with the field. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call, I stepped out to cook dinner, and was reviewing one last time to block when you beat me to it. Making a few worthwhile edits doesn't make him any less a troll in this instance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean I shouldn't post about the Beatles' (excuse me, The Beatles') upcoming tour? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request topic ban for User: Agadant at Web Sheriff article

    I would like to request that User: Agadant be topic banned from the article Web Sheriff. Since March 2010 Agadant has obstructed NPOV changes to the article’s content and all talk page discussion and has driven away many editors including those like myself who were invited to the article via 3rd Opinion, noticeboards etc. [59] because of POV and promotional issues that persist until today. I have no personal issues with Agadant and have not edited the article or talk page for more than a year. Though I have never met Agadant on any other articles, I believe him/her to be a skilled and useful Wikipedia contributor. However, on this Web Sheriff article their presence has been a strong disruptive and obstructive influence over a period of years and now it needs to be addressed.

    Items from talk page Archive 1:

    • 8/18/10 User: Blokatoh “this article reads like Web Sheriff propaganda and really needs some POV work”
    • 3/4/11 User: Luisarfs “Propaganda”
    • 5/15/11 User: Nouly “I find this article very biased”
    • 3/27/11 User: HelloAnnyong “Clients section being a total mess”
    • 6/2/11 User: HelloAnnyong Agadant, your most recent edits aren't really doing much good……Phrasing like that is really just puffery and doesn't belong in the article.
    • 6/2/11 User: Luisarfs as an IP: “I think you will find that trying to edit this article without an admin's intervention is quite pointless. Agadant will not allow it.”
    • 7/12/11 User: gracefool “This article is still really biased”
    • 7/29/11 User: Keithbob “It may be time for you [Agadant] to just walk away and focus on a new project”
    • 8/2/11User: aprock “The clients section contains far too much detail that is of no encyclopedic interest”
    • 8/3/11 User: Cameron Scott “This article reads like a press release”

    Items from the NPOV noticeboard thread where Agadant opposed every editor for 4 weeks despite overwhelming consensus:

    • 8/3/11 User: Mathsci “The article is still written as is if it were an WP:ADVERT for Web Sheriff. “
    • 8/3/11 User: Alexh19740110 “I agree that it is promotional in tone.”
    • 8/3/11 User: Cameron Scott “it could come straight out of a glossy brochure."
    • 8/3/11 User: Collect “A "documented" ad is still an ad.”
    • 8/3/11 User: gracefool “My problem is Agadant isn't allowing anyone to tag the article as POV, even though most people agree it is.”
    • 8/10/11 User: Brmull “There are numerous examples of opinion presented as fact,
    • 8/26/11 User: Cameron Scott “Editor still has WP:OWNERSHIP issues and seems now to have transformed into a SPA in his attempts to control this article”
    • 9/7/11 User: VQuakr “This us/them mentality is a recurring theme I have seen in your [Agadant] approach to editing the article, and combined with significant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is probably why some of the editors attempting to work with you on the article have become frustrated."

    The items below are from talk page Archive 2:

    • 8/12/11 User: Tarc “Please stop making ever tiny issue with this page into some gargantuan war of epic, hysterical proportions.” [60]
    • 8/16/11 User: Collect “The problem is more that the amount of PR material in the article makes it non-utile as an encyclopedia article IMHO”
    • 8/17/11 User: Cameron Scott “[Agadant] your frankly odd behaviour and statements are not conductive to good editing. Your constant IDIDNTHEARTHAT….”
    • 9/4/11 User: Ronz “the tone and presentation in the article is repeatedly changed [by Agadant] to have a less encyclopedic tone and to less accurately represent the sources.”
    • 8/13/11 User: VQuakr “When you [Agadant] fight even the most trivial issues like this, it gives me concern that you are too emotionally invested in this article to work in a collaborative environment."

    Agadant’s visits the user talk pages of editors who disagree with him on the Web Sheriff article to argue and express outrage:

    • Aug 2011 @Keithbob’s talk page [61]
    • 8/30/11 User: Keithbob “Dear Agadant…..A number of editors (including myself) have asserted on that article talk page and various noticeboards that you have been behaving in a disruptive manner, as if you own that article. Your post above which criticizes me, my user page and my editing history, is a response to my participation in content discussions on the Web Sheriff talk page. Your post above, smacks of stalking and personal attack and appears to be an attempt at intimidation. Further, you have approached other Editors on their talk page in response to their edits or comments on the Web Sheriff article in an effort to influence their editing there. I suggest to you, as I have before, that you re-consider your actions, as you may be digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. “
    • Sept 2011 @ Ronz’ talk page [62]
    • 9/5/11 User: Ronz “I think the only solution is for other editors to work on the article, and for others' to let them. …..[Agadant] Take a break from the article.”[63]
    • Aug 2011 @ aprock’s talk page [64]
    • Aug 2011 @ VQuakr’s talk page [65]

    Recent items from talk page Archive 3:

    • 9/8/11 User: Tarc “Honestly, [Agadant] your combative and downright nasty attitude regarding this topic is getting to be quite tiring...it may be wise if you either focus on other areas for awhile or work towards less aggression here."
    • 1/24/12 User: aprock “seems to be some issues related to WP:OWN and allowing other contributers to clean up the article
    • 1/24/12 User: aprock “As far as I can tell, all you seem to be saying here is that you are the only one qualified to evaluate and edit the article. Most of your objections do not conform to policy, and appear to indicate problems with WP:OWN.”
    • 1/25/12 User: VQuakr “In my opinion we have seen a long history of examples #1 and #2 from User:Agadant on this article very clearly violating WP:OWN, that has resulted in driving away other editors and stagnating attempts at improving this article.”
    • 1/25/12 User: aprock “With respect to your editing behavior [Agadant], there is a clear consensus that you've been exhibiting problematic editing on this article.”
    • 2/6/12 User: VQuakr “But this is not relevant, as you know since it was discussed here and in the previous section. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.”
    • 4/1/12 User: aprock “Your repeated defense of blogs and sources whose content is entirely based on Web Sheriff PR speaks for itself. That I have no interest in wiki-lawyering with you over the reliability of blogspot sources is more an indication that your argumentum ad nauseam is sufficiently effective."

    This week on the current talk page:

    • 10/11/12 User: Ronz “I've left this article alone for some time now. Looking through it now, it continues to have the same problems: promotion, undue detail, use of poor or unreliable sources, improper use of primary sources, peacock terms and general puffery.”
    • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules state diffs should be provided for individual edits. They are not. They only point to the archive. The rules state the issue should be discussed on the users talk page. Keithbob did not discuss anything with me, only notified me of this posting. I have not reverted anyone today on the Web Sheriff article, in fact I have not made an edit there since July 2012. I only replied to a posting by Ronz on the Web Sheriff talk page today asking for specifics for his many unspecified accusations of policy violation by my editing on the article.. Does that warrant a topic ban? Keithbob posted this request here with all his quotes pulled out in only 3 hours after I posted a reply to Ronz's accusations on the Web Sheriff talk page today. I don't think the time frame of the request here is credible unless it was already planned for in advance.Agadant (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been stable for months and I have not edited there. Then an anon IP with only 3 edits in 5 years showed up today with charges of NPOV and then Ronz appeared out of nowhere after a year away and now Keithbob who said a year ago he was done when an admin showed up to help balance the article. Agadant (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was, and remains, a horrid example on Wikipedia. Topic bans for a single article, however, rarely accomplish much. I would suggest, then, that the article be presented at DRN to discuss the amount of detail which is overtly promotional therein, with the goal of persuading Agadant that any further such promotional edits will not be viewed favourably by the community at large. If Agadant is not amenable to substantially reducing the amount of such material, then the issue of a topic ban would be ripe. Collect (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No one gives any valid or specific reasons that would hold up why this article has to be treated so differently than others that are not on so controversial a topic. From the start it's only been about delete material - never improve or help write anything better on the article. Only mostly nonspecific charges with massive deletions. This seems odd. Isn't an encyclopedia about giving information to readers not censoring it of keeping it very short and uninteresting. Agadant (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This has taken a lot of work to find and write up the edits that are listed here against me. Of course, what those editors did is not also listed . This Noticeboard incident didn't happen out of the blue today because of an anonymous and unexpected new charge today by the Anon IP and by Ronz then spotting it, and after a year of not appearing on the article agreeing with the Anon IP. Too coincidental. The same editors who attacked the article before are back and their side has been presented and prepared for this evidence to topic ban me. But since Cameron Scott has already been quoted here, it seems he changed his mind and later wrote this on my talkpage.:
    12/03/11 User:Cameron Scott "Sorry, I should have phrased this better - in the end (in regards to that article),I came to the conclusion that you were doing excellent work on that article and I was concerned that if you had slipped that in, it would give ammo to the people trying to get you removed from it - that's why I said it would give the 'appearance' not that I think you are a shill (I'm certain you are not - and yesterday, I got involved with someone shilling for someone quite famous in the UK, so they do exist :-) ). "--Cameron Scott (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)"[reply]
    Agadant (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Agadant, please do not change or add to my statements in this ANI thread as you have done here and here. If you wish to refute something, please do so in in your own section and under your own signature per WP:TALK. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought for the sake of honesty, you would want the correct link for Luisarfs to lead to his contributions as a WP:SPA working to get rid of the Web Sheriff article? Wouldn't you want it correctly shown? as here
    Agadant has shown a distinct lack of amenability to clear consensus for over a year, and continues to do so... a ban seems appropriate. ··gracefool☺ 03:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And you too again Gracefool? You were permitted to claim NPOV and bring it to the board without giving any specific claims against the article. No, it isn't Agadant's lack of amenability to clear consensus that is the cause of this. It's that an anti-piracy company's article is not welcome here on Wikipedia . Even doubling up, or bringing me and the article before several boards with false claims that the article is against various policies has not been successful. Because the claims are not based on truthful allegations. The whole gang has to reconvene here over a year later and claim consensus. LOL... Doesn't anyone here feel a little shame and guilt about these acts against one of your own fellow editors who has written over 80 articles and contributing to many more? Is this really what it has come to on Wikipedia? Is this why so many long term editors are leaving? Agadant (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Good question at the end there ... how many more editors are you going to drive away from Wikipedia with your fight mentality? Your possible good works can never excuse bad behaviour - nobody is supposed to get a free pass from the 5 pillars dangerouspanda 11:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I"ve driven no editor away with my BATTLE-fight mentality. Editors (all still around as evidenced here) have appeared on the article making unspecific charges and condemnations about my editing and the article. I have just contested and reviewed it and sometimes protested when my editing has been unfairly and unjustifiably (that's the main one) attacked by others. This is something anyone of character would do on Wikipedia or in real life. Does it say anywhere that we are not to contest or protest when hours and hours of our editing is being wiped out by editors who won't give specifics about problems or who gang up to form consensus. After 6 years, I have some idea about whether my editing violates policy and any comments I've made to other editors have been mild compared to what has been said to me. You make generalized and unspecific condemnations of me and give the impression you have had some encounter with me. You haven't Agadant (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems rather unusual to ask for a topic ban on a user who hasn't edited an article for three months. I was involved last year in mediating a discussion on looking for a neutral balance in the article. At that time I was aware that there were differences of opinion on how best to present the material, and feelings were running high. It appeared to me that during discussion the article made progress, and glancing over it again today I don't see significant problems. I don't think it's a great article, but it's not in such a condition that I would wish to topic ban anyone responsible for the way it is. Too much detail, yes. But that's an editing issue. An argument could be put forward that the article at times reads as though it is trying to persuade the reader that Web Sheriff are great guys. But another argument could be constructed that the article is reflecting what reliable sources are saying: that Web Sheriff are doing a difficult job quite well, and their approach is being appreciated. It may well be that the truth lies somewhere between these two arguments. It would be worth an independent editor going through and adjusting the tone in the article so that the facts remain the same, but readers are no longer left in doubt as to if the article is promotional. I have just made a start. Asking a neutral copy-editor to work on it, or even taking the matter to DRN seems more appropriate than discussing bans. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Silk Tork for your comments. The reason I have made this request now is because in the past few days the situation has begun to heat up again and I see the same scenario repeating itself once again. Here is the dynamic of the past couple of days:

    • On the Web Sheriff talk page [[66]:
      • 10/11/12 IP User 69.244.155.82: "Reading talk pages like this reminds me why I don't do anything other than minor edits. This article reads like an IP industry puff piece. If this is the best NPOV can get us, NPOV is being mis-interpreted." [67]
      • 10/11/12 User: Ronz “Following up to this comment above: I've left this article alone for some time now. Looking through it now, it continues to have the same problems: promotion, undue detail, use of poor or unreliable sources, improper use of primary sources, peacock terms and general puffery.”
      • 10/11/12 User: Agadant “A red flag goes up! Ronz, you left this article over a year ago, after making vague, unspecific charges and edits here at that time. Now, an anon IP who has made just 3 edits since 2007, appears with charges of NPOV against an article on a company that deals with disgruntled internet downloaders every day because of copyright infringement problems, whose founder has been called "the most hated man on the internet, as a title in an interview. An hour after the anon IP comments here, you once again make your appearance with your charges of many but unspecific problems on the article. Let's look at the promotion charge, for instance. That's unfounded and insulting. Have you or your fellow editors been noticing that I have been working on the article for the latest Van Morrison album? So, you're making it appear that I am promoting Web Sheriff and that there is a connection between my editing on that article and my previous editing on this one. Van Morrison did use Web Sheriff for his previous album to this 2012 one, and before I ever edited Web Sheriff. I have not seen any indication that he has used Web Sheriff to protect the current album. Search the internet and see if you can find one connection. So your charge of promotion is unfounded. I do not work for Web Sheriff or Van Morrison and the two are not connected at all. I edit Van Morrison articles because no one else does and I believe his work is important enough to be represented on Wikipedia. In the same manner I edited on this Web Sheriff article. Thanks, ”
      • 10/11/12 User: Ronz “Wow! Thanks for making the ip's point all the more clear.”
      • 10/11/12 User: Agadant: “Oh yeah, how's that? Your charges and replies are always so short and unexplained. You seem to think you don't have to be specific about anything. Is that typical on WP? Shouldn't you be able to if you really have something of substance to say and if you have valid complaints? “
    • On Agadant’s user talk page:[68]
      • 10/11/12 User: Agadant @ Ronz’s talk page: “The IP's comments were not specific and were POV motivated, I'm sure. He should not have been taken seriously by you. I can't answer you more than that, Ronz. Last time around on the Web Sheriff article attack, you were unfairly accusing me of edit warring, etc.. I usually don't remember negatives from one day to the next, but that was rather surprising and not soon forgotten.”
    • Oct. 12. 2012 comment from a new, uninvolved editor
      • 10/12/12 User: Drmies “excessive detail, so much of it that this reads as a promotional bit” [69]
    • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Talk to article talk page, or WP:DR. And Keithbob and Agadant -- please stop the back and forth here on ANI, it's not helpful. Nobody Ent 17:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As summarized by Keithbob in his original post, I have interacted with Agadant quite a lot in months past regarding the Web Sheriff article, and our interactions have been at times heated. I have ongoing concerns that Agadant's editing style discourages contributions by other editors, and have not missed the incessant claims of victimhood that were raised so many times on the WS talk pages and are being brought up here again. These concerns are not limited to Web Sheriff - similar issues can be found in the talk page archives at Van Morrison, for example. However, I do not see how an article ban can be justified when the Agadant has not edited the article in months. Even if this were being proposed last February or whenever the discussions were at their most heated, I am unconvinced that an article ban would have been the appropriate means of resolution. VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have much to add here other than observing that - despite many repeated cycles through various dispute resolution processes - Agadant has maintained an iron grip over Web Sheriff for the last 30 months, effectively owning the article through tenacious battleground editing. I don't expect this instance to change anything at all. aprock (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat

    Please see Talk:James Eagan Holmes#READ THIS FIRST regarding possible legal action. WWGB (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    From the talk page:

    Lastly, because I was offering you access to privileged firsthand information having to do with this case, if you do reinsert my comments again, I will go to my counties courthouse and file for an injunction against your organization reinserting my commentary due to the fact that my statement was probably filed under seal, and thus is still party to a standing gag order. BWCBENCERVS (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

    I know from the news that there is a gag order. There is the possibility that someone subject to the gag order might have posted here then removed it and we might have republished it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have emailed legal, but there is no information that establishes that there is an actual problem. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In any event, wikipedia is not in the business of publishing "first hand" information. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a few minutes ago, I blocked the editor who made the legal threat, although for other reasons. I arrived here at AN/I in order to comment and ask about this matter in what I presumed would be a new section: I had no idea that the talk page was already being discussed here.

    Holmes allegedly shot and killed a number of people at a cinema. Neither he nor the incident is of particular interest to me: memory tells me that my only involvement until very recently was to "!vote" to delete the article about him. Offhand I don't even know why the article has been on my watchlist. After a couple of weeks of very little activity at WP (and perhaps atrophying of my diplomatic skills), I glanced at the watchlist and noticed an edit to the talk page with an odd summary, and on 8 October posted a message that in retrospect strikes me as too tart (at least if I had the possibility of a future block by myself vaguely in mind).

    The particular editor seemed misinformed about Wikipedia policies and unwilling to be informed. After posting increasingly indignant messages he then claimed to have no further interest in WP and to take this as a justification to remove his earlier messages.

    Putting aside WP's relevant guidelines for a moment, this doesn't strike me personally as necessarily a bad approach: If a user's earlier comments have not been constructive, why indeed shouldn't he remove them and disappear?

    But unsurprisingly the removal was incomplete, and removed other editors' comments too, and in general was unsatisfactory (and not in keeping with WP guidelines). So I reverted it (though I concealed various comments between {{hat}} and {{hab}}). And, after a bit more toing and froing, I blocked the editor for one week.

    I invite some other admin to take a second look at the recent history of the talk page. In particular, any admin who thinks the block of one week is too long is welcome to shorten it without first asking me about it.

    NB the editor in question has already announced that if his deletions are reverted again he will re-delete them via some new account or IP number. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    PS Any admin wishing to hide, unhide, delete (in any sense of the word) or undelete anything that has been or is on that talk page may of course do so without asking me about the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you expand on the “toing and froing” remark? Because it sounds like you blocked someone over a dispute you were involved in, which is completely against policy, and if repeated, grounds for losing the admin bit. —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          02:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Toing and froing" was perhaps not the best phrase. I was thinking of a pendulum rather than a normal discussion. Look at the history of the page during this month to see (simply) a tussle between BWCBENCERVS and a number of editors, including myself, on what should be removed from the talk page. ¶ I'm puzzled by your allegation that this is a dispute that I was involved in. As I've said, the only involvement I can immediately think of is my "!vote" in the AfD, although the fact that the page was on my watchlist does suggest something beyond this. The single archive page of the talk page contains no mention of "Hoary". The current talk page doesn't show any involvement by me in substantive issues. No mention of "Hoary" in the list of the 500 most recent edits to the article itself, either. ¶ I do of course have at least the beginnings opinions on the event (or what I know of it), on the suspect, on gun control (or the lack of it) in the US, etc etc; as I'd guess do very many editors; but I don't remember having expressed these, let alone allowing them to influence either my contributions to the talk page or my block (which another admin is welcome to reconsider) of the editor. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That actually makes even less sense, because apparently then you blocked the editor for a single talk page violation without even a warning. —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          02:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this editor has been warned already and refuses to understand that we require RS to build articles.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          02:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help it if Hoary did not state his argument against the editor coherently. But looking at the talk page history more closely, it's very obvious that Hoary was engaged in the argument before the deletions, and as an involved editor, should not have taken any admin action. (And holy crap there are a lot of revdels on that page.) —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          03:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You state that it's "very obvious"; perhaps you can provide some evidence other than "looking at the talk page history"?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    His edit summaries (particularly the one that cites OR) make it pretty damned clear to me, but providing diff links won't work here because it's all been revdeled. —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          03:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You surprise me. Here's the list of edit summaries. (Apologies if I missed one or two: feel free to point out any mistake.)
    • Arbitrary Section Break 2: merge
    • Reverted edits by 108.69.252.105 (talk) to last version by Bbb23
    • Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: BWCBENCERVS should knock it off.
    • Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: Please take "OR" elsewhere.
    • reverting a set of deletions (and incidentally removing an addition or two, which I'll readd)
    • Background section: readding material I deleted just now
    • Background section: on truth, etc
    • Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: moving comments where they belong
    • Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: on tampering with existing comments
    • Undid revision 517133551 by 75.71.183.88 (talk)
    • The Red Light Camera Ticket: putting under hat/hab
    • Motive: putting between hat + hab
    • restoring to state preceding the latest removal (by a newly blocked editor) of material
    • CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Are they newsworthy?
    Engaged in which argument? Or is a request to take "OR" elsewhere an "involvement" not befitting administration, and/or a reason for the admin not to block the particular editor? -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What was needed was to advise the editor removing the defamatory material to contact OTRS for suppression of the defamatory material. Removing it, adding it back, removing it again, adding it back again several times has resulted in suppression of great deal more edits that is optimal. Unsourced defamatory material needs to be removed immediately and stay removed. I have, I hope, suppressed it all, if more is found please contact me by email or use OTRS. For what it is worth, my impression is that Hoary's actions were taken in good faith; it is a rather subtle point that a person known to have engaged in mass killing might be defamed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the inferral of good faith. I didn't pay enough attention to the content of the material. My (insufficient) hunch was that as long as it didn't finger other specific people or do other things that WP:BEANS constrains me from listing here, it would, in the bigger picture, be just so much hot air. (The person is, after all, somebody about plenty of other websites are bubbling over with virulent commentary.) The material could soon be hidden (a task that I started) or deleted (by somebody a lot more knowledgable than myself about what could reasonably be termed defamatory). Yes, I did and do realize that it is possible to defame somebody who has confessed to crimes. I'll take a different approach in future. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Material being constantly added back into MassResistance

    With this edit, User:Insomesia has added back into an article a new addition which has not obtained consensus. A new section was added on 6 October, and almost immediately challenged. The discussion about inclusion was closed as no consensus. There was then a discussion about whether the lack of consensus meant the material should be removed. I sought advice at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#What to do when there is no consensus. It seems very clear that, on this point, the article should revert to the last consensus version, and I made the change with this edit. However, this has been reverted by User:Insomesia on the basis that there was "no consensus to remove". This seems to be an impossible situation, and I don't want to edit war, so I thought I'd post it here. Could someone help, please? StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not sure what to do at ANI, and will leave to other opinions, but this does look like more than a content issue, and more like a POV and a bit of a coatrack issue. That undue tag seems completely appropriate, and that section does seem to be inappropriate. The Mitt Romney section above doesn't look much better, seems more of a political coatrack than an encyclopedia article in many sections. Looks like it needs a major trimming. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Need someone objective to look at that closer, I'm heading out, but I can understand the concern here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could buy that it's too long, but as it's directly related to the mission of the organization, it's hard to see any justification that it's a coatrack. —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          03:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't how we decide on material. Arguably, everything you can imagine that violates WP:COATRACK is about the subject in one way or another. That isn't the standard. WP:UNDUE is certainly a consideration. The article seems to focus a great deal on tangent issues, focusing on the negative info itself rather than the actual group itself. That is what COATRACK is all about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Have you considered engaging in a discussion on the talk page and trying to reach a compromise, or proposing an alternative rewrite of the content in question? It doesn't really seem helpful to constantly revert the entire blocks of content until you run out of legal reverts and then forum shop for an admin to intervene. This is a content issue that a friendly negotiation on the talk page could easily solve. Of course, we have to be careful not to confuse consensus building with stonewalling. – MrX 02:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I was the one who started the discussion at Talk:MassResistance#Robocalls, and I started Talk:MassResistance#Robocalls redux. WP:Stonewalling is a red herring - we had a discussion, and it closed as "no consensus". And please don't accuse me of forum shopping - I have not raised this at any other noticeboard, other than Wikipedia talk:Consensus, as mentioned above. StAnselm (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK,whatever you say. – MrX 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right - I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, when we had both agreed the discussion had ended. But what is your second diff all about? That's the very posting I have twice mentioned above. Why would you engage in such silly innuendo? StAnselm (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just my (silly?) opinion that there may be an over-dependence on process, when simple collegial discussion would solve most of these content disputes. Of course, it requires flexibility from all concerned. – MrX 03:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, do you care to explain why you wikilinked "whatever you say" above? StAnselm (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, first you use edit summaries for discussion instead of the talk page, then you revert on the basis that there is ongoing discussion (which is not supported by policy), then you misapply WP:STATUSQUO and also seem to imply that your opinion in consensus, and then after the RfC fails to reach consensus, you try to edit war the content out under the false premise that no consensus makes that legitimate, then when that fails because you reach 3 reverts, you bring it to WP:ANI. Did I miss anything, other than what your complaint is about? —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When the section was first added, I removed it, giving a reason. It was then added back in, in considerably expanded form, and I removed it again. I asked MrX to discuss it on the talk page, which is what an editor would normally do, following BRD. But in actual fact, I started the talk page discussion myself, two minutes later. So you are seriously misinterpreting my edits. Let me also get this straight: there has never been a consensus to have a robocalls section in the article. Why did you add the material back in when there was no consensus to include it? StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted your deletion because your reason (as stated in the edit summary) is simply not supported by policy. One does not need to get consensus to add well sourced material to Wikipedia. And BTW, the reason the RfC didn't reach consensus is that someone closed it way too early, when only a few people had commented—shockingly, mostly the same people who have been involved in this latest round. The fact that you edit warred against three different editors ought to make it clear that the problem is perhaps you. —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          04:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I turned down the first request for closure. But closed it as no consensus after a third party requested it. I stand by my statement that it didn't need closure. I felt that the request for closure was simply being used as a tool to further a particular POV and not to request a neutral editor summarize a long or complex discussion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you miss out on the discussion? Did you have arguments up your sleeve that you didn't get a chance to present? I asked for closure because the material had been added back in with a consensus proclaimed. Yes, I am happy to admit that I have posted here because I was up against three different editors - it was an edit war I was always going to "lose". But it doesn't follow, and nor do I concede, that the problem is me. StAnselm (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    RfCs aren't about you and me. They're normally left open so that other uninvolved people have a chance to review the situation—it's a large part of the reason for starting a RfC in the first place. Requesting a premature close prevents that. As for bringing to ANI, fine, now that you've admitted to an inappropriate reason for bringing it here, take it elsewhere (perhaps DRN). —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          04:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand. First of all, there was no RfC. Secondly, this posting is not about content, but about process. MrX added back the section here on the basis that "sourced content can remain until and unless a consensus forms to remove it". Now, my issue with this is that the material in question was newly added. Surely "no consensus" in this case means that the material should remain out of the article until a consensus is reached. Thirdly, the "premature close" came about because a couple of editors felt that a consensus had been reached, and put the material back in. Which would have been fine, if a consensus to include had been reached, but the editor closing the discussion said this was not the case. StAnselm (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the first time that Insomesia has EW with the same faulty "no consensus to remove argument". Im not surpsied to find that other editors also consider the edit to be POV, as this has gone hand in hand with such edits.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          03:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's also not the first time that StAnselm has edit warred on the false premise of "no consensus to add". —Kerfuffler  thunder
    plunder          03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you agree with what WP:CON says? If new material is added and there is no consensus to add it, then it is removed. If existing material is removed and there is no consensus to remove it, then it is added back in. Do you agree with that? Do you think that I've made ever edit that is contrary to that? I probably have, but I cannot recall any specific situation. Can you jog my memory with a diff? StAnselm (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the latest round of content dispute in which StAnselm and a few others, including an apparent regular on ANI, have deleted content on articles dealing with anti-gay hate groups. Mr X. has shown extreme patience in sourcing and restoring and trying to reason with these editors and unfortunately we've had to resort to a string of RfC's to get material restored again and again. I was about to start two more RfCs when this popped up on my talk page. So I guess we'll again waste the community's time with yet another RfC to hopefully end the edit warring. I suppose this is how every round will go but it does seem tiresome when it amounts to just StAnselm and one or two others tag-teaming to delete this content across multiple articles, which is then upheld by community consensus to keep and restore. Insomesia (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaint by indefblocked ru:user:Serge-kazak

    Nothing to see here. Move along. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    == Smotrov's vandalism ==

    Alex Smotrov's vandalism == − Please stop the vandalism of a US resident Alex Smotrov, the self-proclaimed "administrator of Russian Wikipedia, appointed by Wikipedia Foundation and US Wikipedia administrators to supervise Russian Wikipedia". His already excluded from the Ukraininan Wikipedia for wild vandalism "Circassian Cossacks" ("Circular Ass Cossacks") place vandal articles to Russian Wikipedia to emphasise the need for the secession of the US states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and their union with Southern Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Western Georgia and Siberia in the would-be independent state of "Circassia". All articles relevant to Ukraininan, Russian, Georgian and US history are edited by "Circassian Cossacks" in this way according to the World War II "Circassian" Nazi propaganda. The only neutral view is the view between Rosenberg (Nikuradze) and Himmler, in Smotrov's opinion. All Cossacks, enlisted to the US army, have been declared traitors by Smotrov and his self-proclaimed "Circassian Cossacks", supporting Al-Qaeda and Taleban claims to wage a holy war against the USA, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia to create the "Circassian emirate" after the victory of allied Al-Qaeda, Taleban and "Circassian Cossacks" . This is why the US President Roosevelts, the author of "Cossack history" Gordeev, Pushkin, Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, Grushevsky, Zabelin etc. etc. have been proclaimed traitors as well. They delete even discussions. Alex Smotrov has turned Russian Wikipedia into al-Qaeda's one, pretending to act on behalf of Wikipedia Foundation from the USA and US Wikipedia adminisrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.227.194 (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We have no power over the Russian Wikipedia here (in fact, the great majority of us can't even read it). You need to pursue whatever vandalism/dispute procedures they use over there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember to notify users when you start a topic about them at AN/I. In this instance, I have done it for you. – Richard BB 07:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And what they write is sheer trash anyway, not really worth discussing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Alex Smotrov is falsely claiming to act on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation then that is a rather serious matter and the Foundation should be notified. --62.25.109.204 (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      We've had all sorts of impersonators here at en.Wikipedia, and we just block them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Starting from 178.66.227.194 then following "current blocks" and replacing "en" with "ru" you could easily find the range block for 178.66.0.0/16 and the fact that user Serge-kazak was indefblocked 3 months ago. The only true part in the rant above is that all of his edits are now reverted (by a number of people). The rest is something that happened only in his own mind. P.S. Changed the topic title since this conversation was not supposed to be here in the first place. — AlexSm 18:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    wikihounded

    No admin action is required against the pizza cheese "freedom fighters" or "jihadists"; if anyone feels that there are behavioral issues in need of further scrutiny, I suggest filing an WP:RFC/U. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I believe I'm the victim of Wikipedia:Harassment by user Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At Talk:Before Watchmen he appears to have checked my contributions just to follow me somewhere in violation of the WP:WIKIHOUNDING rules so I questioned him about that [70], pointing out his wording seemed like he was carrying a disagreement we had elsewhere over to there. The conversation over to my talk page at User_talk:Dream_Focus#October_2012. He refuses to answer me on how he found his way there, trying to change the subject and stating "Oh, I'm gonna keep ignoring your question, here OR there". He often states his dislike for the Article Rescue Squadron, which I am an active part of, and his desires to get rid of it. After posting on my talk page, he went to the talk page of someone else who seems to equally dislike us, and stated his desire to be rid of the ARS and to "topic-ban the one to three most egregious editors" [71] and I'm sure I'm one of those three. Please read the brief interaction on the Before Watchmen talk page, and then the bit on my talk page, before commenting. I want some opinions on his behavior please. Dream Focus 09:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Off topic for this thread, but there does seem to be an air of resentment against the Article Rescue Squadron, which I noticed when Pizza cheese got AfDed recently. Although I suggested "merge" and argued a lot of sources were inappropriate, I think enough was found eventually to tip the balance in favour of "Keep". However, if the ARS aren't finding quality sources to satisfy a keep !vote, they need help and support in improving their processes, not bashing them over the head as "the enemy". Likewise, I think the "I got Pizza cheese kept" userboxes that Purplebackpack mentioned are a special case of WP:STICK - you won the debate, now move on. The groups need to work together without mutual taunting. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That merge discussion is still ongoing on the talk page. I saw Milowent giving me a banner that declared me a "Pizza Cheese Freedom Fighter" as a joke, it not saying anything anywhere about "I got Pizza cheese kept". Dream Focus 10:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • His problems with Milowent's sense of humor had nothing to do with me at all. Dream Focus 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point I'm trying to make is I think everyone has got a bit carried away and just needs to chill out, and remember that arguments need to be made on policy, and throwing insults either towards the ARS or from them outwards is generally counter-productive towards building an encyclopaedia. It's round about now I give everyone a really, really cute picture of a cat and ask everyone to think soothing, relaxing thoughts. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was simply mentioning the work I do with the ARS is a possible reason he was after me. Reading the brief dialog exchange on the Before Watchmen talk page and on my talk page, do you believe he was in violation of the wikihounding rule? Dream Focus 11:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm all for more cats. Since I see myself mentioned, I'll quickly chime in that the "pizza cheese freedom fighter" box is obviously a joke. Its no different than the longstanding heavy metal band picture on my userpage with the caption "ARS meetup August 2010, stoked after indiscriminately voting keep on hundreds of non-notable articles." Editors are going to disagree strongly on some issues, but let's not forget we're all still human. Unfortunately a few editors have recently resorted to calling ARS a "hellhole" and such things over one disagreement, and claiming we're simply canvassing every AfD. Such behavior is extremely uncivil, but I'll survive. I've improved too many articles and found common ground with "deletionists" too often to get upset. As for the topic of this ANI thread, its obvious Purplebackpack89 followed Dream's recent contribs to come over there. I'm not going to read all the rules on whether that's proper, but my common sense view is that its not necessarily bad as long as one is constructive when they arrive there and act in true good faith, so just admit how you found it. But when you come over just to be contrary (which is probably the temptation), that's not constructive.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close as a load of hot air: This appears to be nothing than a thrice-blocked editor trying to get even with someone who disagrees with him. There isn't enough evidence to suggest WikiHounding; if I were so minded I could probably find a diff or two that suggests Dream is WikiHounding me. I don't really understand why I'm commenting on this thread anyway; nothing will come of it and I don't owe him any explanation pbp 13:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasam Oh look, it's a discussion about one of the most drama inducing wikiprojects in en.WP. DreamFocus, accept that because your activities and viewpoints are going to draw scrutiny of your edits. Scrutiny is not Hounding. If people are using valid reasoning for their viewpoint, you can disagree but that's not a reason to pick apart every single viewpoint that you oppose. I'm not seeing any particular pattern of following you around in PBP's recent history, so please feel free to provide a more defined string of events that shows this. Just as ARS's "notification" list can be used to mobilize for saving an article, it can also be used for mobilizing to delete an article. Perhaps the reason why both of you showed up on the same article is because there was an entry on the same notification list. Please Assume Good Faith on the part of others untill it is demonstrated that there is none. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm amazed at how much aggression there is towards the ARS. Can somebody explain to me, with reference to Wikipedia policies, what the key problems are with it, and what we can do to fix it? I've mentioned one - throwing lots of sources at an AfD without checking their integrity - what else? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if you make Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron a focus of your editing activity, you will constantly run into the others who also do, pro or con. Taunting, which repetition of what might be called content free slogans or "battlecries" such as "passing GNG doesn't preclude merger" might be considered, is inappropriate. Win, lose, or draw, after each epic struggle, all participants must be willing, after a brief celebration, or a short but bitter cry, to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Serious wikihounding where someone is constantly followed, contradicted, denigrated is of a different order of magnitude. If you chose to engage in an activity which will predictably result in minor, or even major, slights from time to time, you should be prepared to carry on bravely ignoring the minor hurts you may suffer from time to time. No action is recommended, other than to find another activity if you are thin-skinned. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor deleting posts on article talk pages

    Portillo (talk · contribs) has been deleting posts from article talk pages with no explanation. Although he hasn't done this again since I posted to his talk page about this yesterday, he didn't reply and is still editing. Recent deletions include [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. Most if not all of the edits he is deleting appear to be religious-related and possibly pov. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Your first link is to the talk page not the difference: should be [78] Dream Focus 10:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; this isn't on per the talk page guidelines, and I've reverted a couple. When reverting these edits, make sure to add "rv" or "undid" to the edit summary, to avoid the wrath of SineBot. Addition of "!nosign!" to the edit summary will also do the trick. However some of the removals are OK IMO, like this one. Graham87 10:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And still no response from him. He has however removed my request that he stop doing this. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Request topic ban of User:Novaseminary for persistent disruptive editing at Douglas Tait (stuntman)

    User:Novaseminary has tried unsuccessfully to get the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP deleted twice before. Here, and here. But having failed at deletion twice, for two years now, Novaseminary has also failed at WP:LETITGO. He persistently challenges the BLP's notability and threatens to start a 3rd deletion attempt. He also regularly violates WP:DE. He edit wars and disruptively edits almost on a daily basis, pushes POV, attacks other articles because they are mentioned in the BLP, creates suspect disambig stubs, insists on irrelevant or dated edits, violates OR, uses citation tags to edit war, like here, here, here and here, removes sourced quotes and attacks and fights to include and spreads unflattering and irrelevant material about the BLP's subject over several editor's objections.

    But Novaseminary is also knowledgeable of WP rules. So knowledgeable that he uses WP to argue & defend his indefensible actions, even as he ignores all the WP rules & policies that his tendentious editing violates. He cites the rules that give him cover, and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive. Recommend an immediate topic ban. Not just for the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP, but for all the articles sourced in the BLP. Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article would probably benefit from both these editors leaving it alone. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fact is, unless admins enforce it, don't count on it. Otherwise I wouldn't have had to come here. I've suggested several times that Novaseminary just take a Wikibreak from the article. He refused. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this at WP:RFPP and have spent more time than I'm willing to admit looking through it all. 3RR violations from dynampic IPs are really disruptive, but similarly I think we can do without Noveseminary's bizarre obsession with this person. I'm going to give Novaseminary time to respond, but I strongly lean towards a topic ban for both users. – Steel 00:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • You know what? I'll accept that. If Novaseminary is topic banned, I'll voluntarily self-ban. My only request is that the last edit before the ban is monitored/reviewed by uninvolved 3rd party/parties to insure no Novaseminary POV. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it reasonable to have my integrity questioned and my edits reverted because I am an ip?

    As [here] 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to think that an IP address which has no edits and then suddenly starts editing the Manual of Style during a contentious argument is in fact a registered user who happens to be editing while logged out. If you do not already have an account, it is easy to make one (although as I said it is surprising that your very first edit on Wikipedia was to the Manual of Style). If you already have a registered account and are editing while logged out, that is tolerated to some extent, but of course it editors may not find it very respectable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply, Carl. Could you answer my question? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in that link that appears to be any sort of question regarding your integrity because you're an IP editor. Perhaps you provided the wrong link or I missed something? Doniago (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, you missed the edit summary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Carl answered your question in his first word. – Richard BB 13:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe he answered a different question in his first word. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I question the integrity of IP editors and revert their edits frequently. Neither is strictly because the user in question is an IP, but rather than the bulk of IP edits are utter crap, and their reasons for editing as an IP are steeped in bad-faith and deception. Hopefully that answers the question. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you not feel it would be better to revert edits solely on their merits? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would, but editors are human and make mistakes, which is especially easy when so many IPs do nothing but vandalise and troll. If you only want to edit WP as an IP, you have to accept that sort of discrimination will just happen, and handle it. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to differ on that one, Richie. I don't believe that ips should have to accept discrimination from admins or anyone else, and I don't believe it's possible to discriminate by "mistake". 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who appears to be a new user can have their integrity questioned, IP or otherwise, as long as everyone is civil, doesn't bite the (supposed) newbie and follows the correct policy and guidelines. If you happen to be on an IP that gets recycled, then, well sorry but we've got no way of knowing your previous contributions, and you can't easily prove another IP was you. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind I would like to keep this discussion open for further input. It has hardly been open 5 minutes. I disagree with the notion that it is reasonable to question the integrity of an editor simply because he is an ip, and I would like to hear further input. My main concern, which nobody has addressed, is that I was reverted twice: as above, and also [here], simply because I'm an ip. Is that reasonable? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I contest the premise, namely, that it was "solely" or "simply" because the edits were from an IP. There appear to be several other factors at play, which Carl captured nicely in his original response. JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Without looking into the matter too deeply, it appears to be an edit-warring issue more than an IP issue? 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the issue is here. Noetica's edit summaries seem to be valid enough for the RfC to be closed; a competent and experienced editor closed an RfC that yielded no consensus. You undid it (your first edits were to the MoA article as a whole, which seems suspicious), and Kwamikagami rightfully commented that you may be a logged-out user. So, yes, Carl did answer your question. – Richard BB 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that an RfC was [closed] by an uninvolved editor. There was nothing at all wrong with the closure. Noetica reverted the closure, demanding that it be closed by an Admin. Discussion ensued on the talk page, and the overwhelming consensus was that Noetica had no right to demand closure by an Admin. Therefore, the original closure should stand. This morning K [closed] the RfC with a different decision to the original. If that second closure is allowed to stand, then we are opening the floodgates for any involved editor to undo an RfC closure which he dislikes, and demand it be closed by someone else. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If you remove the word "anonymous" from the edit summary (and it took me about 30 seconds to find out you're in the UK, and you're a Plusnet broadband customer, so you're perhaps not as anonymous as you might think), the premise for the revert is just as valid. Another editor disagreed with your edit and gave a legitimate reason for reverting it. Take it to the talk page if you disagree. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am entirely aware that as an ip I am not anonymous, whereas those of you who are signed in are. Thanks very much for posting my details to ani. You don't seem to have noticed that the edits we're discussing are on the talk page. 14:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    Your question is disingenuous, 146.90. You weren't questioned simply because you are editing as an IP. You were questioned because your only contributions on this IP relate to a contentious MOS debate and you show a far greater understanding of Wikipedia than a new editor would - including running straight to ANI. In truth, if you had registered a SPA sock instead of simply editing logged out you would have faced the exact same questions. Resolute 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This snarky comment: "(Undid revision 517379871 Undoing a revert founded entirely on ad hominem. Welcome to WP! We can't allow editors to continue reverting a valid RfC closure until they have a result they like.)" seems provocative enough to result in this response: "(Undid revision 517388417 by 146.90.43.8 (talk) why do we have anon. IPs edit warring over this? at least have the integrity to sign in.)" Neither would be acceptable as habitual behavior. I would simply write this off as an unfortunate incident. I realize someone could have been editing here for many years without creating an account, but making substantive comments based on long experience requires using your registered account in order that they may be seen in context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I shouldn't have written "Welcome to WP", but I absolutely stand by the Ad Hominem remark. Noetica has successfully overturned an entirely legitimate RfC based simply on the non-admin status of the closing editor. He is now removing my edits based on my status as an ip. That is not he way WP is supposed to work. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To 146.90, I have no strong feeling over whether or not it was OK to revert you on the grounds of the content of your edit. Your edit summary was unnecessarily snarky and might have invited a knee-jerk reversion just fot that. I do think that the answer to the narrower question of "should my edits be reverted just because I'm an IP" is a definite NO. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit does not require that anyone creates an account to do so. merely strongly encourages it. However if you make potentially controversial edits with snarky edit summaries, I'm afraid your IP status probably is going to be a factor in another editor's decisoin to revert or not. The deciding factor will be the quality of your edit however, not your status. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Kim, I accept that the remark seems to have come across as snarky, and so I shouldn't have made it. But as I mentioned above I was actually trying to make a point with that remark. An RfC has been overturned based on editor status. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it's not reasonable; the edit summary comment is contrary to longstanding policy that registration is not required to edit. I've left a note on the editor's talk page asking them not to do that in the future (unfortunately, current software does not allow edit summary comments to be edited).Nobody Ent 17:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I'm not seeing evidence the reversion was inappropriate. Nobody Ent 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The situation here seems relatively clear that this is an experienced editor using an IP address as a sockpuppet, not a novice IP editor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • A Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#sockpuppet? Not clear to me. Policy says if you suspect a puppet file a WP:SPI, not to declare the editor non grata. Nobody Ent 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a longtime editor here, you should know full well that SPI's involving IP's are always rejected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why? I'm a longterm editor here (AN & ANI), not there (SPI). So if someone suspects an IP editor is returning editor but can't id the regular account, it's simply guilty as suspected? Nobody Ent 01:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Checkusers will never comment on IP's. It's against the rules. However, if the IP here would level with us instead of jerking us around, he could regain the good faith that he's destroyed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody, the reason I feel that the revert was inappropriate is that I asked here that Kwamikagami explain why the initial RfC should not stand. Kwamikagami ignored that request completely, citing as the reason for his revert only my status as an ip. The RfC had already been closed here . If Kwamikagami is not going to allow that initial closure to stand, then I believe it is incumbent upon him to explain why. If he can't explain why, then the initial closure should stand. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the timeline:

    1. Nathan Johnson closes the RfC as consensus in favour.
    2. Noetica, who was deeply involved throught the RfC, reverts, claiming that the RfC should be closed by an admin.
    3. Discussion ensues on the talk page. The overhwelming consensus is that Noetica had no right to require that the RfC be close by an admin.
    4. I make the changes to MoS based on Nathan's closure, and am reverted by editors who !voted against the change.
    5. Kwamikagami re-closes the RfC as no-consenus.
    6. I revert Kwamikagami asking him to explain why Nathan's closure should not stand.
    7. Noetica reverts me because I am an inexperienced ip, and Kwamikagami is an experienced editor.
    8. I revert Noetica because my status as an ip is irrelevant.
    9. Kwamikagami reverts me because I am an ip.

    I would like that Nathan's original closure to stand. It was a perfectly valid closure, reverted by a heavily involved editor. If it doesn't stand, then we're saying that it's okay for involved editors to revert a valid RfC closure if they're not happy without the result. Allowing that will result in chaos. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No you didn't ask Kwamikagami anything, you made an unenforceable demand in an edit summary. If you wish to ask a Wikipedia something, use their talk page. Nobody Ent 20:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "This RfC has already been closed. If you feel the previous closure was invalid, please explain why, and say how your closure rectifies the faults in the last one.". Whether that counts as asking or demanding, is it not a reasonable request? Kwamikagami was overriding the previous closure. Does it not merit a response that is not simply a reference to my status as an ip? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    then we're saying that it's okay for involved editors to revert a valid RfC closure if they're not happy without the result. Isn't that what you did in steps 6 and 8 of your timeline above? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No it absolutely is not. If Kwamikagami had been closing the initial RfC, then I wouldn't have dreamt of reverting him. Seriously. All of my reversions are attempting to back to the initial, valid, closure. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole "because I'm an IP" sounds a bit like "Is it cos I iz black?" As Nobody Ent said, use the talk page. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I'm bothered about the ip thing is that it is being used as a means to avoid accountability. Instead of responding to very valid questions about why he has ignored a perfectly legitimate RfC closure, Kwamikagami has simply told me to go away because I'm an ip. I couldn't care less about the condescending remarks and the impugning of my integrity per se. What I do care about is him using them to push through an against-consensus change into the Mos. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    146, if the RFC was closed and the changes were made by you and you were reverted, it appears there was no consensus. So, closing it as "no consensus" seems appropriate. By reverting those closures, which go against changes you had made to the MoS, your argument seems to float into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. Go to the talk page and start another discussion. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. There was whole RfC which ran for several weeks and involved umpteen editors. That's were the consensus was decided. The editors reverting me are a small subset of all of those involved in the RfC. The argument that you're using is the very same one that they are using. Three or four editors who opposed the change have decided that there is not consensus between themselves to accept the result of the RfC, and are reverting the changes that it brought about. If they're allowed to get away with it, then they've just invented a new way for a small group of editors, unhappy with the result of an RfC in which they participated, to sabotage it. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the number of editors who raise the issue, but the validity of the argument. You seem to view that your side "won" and that discussion should be closed marking your victory. I recommend you either request specific administrative action to be carried out by an admin against an offending party, or you return to the talk page and open or continue discussion about this topic. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, listen to the wise IP dangerouspanda 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Nobody is saying that it's the number of editors that count. What I am saying is that after the RfC is over, a small number of those editors who participated in it should not be allowed to prevent the changes brought about by the RfC from being put in to effect. What I want to establish is whether we should allow an involved editor to revert the legitimate closure of RfC an by an uninvolved editor. I say that we shouldn't, and if we do we're undermining the entire RfC process. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    192.76.82.90, would you mind saying whether or not you have participated in the process that we are discussing? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to think that an IP address which has no edits and then suddenly starts editing the Manual of Style during a contentious argument is in fact a registered user who happens to be editing while logged out." That's an unreasonable accusation as well as innacurate. There was an RFC. IPs may participate. They may make edits to the manual of Style based on the closing as any editor may do. If you feel an editor is Sockpuppeting then make the accusation properly and show the diffs and whatever evidence you have. It is no more reasonable to accuse an IP of misbehavior than a registered user without proof.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (od) Since my 'reasonable' close of this discussion was undone.An IP editor whose edits are almost exclusively to MOS should expect to have his/her integrity questioned, without prejudice of course. Do note that no one, not even kwami, is questioning the right of IP editors to edit without registering an account. All that the edit summary was saying was that this one IP editor is likely to be a registered editor hiding behind an IP. --regentspark (comment) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He used the edit summary to talk about me, conveniently avoiding using it for its proper purpose, which is to explain his edit. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to be clear about your complaint. If you want to know whether his assumption was reasonable, it is fairly clear that the community believes it was reasonable. I note that you're also using this thread as a forum for reverting the RfC close. That's better done on the appropriate talk pages. --regentspark (comment) 22:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I always feel a little bad when I disagree with you RP as I have agreat deal of respect for your work. However, as I understand it, using the edit summary to make an unfounded accusation such as this is not appropriate and could lead to sanctions. Is it possible that the IP is a registered user, not logged in? Perhaps? But as I understand, there needs to be evidence of the sort and using the edit summary to make a claim as such goes against WP:REVTALK, which states: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." Per a recent discussion with Dennis Brown: "Being logged out and editing isn't a violation of socking. Using that as an advantage is. This means voting twice in a poll like RfC or AfD, or using it to bypass 3RR, or in some other way that would make it looks you were two people when you are really one, like in a simple article talk page discussion about content."--Amadscientist (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My complaint is that I'm being prevented from implementing the changes that should have come into effect when Nathan closed the RfC here. Instrumental in that is Kwamikagami who has changed the result of the RfC and is refusing to discuss why. What I would like from admins is opinions on whether Nathan's closure should stand and, if it should stand, help in making the change to the article. "Take it to the talk page" is not really an option because the talk page is now inhabited by a small number of editors who took part in the RfC and are unhappy with the outcome. There is a consensus among those editors, a small subset of all those involved in the RfC, that the RfC should not be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    146, WP:STICK. WP:POINT. Nothing will come by arguing here. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You might well be right, but I hope not. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you are discussing a content dispute. If your contributions were excluded and you feel this was done in an improper manner the best venue would be DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Back to the original question... When an editor's very first edit is something like this,[79] it is right and proper to be suspicious of the editor - be it an IP or a redlink or whatever. It practically screams "wikipedia abuser". And griping about it reinforces that suspicion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, exactly what is so suspicious? I am suspicious of a number of editors. So what? It is only when you express suspicions in an innappropriate manner that an issue arises. What in the edit or edit summary was incorrect....or is it that it WASN'T incorrect that gives editors pause? The editor was correct. RFCs do not require an admin closing. If the RFC has become contentious and a request for admin closing was made, then I could understand the problem. Did this have an request for admin closing?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Years of experience indicate that when someone shows up from nowhere, and their first edits are complaints about something on a WP page, that practically screams "Sockpuppet!" However, if the OP reveals some of the other user ID's and/or IP's he's edited under, he could gain some credibility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd have bothered to read the discussion that you're commenting on, you'd have seen that I self-identified as a different ip address who had commented on the RfC. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry but I've re-opened this for further input. Nobody closed it with " Opinions vary on questioning the integrity of the IP but there's a clear consensus this is not the place to argue about the RFC close." Well, if you search through the discussion you will see that almost nobody has commented on the RfC closure. There certainly isn't a consensus. Ip 192.76.82.90 had very strong opinions on the matter, but he disappeared when asked whether or not he was an involved party. Sorry for beating the drum, but either we have an RfC procedure or we don't. We shouldn't let an involved editor overturn a valid RfC closure. To re-iterate:

    My complaint is that I'm being prevented from implementing the changes that should have come into effect when Nathan closed the RfC here. Instrumental in that is Kwamikagami who has changed the result of the RfC and is refusing to discuss why. What I would like from admins is opinions on whether Nathan's closure should stand and, if it should stand, help in making the change to the article. "Take it to the talk page" is not really an option because the talk page is now inhabited by a small number of editors who took part in the RfC and are unhappy with the outcome. There is a consensus among those editors, a small subset of all those involved in the RfC, that the RfC should not be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The concept of non-admin closes is that non-admins should not close controversial issues, nor those where WP:CONSENSUS is not 100% obvious. The first close by a non-admin on a contentious topic was not valid, and as such, nothing from their close should have been considered as implementable. The valid close - and at first glance from a first reading of the entire RFC - shows that the admin close of no-consensus was correct. So, this has nothing to do with you as an IP, it has to do with someone closing an RFC improperly, and setting inappropriate expectations for other editors such as yourself dangerouspanda 10:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're right about that, then I'll drop the stick, because as you say, the initial closure was invalid. There was a long discussion on the talk page about whether or not it is permissible to demand that an admin close an RfC. The discussion included editors and several admins. The overwhelming consensus was that it is not permissible, any uninvolved editor may close any RfC. Any RfC can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding that the essay in the link you provided refers to closures of deletion debates. It was agreed in the MoS discussion that it is permissible to ask for admin closures in deletion debates, but not in RfCs, as the RfC page makes explicit. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of content from article

    The article for Bishop George Ahr High School has been hit over the past 24 hours with a wave of dozens of edits from new users. As with this recent edit, many of the changes have been to remove material regarding the arrest of a swim coach at the school. That edit by User:Jcullinan had the summary of "Removed objectionable/unlawful material. As the case still has an open file, posting information as if it was concluded is a violation of terms of use and NJ law", while another edit by User:Rhghes2137 claimed that the material was removed "as it is an unauthorized usage of the school's information policy." Even with the page being semi-protected, the problems continue and further reverts don't appear to be likely to end the problem. I have left explanatory messages / warnings at User talk:Rhghes2137 and User talk:Wavesurferx54, but there doesn't seem to be any interest in meaningful communication, as evidenced by this edit by Rhghes2137 who added the text "My username is Alansohn and I am a hypocrite." to my comment on his talk page. Any ideas? Alansohn (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:BLP1E, it probably makes sense to keep the information off until more clarity of how important it is to add becomes necessary, if this is over this the arrest of a coach. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it is a violation of BLP; the coach has confessed to the crimes. – Richard BB 14:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Factual issues with respect to the school have been resolved, see http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2011/a1306-10-0.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    First of all, no one should have been editing your comment. That is childish and unhelpful.

    Regarding the material in question: in addition to my stated objections on comment pages regarding the lawfullness of posting articles related to the sexual activities of minors and local laws regarding cases still going through the appeals process, I feel very strongly that putting the issue on the school's Wikipedia page (especially under its own header) is at its best too weighty for what is supposed to be an unbiased list of facts regarding a school and at its worst a biased attack on the institution. References to these articles would be better served on a "list of accused NJ teachers" or some other Wikipedia page - not the page that is supposed to give unbiased factes about the institution. At the very worst it should be mentioned within the Athletics section, but truly I believe it too weighty and biased to be included on an informational page. Jcullinan (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would like to clarify that "unbiased" does not mean "non-negative". Negative subjects can and must be presented in from a neutral point of view. The article in question does not have to be a list of facts regarding the school. If the school were to come under intense scrutiny in the press for some action of theirs, the action's inclusion in the article would be perfectly valid, even if the basis of the scrutiny turned out to be non-factual. The scrutiny itself in the media would be an event. So long as neutral point of view were maintained, it would likely be acceptable in the article.
    • However, in this case while the teacher and student were both directly involved with the school in question, all events regarding the sexual contact between the two people happened off of school grounds. The school had no rule in the crimes. The event's inclusion on the article is most likely unwarranted unless there is significant reason, as reported in secondary sources, to discuss the school's involvement in the event. I don't see that here, and as such I don't think the material should be included.
    • With that, the behavior of certain parties in this dispute are out of line with our conduct policies. If it continues past warnings, blocks should be issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked at the article, the single sentence referring to the incident and the references supporting it, my own view is that inclusion of the bare facts is appropriate. WP:BLP1E does not apply as this is not an article about an individual but about the school. The individual's name is not even mentioned (though it can be found by following the references provided to the news stories). This is not an ongoing case with an uncertain outcome; the coach was tried and convicted and the ongoing appeal is against the sentence, not the verdict. The conviction is well established and the event certainly concerns the school in that the school's coach and one of its pupils was involved; the sources provided clearly link the event to the school. I don't see undue weight being a problem here; one sentence is hardly going overboard, and its presence does not negate the positive image given by the lengthy list of honor clubs and sporting successes achieved. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional edits at Vivek Wadhwa, and possible sockpuppet situation

    Over at Vivek Wadhwa, I've been trying to tone down some rather promotional edits. Samisacat (talk · contribs) writes about me "(Restoring Wikipedia page after Nagle made drastic cuts without reason. Reporting Nagle to Wiki editors. Nagle's conduct is maliciously directed, as he destroys completely objective information, including the titles and descriptions of the author's work.)" [80]. I'm not sure where the "Reporting Nagle to Wiki editors" took place, so I'm bringing this here. There's also the comment in talk: "I just looked further into the user Nagle. He uses the pseudonym John Nagle, who was the former INS Commissioner during the exclusionary regime. He keeps removing content, ostensibly out of anti-immigrant biases." [81]. (Actually, "John Nagle" is not a psuedonym, as is clear from my user page.)

    The promotional edits involve deleting articles about Wadhwa's self-promotion efforts (there are reliable sources for this) [82] and exaggerating the importance of his startup company (where he was demoted, then fired, resulting in litigation), and replacing them with lists of his many publications. I think I deleted too much in my last revert, though.

    There may be a sockpuppet situation. The promotional edits come from

    All have made the majority of their substantive edits to Vivek Wadhwa or its talk page, and have no user page.

    I'm not quite sure what to do here. The subject of the article is notable, but primarily because of extensive self-promotion efforts. To what extent should those be inflated or deflated on Wikipedia? --John Nagle (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you should start an SPI, to get clarity on that issue and possibly separate the wheat from the chaff. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definite self-promo claptrap, going to flag this at BLP/N, pruned a little, a savvy self-promoter using Wikipedia to push his new book, released the 2nd October 2012, word of advice! CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have just been contacted directly by email (not via Wikipedia) by Mr. Wadhwa. He writes (excerpt): "John, I want to understand why you harbor such ill feelings towards me and why you are battling my former students on Wikipedia. ..." So now we know where the edits are coming from. Usually we get this problem with companies and performers, not businessmen/academics. Now that others are dealing with this, I'll let the article alone for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow. Hey, it's disconcerting to get emails like that; don't let it get to you. When we invented the internet we should have thought about it, but we only saw the bright side. Well, we practically have an admission of meating here, don't we. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • If stuff like that bothered me, I wouldn't edit under my own name. It's just someone who doesn't realize that Wikipedia isn't PR Newswire. Not a big deal. (Thought for today: Wikipedia is one of the few media outlets left that doesn't publish press releases or "sponsored stories". Which is part of why it's worth working on.) --John Nagle (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BeasttoBeast

    Alright, I am getting tired of having to deal with this user's edits (as I'm sure many others are too). This user continues to upload images with incorrect or missing sources, massive amounts of white space, replaces articles with older and lesser quality images (this versus this, makes questionable uploads (see their upload and the original upload), has been unwilling to engage in discussion, makes edits that could be considered vandalism, and the list goes on and on. It's obvious BeasttoBeast isn't willing to ask for help or engage in civil discussion (just look at his talk page and contributions), so I'm at a loss of what to do. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 22:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of range for blocking

    Can I have an admin or several admins consider an anon only block for 120.28.255.121/16. Checkuser verifies that there are massive amounts of spambots being made on this range (See User:DeltaQuad/Spamfarm, when I finish creating it), quite a few also which might not even edit, making it impossible for us to truly determine the extent of the farm. There are also a lot of anon. edits from this range, and that's why i'm here asking for a look. If it turns most are promotional or vandalistic, then I recommend at least a month block. (CU can't even go to its full length because of the amount of edits from the range) Thanks in advance. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Recurring BLP violations by User:Ironman1104

    User:Ironman1104 added a link to a YouTube video to the biography of a UK politician Dianne Abbott. The YouTube video is titled "Diane Abbott - A Racist Pig". Ironman1104 has previously edited the article to include coverage of controversial remarks made by Abbott. Their edit-warring on this article is discussed here. Ironman1104 similarly added negative information to the biography of another female Labour politician, Harriet Harman (discussed here). Although I note that it was April Fool's Day, they also made a series of edits to another BLP, Peter Cruddas, which mixed in some unacceptably insulting redirects ([83] & [84]).

    I think the YouTube video is enough for a block, but given the apparent history with BLPs of politicians, I think a topic ban may be in order, so I have started a discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting block

    Resolved
     – blocked 220.239.139.154. Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I am requesting a block of the user 220.239.139.154. They keep adding the same edits on the Sonny Bill Williams article - even though it is constantly removed for being unsourced. As the edit history shows, they have been quite active over the past few days without any change in bad habit. This here is the example of their vandalism. Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken this to WP:AIV. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 00:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thankyou very much.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The Rambling Man - talk page ban request

    I would like to have User:The Rambling Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) banned from making any edits to my talk page. There is apparently precedent for such an action. His edits to my talk page are belligerent and prolific and are not conducive to furthering the project. I have asked him to refrain from editing my talk page but he summarily deleted my request. I have therefore decided to take it up in this forum.

    The rationale for my suggestion of a talk page ban is based on these reasons (in no particular order):

    • He is an admin and has threatened to remove editing privileges from me on at least two occasions. Threats of this nature should surely not be used?
    • I am accused of having a "personal agenda" which I take it as meaning something that is not in keeping with the goals of the community. It should be obvious from my editing to remove vandalism, to clear backlogs, as well as from my talk page headers and from the new articles and WP structure created by me that my "personal agenda" is obvious - to help build and improve WP.
    • The requests that he is making of me are frivolous and have no basis in policy or guidelines. I am asked to make my edit summaries unnecessarily comprehensive and to carry out edits to user pages in a manner that is tedious and unnecessary. The edits in question concern the removal of content categories from user namespace pages, especially sandboxes. The Rambling Man seems to think that user sandboxes are somehow sacrosanct and other editors should leave well alone. This is surely the wrong stance to take. A sandbox is essentially a place for temporary notes and it is poor form to have them polluting content categories. Additionally, if they are in a genuine user draft article the categories that I am removing are sometimes completely inappropriate to the topic. Since the category system is, by some editors own admission, poorly understood it may be better to leave a user names space draft that has been moved to article namespace as uncategorised. It can then be categorised correctly by editors who specialise in that task. Having an article in an uncategorised state prior to this occurring is better than being incorrectly categorised.
    • He is affecting my ability to edit Wikipedia.
    • He is accusing me of "bitey" behaviour and scaring off new editors. This accusation has no rational basis. What he calls bitey behaviour should be seen as neutral, and only the occasional editor questions one of the many hundreds of edits that I make to user namespace pages. The sort of behaviour carried out by The Rambling Man is in fact responsible for long-standing, proficient and productive editors from either leaving Wikipedia and severely curtailing their editing.

    The most recent series of discussions was provoked by an unfortunate incident where I rolled back an edit by The Rambling Man who in turn had undone an edit of mine. Since he did not use an accurate edit summary and in the heat of the moment and due to the new lighter shadings used in the page diff display being less obvious I construed the edit to be vandalism since he appeared to be adding content categories to a user page.

    If The Rambling Man is to be blocked from my talk page and he has concerns about any editing that I may do in the future he would be able to take them to any number of other forums in order to have them addressed.

    It is rather sad to see the many instances of prolific editors succumbing to emotive behaviour that is to the detriment of the project. I am myself guilty of such behaviour. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My advice: if you've asked him not to post there, and he persists in doing so, simply delete his comments without reading them, with the edit summary "Deleted without reading, editor has been asked not to post here". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh... I'm not sure what the problem is. You asked him to not post on your talk page and he hasn't since. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are definitely some concerns with Alan Liefting's nonchalant approach to things such as CSD or reverting what he sees as "vandalism", [88][89][90] but I think it would be best for The Rambling Man to disengage from dealing with Alan altogether. His comments, even if they were mild and from a neutral perspective (which, to be 100% honest, does not appear to be the case), will only serve to exacerbate the situation further. He can no longer be considered an uninvolved administrator in this dispute. Kurtis (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict × 2) I don't see the problem. Has he posted to your talk page after Carl asked him not to? As for the larger issue of discussing your edits elsewhere, I strongly doubt you'll find consensus for an WP:IBAN here given that other editors have found your editing problematic as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, it looks like he has. The Rambling Man should stop posting to Alan Liefting's talk page. He should start a RfC/U instead, assuming he can find someone to co-certify it. Otherwise he should simply drop the matter. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am afraid that The Rambling Man is not neutral in reporting Alan Liefting (see e.g. '.. I will block you and remove your "privileges"', my emphasis, since retracted by The Rambling Man), and these remarks/situations are clearly not resulting in a collegial collaboration (continuing to beat the dead horse - note that also User:Hammersoft repeatedly tried to disengage from the discussion, but that The Rambling Man found it necessary to continue the discussion). I would support this interaction ban. The Rambling Man, bring your concerns to other editors, who can evaluate and take the actions they think necessary. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hammersoft's intention in the first of these "multiple attempts" was not to disengage. It was to get the last word in, and try to claim a moral high ground when TRM excercised his right of reply against what he sees as "lies". Whether or not you agree with TRM, there is no question that TRM truly believes that some of the comments are lies. I cannot think of a single established Wikipedian who, when accused by another of things they consider to be false, would not make at least one attempt to set the record straight.

    Other than to end the discussion, and state for the record that he considers unretracted comments made about him to be untrue (all done between 22:41 and 22:51 last night) TRM has not made any edit related to this matter in five days. As for Alan, he has returned from a week long absence and done nothing other than return to this issue. I'm not saying that he is necessarily doing so in bad faith, as TRM's comments from five days ago will popped up on his talk page when he returned. But the first step in avoiding someone is to make the most of a period of silence, and the second is to try not to re-start the discussion. Alan has not followed these steps, and editing restrictions should only be considered if lightweight measures such as this have been tried and failed. For that reason, and because the implication of a ban is that TRM is harrassing Alan and refuses to cease doing so, I can't take this request seriously. —WFC— FL wishlist 07:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hammersoft there made a reply, and disengaged. The Rambling Man is allowed to comment on that, but should not expect a further answer from Hammersoft, however, he insisted. I agree, TRM truly believes these are lies, but if that is the issue: bring it into dispute resolution.
    Regarding Alan, yes, he may not have seen the last comment until now - seeing a whole series of posts from The Rambling Man. May I bring to your attention, that The Rambling Man is, after Alan, the second human contributor to Alan's talkpage, posting significantly more often than the third contributor? And I do think that we should take seriously that an administrator who is the second contributor to a user talkpage; I think that the remark 'I will block you and remove your "privileges"' certainly shows that it is time that The Rambling Man is disengaging from Alan. Leave it to independent editors. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose talk page ban, TRM has not posted to Alan's talk page since Alan requested TRM not to. Nobody Ent 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey Revell

    BLOCKED
    Nobody Ent 10:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Veiled legal threat by a WP:SPA claiming to be a lawyer: suggestion by AmandaBCook (talk · contribs) that the subject of this AfD has been libeled [91]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that it's veiled if it is a legal threat. Amanda tried writing an article, and was told the subject wasn't notable. She then tried to appeal to editors emotions, and was rejected. And then she tried to warn them of possible legal consequences. I'm not sure it's blatant enough to block over, but it's obvious she's not here to build an encyclopedia - just to promote the career of Grey Revell. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't see that she has had much to do with the article's content or history, but she doesn't like the direction of the AFD, as evidenced by the comments Perhaps John from Chapel Hill can answer that question. He seems to have some sort of personal connection to and/or vendetta against Mr. Revell. I don't have time to keep adding reliable sources just to have them taken down by the likes of you. My law practice keeps me too busy to fool around much on Wikipedia. But I do know that calling an artist whose career depends on notoriety "un-notable" might be considered by a court as libel, Mr. 76.248.149.47, which attempt to turn an AFD discussion into a personal match, questioning other editors' motives and implying that not finding the subject notable has legal ramifications. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very tempted to apply SNOW to that deletion discussion, but I'll give it another couple of days; maybe the ARS can prove all you wicked deletionists wrong and save the world. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a "veiled" legal thread only in the sense that the person who wrote it did so very carefully in order not to violate the letter of WP:NLT. It is nonetheless totally in violation of the spirit of the policy. The editor should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, no Wiki-Lawyering is permitted. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What BMK said. That it's an implausible legal threat doesn't stop it being a legal threat. (Go Phightins!: Wiki-Lawyering not quite the same.) --Shirt58 (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it seems to me that not following the spirit of the policy WP:NLT is a characteristic of Wiki-Lawyering, which encompasses criterion 2 under the Wiki-Lawyering page, "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles". Thus, I characterized it Wiki-Lawyering. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki-lawyering would imply a familiarity with Wiki-policy. She's not "Wiki-lawyering", she's just "lawyering" ;) Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, it's inappropriate. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot on, Go Phightins! No need to wikilawyer about it.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support a block of the user per BMK. Perceived plausibility of a legal threat is far less (perhaps not at all) important than the fact that the user believed it was reasonable to engage others that way on Wikipedia. Not to mention that it suppresses constructive discussion, rather than encourages it. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support a block, for making legal threats. Aside from that, she's a WP:SPA with an evident WP:COI who is here to WP:ADVERT the guy. Strictly speaking, those are not blockable offenses in themselves, unless they lead to disruptive editing. But the fact is that she's had a carload of wiki policy links thrown in her direction, and despite her claims of having a legally trained mind, she hasn't deigned to respond to a single policy concern in any coherent manner. Qworty (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The rapid and copious response is appreciated. Since she sort of blew the 'kiss' in my direction, I'd like to drop in my nickel re: blocking--no hurry. There was a single legal hint dropped, not repeated accusations of libel--enough to merit reporting, but maybe borderline for blocking. Perhaps she's just called it a day, like I should now do. She's dug an obvious hole, there are plenty of eyes on this, and there's no reason not to allow an explanation by the light of the new day. If the drama is further accelerated, or no response is offered after a reasonable length of time, the desirability of a block can assessed. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I'm no lawyer, but though I share nationality with Trumps and Kardashians, I can't fathom how saying someone is non-notable could possibly be taken as libelous; this [92] constituted libel. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a legal "bluff", and hence it's a legal threat, and the user MUST be blocked until or if they recant and disavow it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Bugs. It's not up to the "victim" to decide what's actionable here--the only thing that matters is that WP policy requires a block until the legal threat is rescinded. Qworty (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Two thoughts to the posse: one, I can not find anything in WP:LEGAL that says a block is required. the guideline's language is measured, and references administrators' discretion. Two, in no way did I suggest that any action is my decision, nor do I see myself as a victim. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the language in the policy is clear [93]. "If these conflicts are in fact resolved (or a consensus is reached to test if they are resolved), then involved editors should be unblocked if there are no other issues that warrant a block." Qworty (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked her. We can move on now :). Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page Protection Needed

    Probably going to need to put temporary semi-protection on the Washington Nationals page. Getting alot of bad edits after that embarrasing 9-7 loss a couple minutes ago. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah... will do. Not that the Nationals really deserve to be protected from their fans' wrath or Cardinals gloating, but they can vent/celebrate somewhere else. These are moments when I really appreciate having the greatest of all time on my side (albeit not this year). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=517555058"