Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neotarf (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 18 October 2012 (→‎Apteva: fix link). 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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Request 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]

    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]

    • I've never violated a single guideline or policy at this article. The IP seems to care more about how this person is presented favorably than about the nietrality of WP, but it tough to know what else if anything this IP has edited. This article was one of several resume-like PR/POV articles i've come across over the years. I, and others, tried to make it neutral and then kept it on my watchlist. Almost everything i've done i've discussed at talk. I have only even edited this over the last few weeks because an IP came along and removed well sourced text without discussion until posted at a NB. Novaseminary (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also point out, I only nominated this article for deletion once, with no consensus. I actually came across it at the first successful AfD nom made, not by me, but another editor. The IP seems to think I have had it out for this person, but I have been only one of several editors to do things the IP apparently disapproves of, but that I think comply with policy. (At one point the article cited several non-RS articles written by a single publicist, for instance.) Novaseminary (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Our IP user has agreed to a self-ban from this article providing you do the same. From your comments above that the IP's edits are the only reason you've even been editing the page recently, this should be an acceptable resolution for you too. Right? – Steel 15:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Novaseminary? I do agree that you have an all-too strong interest in that article. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just like to point out that I haven't touched the article since Drmies came along and restored some sanity to it. Even though we still disagree on an issue, and even after the temp-protect was denied. But even as a dynamic IP, I've respected all these dispute resolution processes. I should also point out the same can't be said for Novaseminary. Just today: 1, 2 and 3. Drmies has already attacked my intentions and falsely accused me of COI - after working on the article for just a few weeks. By the way, I found nothing that supports Novaseminary's "single publicist" theory. But what I did find, is that Novaseminary has been at this article for almost 2 years, much of it for months at a time as it's as the sole editor! Just look at the period from March to May of this year, folks. And please let's not forget Novaseminary's "Douglas Tait obsession" goes well beyond just the article. The creation of his weird disambiguation. The fact that he slapped up a Douglas Tait (illustrator) stub that was so non-notable, that months later, it's still just a stub. He also slaps up citation tags on any article even mentioned in the BLP, as I noted originally. And just today, his obsession with 1 article on Tait about him getting kicked off his HS basketball team was revealed again! (Which by the way, a subsequent article that he never includes noted was a 1 day suspension!) But for your convenience, and possibly entertainment, I pulled just how many times and places I could find where he (or his meatpuppet who did it twice), have fought to include that one article - over the objection of far more editors than just me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and just TODAY - you guessed it: 32!
    • By the way, he has also attacked that article, presumably because the school and/or team dared to admit Tait: 1, and 2.
    • So it should be clear by now folks, that the problem isn't me. But is exactly as Steel said: Novaseminary has some "bizarre obsession with this person." Geez, Novaseminary can't even stay off an article when he's being ANI'd over it! Now I know, to Drmies, I'm just some lowly SPA with a dynamic IP and some as alleged, yet unexplained, COI. But I just happened upon this deal a few weeks ago, and you've got a real problem on your hands that's been persistent long before me. So you can either do something about it, or you can continue to let Novaseminary's wackadoodle freak flag fly. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:CC27:F942:1C73:3E49 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think that is true that the IP has left the article alone since Drmies restored sanity to it. IP seems to have edit warred with the Dr since the Dr made his edits. That is why the Dr asked for the article to be partially protected. In fact, the Dr reverted IP most recently. And I just restored to the version IP said he agreed with (and others did, too) on talk, but then s/he changed. Novaseminary (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reason I have edited the page at all since this iteration was created is because it was recreated after deletion at AfD and, at that time, was quite promotional. To be clear, I do not think this individual satisfies N (the only indepth coverage were several articles since disclaimed by the newspaper and removed from the article and one more article that striked me as a non-RS). But if there is to be an article, it should not be a promo piece, or even a non-promotional piece that neglects widely covered aspects of this individual because somebody doesn't want that covered. And it is not just the current variable IPv6. Various other IPs at other times have inserted unsourced or promotional material. So has at least one regular editor who was blocked, X4n6 (whose arguments and edit history seem to me quite similar to our IPv6 editor). I have always tried to achieve consensus at talk and adide by it, and except for disagreements from IP or other editors who have actually broken WP guidelines and policies and been blocked for it (X4n6 and one of the recent IPv6 identities blocked here), I and the other editors have succeeded in reaching consensus (including the current version of this article). We did so despite being up against at least one individual who, in my opinion, did not have WP's best interests at heart or even any stated or apparent interest in WP for WP's sake at all. I think it would be strange and detrimental to WP to topic ban an editor who has never been blocked, has followed all guielines and policies on the article in question, seeks and abides by consensus at the article in question, and has only had run-ins at the article with tenacious editors who have been blocked for their violations of various guidelines and policies (including the IP requesting this action who certainly has before and does even in the post above with the "wackadoodle freak flag fly" comment and unsupported claim I have a meatpuppet). I hope we don't allow editors whose edits indicate that they are more interested in positive coverage of a particular subject have veto power of a good faith editor who edits to keep WP from being misused for the sake of WP. Novaseminary (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think anyone disagrees that 2602.304 is a disruptive presence on the page. But it takes two, and the edit history for September and October is just crazy. There is more than one person here who thinks that both of you should just chill and give it a rest for a little while. The Wiki is bigger than this one article, and if it's true that you've only been editing the article because of 2602.304, then this will have zero effect on your editing. There are still other users who can look after the page. So unless any other uninvolved users want to chime in, I think we can consider the dual article ban done. – Steel 14:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, instead of an article ban let's make it a topic ban on anything related to Tait, that way Bishop Alemany High School, and any other page that this might spill over to, is included as well. – Steel 14:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been a very long time since I've read such a steaming pile of desperate, self-serving, "everybody did bad but me, daddy!" fiction that it was actually embarrassing to read. Novaseminary's "defense?" Everyone ganged up on poor him, while all he did was wear angel wings - while he alone protected the very existence of WP from the mortal threat posed by this one minor article with limited traffic. Ridiculous, and not a string of truth anywhere!
    1) Here, his edit-warring with Drmies: Here and here and of course, his all-time favorite, here.
    2) To Novaseminary's claim that the restored article was the same as the deleted one, was originally made back on March 3. Here's the response. But that wasn't good enough for him. Obviously. So much for collaborative editing. Equally obvious, Novaseminary's 2nd AfD also failed. In fact, while he says there was no consensus, there originally was consensus - to keep. Once again, Novaseminary fought it and an admin changed it, despite an !vote itself of 4 to 2 to Keep, to no consensus.
    3) To his claim that the article was promotional? Here's the first entry. Remarkable how it contains much of the same material and sources, even after Novaseminary had months of editing it, several alone, to supposedly scrub it of anything "promotional."
    4) Novaseminary also routinely challenges the notability of anything remotely related to Tait's N. Like here, here and here. The apparent offense of these festivals? They screened Tait's film. But this isn't the first time he's been called out for going after sources simply because they establish Tait's notability.
    5) Novaseminary also attempted to make hay over the fact that an editor who challenged his edits, (pretty vocally too), was blocked. Well here's a portion of Novaseminary's own record. He misrepresented his own history on Noticeboards. Seems this isn't his first rodeo. There may have been more incidents in his history, but this was so well-detailed, I didn't see the need to look for any more.
    6) Just as he misrepresented the current version of the article. Which I have now restored to reflect the actual consensus.
    7) By the way, this is meatpuppetry: 1, 2, 3, 4. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I resent the claims of the IP (by that, I mean the person who has been posting using IP v6 Addresses in the range 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF) that my actions have been meatpuppetry (and consequently that I am a meatpuppet). The IP should have brought this section to my attention, and neglected to do so. I have warned the IP for making a personal attack in this edit. The IP has never answered my question "What are your goals in editing this talk page?" about Talk:Douglas Tait (stuntman) in this edit. The IP has consistently refused to login or to create an account, to "tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using" (asked in the same edit), and to "Kindly provide a single user talk page on which to discuss your conduct"[1], and has instead deflected such queries as "inappropriate".[2] Given WP:BOOMERANG, I wish to discuss the IP's conduct here.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The complete extent of Jeff G. ツ's contributions here, here, here, and here, was: "Yes per Novaseminary.", "I agree wholeheartedly with Novaseminary's position on this issue." and to twice repost a link that Novaseminary reposted over 35 times on a least 2 articles. A link that has been rejected by more than a dozen other editors. So he's free to resent the meatpuppetry conclusion. The log is the log. Although there was also his repeated attacks aimed at me while complaining of my attack on Novaseminary. As he himself, illustrated, 3 times I had to ask him to focus on the RfC topic instead of me. Three times he was unable to do so.
    • Not to speak for him, but you never had discussed at talk why you continued to remove the Los Angeles Times article about Tait when he reverted you. You only discussed after I requested page protection. And what more than dozen editors is IP talkign about? IP removing without discussion over a dozen times, against the only discussion at talk, is not the same as over a dozen editors removing it. IP has seen fit to document and complain of my 35 edits here at ANI (miscontrueing and including among them POV edits such as (31 above, as of this edit, and the very offensive 13 above). Where are the more than dozen editors that have removed anything I have added at that article? And if this is not the place to discuss IP, it is also not the place to discuss me. Novaseminary (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But his emotional appeal was also instructive for what it didn't defend or explain. Like:
    • d) His attacks on other articles mentioned in Tait's article: 1, and 2.
    • e) His attacks-by-citation tags on other articles because they were mentioned in Tait's article. Like here, here and here.
    • f) His recent redlinking of the article, which he only withdrew when I showed him the notes against excessive redlinking, esp. if he never planned on writing those articles.
    • g) His obsession with 1 article about Tait's high school basketball suspension. He posted it over 35 times, on two articles! I've also removed it from here - where it's also not only irrelevant, but inconsistent with all the other notable alumns. NONE of whom need citations - and many of whom also have their own BLPs.
    • h) His insistence in renaming the article "Douglas Tait (stuntman). Tait's infobox mentions actor twice, stuntman and filmmaker. If it weren't for his orphaned stub of [Douglas Tait (illustrator)], which should probably be deleted for N, Tait wouldn't need to be listed as a "stuntman", since that ignores the entire body of his acting credits and other work as a filmmaker.
    • i) And finally why, if Novaseminary's only interest in the article was to keep it from becoming promotional, couldn't/didn't he accomplish that in the 2 months when only he was regularly editing the article, from March to May of this year. Either that was not his intention at all, as he's claimed. Or he's just a really incompetent (CIR) editor. Something else is going on with his obsession over Tait. That much is obvious.
    Finally, in response to his admittedly well-crafted rhetorical appeal - which he always seems to display whenever he needs it on Noticeboards - but is rarely in evidence in his contentious edits and stubborn failure to edit collaboratively. I say, save the rhetoric. His duplicitous and conniving edit pattern, contrived speechifying and transparent agenda, speak for him. A review of his edit log clearly shows he forfeited any AGF a long time ago. It also makes a strong argument that he has damaged the very WP, and regularly violating the very WP rules & guidelines, that he now claims he protected. His last disciplinary action, just a few months ago, proves the Tait article isn't just a lone exception in the way he operates here. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Steel, I'd like it noted, that I must have posted my last response at the same time that you did. And while we disagree that I have been disruptive - esp. given the time it obviously takes to research and craft responses that I hope have been useful, I understand your need to be Solomonic here and split the baby to protect your own. Fine. But yes, the topic ban was my original request, so enormous thanks for that. I also see you've protected the page as well. Again, no problem. I'll keep my part of the bargain. But, and I really hope this won't be misconstrued as "disruptive", but I'll look it over in a day or so and leave any final thoughts/comments/requests on your talk page. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not agree to a topic ban. The IP continues to insure his/her POV remains with edits, of course, right before the lock. This is a content dispute with a disruptive IP, nothing more. This is not the appropriate DR location for this discussion anyway. On the other hand, if the article is reverted to the pre-IP state, I would happily stand down. Or even if the non-RSs (and corresponding facts) were removed and the discussion of his basketball career that notes he didn't play much in the season before he was supposedly casted as a basketball player because of his play. Either way, if others (other than disruptive IP) want to discuss that version and change it, I bet there would be little to no disagreement in the future. A partial protection would probably take care of everthing. Novaseminary (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG, I've never seen such.....er...passion regarding such a non-noteworthy individual before. I remember when this page was first created and there was a lot of disagreemen over whether he was even notable (I was not one that thought he was). I do NOT think that there should be a topic ban for either, as then we'd have no one even editing this page. LOL. In all seriousness, I think a temporary topic ban would be acceptable. For instance, just keep the page fully protected for say 1 or 2 weeks and let everyone cool down. There is nothing on the page that is negative or requires immediate removal at the moment and the time away from the topic could do everyone good. I think there are a lot of egos on both sides being tested here and time apart is appropriate, IMO. I am NOT for any permanent bans or blocks. I think this has to do with editors that want the best but are going at it from 2 different sides of the equation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not knowledgeable on this particular situation, but I have had an IMMENSE amount of interaction with Novaseminary which started with this: [3] and thankfully 98% ended with this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior I certain that I'm the Wikipedian that knows them best. They do launch into obsessive battling behavior against individuals, including following them around and even creepier privacy related stuff that I don't care to get into. And they have "skated" by being expert at mis-using and mis-quoting policies and guidelines and clever wording that disguises such warfare as not being such. If you really want to do something really huge for Wikipedia, take a close look at what has happened at this article with this framework in mind, and 1 or preferably more folks should warn them to reduce the type of behavior exhibited. I believe that they would be very influence-able by that type of input, and with that course correction would be a good editor, as they also do much good work, aside from the above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Novaseminary's response - and reaction - finally exposed the real him. This is about 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]
    • This looks like a content dispute. Have you taken this to WP:DRN as a first port of call? --[[User:Ritchie333|out what's best for the Tait article, or even what's best for WP. It's about Novaseminary getting his way and getting the last word. It was amusing that he can't even let the current version stand for a second because it doesn't have his edits on it. Edits that, by consensus, had to go. And again it's also telling that he didn't even try to refute my report card on his record. Because he can't. So instead, he's called in the cavalry and asked other editors to help. Which is his right. But he's also cherry-picked editors who have worked on the article before and whom he believes he can reliably trust to agree with him. Where are all the requests for comment from editors who have worked on it and like me, also complained about his edits? He sure didn't send them "Hail Mary" invites. So I think contributions from NON-INVOLVED editors with no history on the BLP should be weighted more. I especially appreciate the comments of North, who has zero axe to grind on this article having never touched it, but who's own experience with Novaseminary makes him uniquely positioned to comment on this user's disruptive and yes, disturbing behavior. At this point it should be clear to everyone that nothing "temporary" regarding Novaseminary will/would ever work. Unless he is stopped, he won't stop. He'll say what he must say on Noticeboards to escape censure and restrictions, and then just wait until the heat dies. And then he'll resume as if nothing happened. And he'll be free to do it on the Tait article because it's not well-traveled, so it'll go on for months again until some "horrible IP" like me happens along and risks being called "disruptive", just by showing the WP community what it failed to catch or monitor itself: That he has an absolutely clear pattern and agenda, at least on the Tait article and probably on his other SPA edits elsewhere. Someone should review and request feedback from editors there to see. Because it would be incredibly foolish to let him escape responsibility again, just months after North's Noticeboard complaint. As he's demonstrated, it would also be foolish to expect/assume any voluntary, unmonitored change. People are who they are and they consistently do what they do. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:9577:E52E:CA24:3B6D (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just clarifying one point, it's my guess that they would be influenced by well-written on-target warnings. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think it's best if Novaseminary simply stays away from the article. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't respond to IP's "report card" because it is not worthy of a response. My only concern at this article is that WP not be used for promotional purposes or be exploited to only show the good about a particular subject leaving out articles in national newspapers covering the subject in a less flattering way. That is my true color. You might disagree with how I have tried to do that, but seeing as I would prefer the article not exist (not that it highlight unflattering material about Tait, and certainly not that it be a resume, linked, as it was, from his facebook page), what else would have caused my alleged POV? If we allow an IP to inhibit strict reliance on RS and V and NPOV, especially in a BLP, the project will be worse off. I would love to tone it down. IP does not seem to have the same interest. And going straight to a ban, even though no other blocks have been made (against, me, of course; the requestor has been blocked before), and no earlier steps in editor-related DR has been undertaken, seems to violate WP:BAN. I would also note and agree with JeffG's interspersed edit above (under IP's #7 above). No meatpuppetry. This also weighs against a topic ban (for me) at least. I tried to use DR and talk. Novaseminary (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • You didn't respond, because after having your own disruptive edit log laid bare in front of you, even you have no response. Frankly, your responses only remind people why no temporary or voluntary solution requiring your compliance would ever work. I'm not entirely convinced that you shouldn't be banned altogether for abusing this project and distorting it to make it your own personal plaything. But that's for others to eventually decide. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:4191:1232:48D4:51E3 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the topic ban for both the editors, and, as the IP appears to accept this solution, I would be glad to see Novaseminary voluntarily accepting it. I see him too involved in the topic, and some of his edits (see the relevant talk page, with - often original, and in somewhat manner weird - researches about Tout's private life, cellular number, activity as wedding videographer, a basketball team suspension during school years and so on) seems to reveal a little (negative) obsession about the subject. At any rate, this endless war is of no use to the project. Cavarrone (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban for both editors might be a good idea, I feel that the amount of time both editors have wasted on what seems like an insignificant article is becoming excessive, not to mention RFCs and BLP/N discussions that didn't really go anywhere. At this point, both editors seem to be too involved to be dispassionate and balanced in their actions on article. Also, given some of the personal attacks that have gone down on Talk:Douglas Tait (stuntman), I think an interaction ban between the two might be helpful as well, though I don't know how that would work with a variable IP editor like 2602.304. Jonathanfu (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree to some extent with a topic ban for NovaSeminary. I don't know that it would matter to the IP since I don't think WikiPedia can effectively ban an entire internet provider, but if something can be done, maybe. I'm not sure being "too involved" is grounds for a ban, else much of WP would be banned. I might be more inclined to agree if the IP seemed to be editing in good faith and not breaking the rules. I think all of this is foolishness, though. As I (non)voted at the original AfD the second AfD after the deleted article was recreated (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Tait), this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. I don't see many/any editors disagreeing with that here, and in one productive thing NovaSeminary did by noting a few of the in-depth sources are disavowed, the article is less notable than it appeared during the AfD. Why not delete the article and be done with the dispute? Hoppingalong (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmmmm I don't think your personal view about the subject's notability is so much related with the problem we are discussing. I'm pretty sure that NovaSeminary is convinced, in absolute good faith, that the subject is unnotable, but this could not be a justification to engage in an endless war with other users who wish to improve the article after that the deletion request NovaSeminary promoted has not been approved. Side Note: NovaSeminary shows some research skills, it's a shame that they are wasted, for months, in a similar article and in a few others related to this subject. Cavarrone (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only editor I have more than passingly disagreed with since the spring on this article was the IPv6 who unabashedly violated 3RR repeatedly. I never violated 3RR, in letter or spirit. I repeatedly engaged at Talk (and RfC and elsehwere) and tried to incorporate elements of what the IP seemed to want to do so far as policies and guidelines allowed (even if I thought it was not good, a la the overwrought discussion of Tait's scoring). I tried to arrive at consensus, and did several times with editors who did not put their view of this particular article above the goals of the project as a whole. I compromised many times. It is a fair point that this unnotable article was not worth those efforts on its own, but I do think that the principle that WP not devolve into a series of promotional articles, especially on minor articles that don't get much traffic, is worth considerable effort. There are still facts in the article sourced only to non-RSs and which don't seem to be supported by any RS. Regardless, I was not the only editor who repeatedly reverted the IP. The IP was the only editor who was battling for the positions s/he took, by and large. But Hoppingalong and Cavarrone are correct. I certainly do not think this subject meets N and that the article should be deleted. Hoppingalong makes a good point: There would be no reason to consider topic banning me or the IP if the article is deleted (though the IP's repeated violations of 3RR and other policies might justify a another block, but the first and only had no effect, so it wouldn't be worth the trouble with no evidence this IP is editing elsewhere). Novaseminary (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol, it was already clear that the deletion of the article would be a greatly appreciated outcome for you, but again this is not the point. For what I can see from edit history, you didn't accepted the outcome of the AfD and from then you focused your activity on WP in this article and in a few others related to it, and considering your skills this is a waste (of time, of abilities, of everything). Part of your actions on this article was useful, but (sadly) a great part of them was just vain fuss. And both you and the ip you have developed an idea of ​​property of this article, and this is always a damage to the project. Please accept a wikibreak on this article, there are thousands of other less-involved editors that could patrol it, especially now that the problem was rised at ANI, and they could make your own work, probably from a more neutral point of view. And spend more time on other articles, so that your skills are used in a more useful way. Cavarrone (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lastly, this obviously isn't about Tait's clear N which the links prove he easily meets on all three levels of WP:NACTOR, but it's about Novaseminary's unashamed attempt to dominate: see WP:OWN, the content of the article, and to do so in a decidedly negative, NPOV way. His latest claim that another AfD would solve the problem is just more proof that he doesn't have this project's best interests in mind, just his own. And remember, as North8000 has repeatedly tried to remind everyone, this ain't Novaseminary's first rodeo here, but it is consistent with how he operates. And Hoppingalong's delete comments would have carried more weight if s/he weren't the user who reverted the Keep decision on the last failed AfD. He should have revealed that here. Having not, his own bias is also self-evident. But finally, it's interesting that in all Novaseminary's concern about Douglas Tait (stuntman)'s notability, he doesn't question Douglas Tait (illustrator)'s notability, which he clearly supports. The Douglas Tait (illustrator) that he created. Then abandoned. Seems that if he were really interested in deleting unnotable BLPs, that would be an excellent place to start. 2602:304:5EA1:1429:DC5D:7BA6:DC0:5316 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course. We've come to expect no less. But notwithstanding the waste of time in simply collecting and reporting it, just imagine the amount of wasted time it took for him to generate - heck, amass it. Over all those many, many months. And yet, he's still fighting for more. Hmmm... Suffice to say indeed. 2602:304:5EA1:1429:DC5D:7BA6:DC0:5316 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Folks may not be understanding a major component of this, and how something significantly good may come out of this. You might want to re-read my post above. I think that a little advice to Novaseminary would go a long way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HiLo48

    HiLo48's tirades and expletives are unnecessary, tiresome and counterproductive. But no admin has shown any willingness to impose a block, despite the length of time this has been open. I will again ask HiLo to moderate their language. As has already been said, WP:RFC/U is the way forward. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    {{hat|This is still not going anywhere. WP:RFC/U is what you seek. Horologium (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)}} {{archivetop|this isn't going anywhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

    Re-opening, as an inappropriate close by an editor who had weighed in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HiLo48 has had an account since late 2006[11]. He has a clean block log[12], but I believe a few months ago he was topic banned on a topic unrelated to this WP:AN/I[13]. In August I raised a WQA raising his intimidatory behaviour towards other editors, in particular User:Skyring, and more generally, his inappropriate use of profanity. Things seemed to calm down a bit after the WQA, but recently I noticed that he - again - has been swearing at User:Skyring and calling him names, as follows:

    • "Pete/Skyring is being a stubborn prick again" (section title), "I know he hates my guts, but this is just stubbornly idiotic", "I've brought it here rather than continue Edit warring with the clown any more"[14]
    • "No fucking way. It's YOU who wants to delete well established, properly sourced content, so it's YOU who needs to present the fucking case. It's called logic. If you don't hate me, maybe it's a love of the Liberal Party that's your problem. There's certainly something wrong with your thinking process. It seems to be totally driven by emotion rather than truth. See if you can find a rational thought in your brain when it comes to politics and stop acting on dogma"[15]
    • "Yes, we have a fucking communication problem. And I see no fucking way that it can fucking improve, unless you change dramatically. You don't read what I write. You always respond as if I had said something else. I think you have serious psychological issues surrounding certain aspects of politics and trade unions. You cannot think rationally in that area. It's ALL emotion driven. While you retain polite language, you talk utter bullshit. It's fucking editors like fucking you that create far more fucking problems for Wikipedia than anyone who uses the occasional fucking obscenity. I have a personal rule that I am breaking right now in even trying to respond to you, because in the past it has ALWAYS led to further problems, because you actually don't want to hear (or read) what I have to say. And than your responses make no sense. I can assume good faith, but I cannot assume rational thought, sanity and competence."[16]
    • "That you think it's irrelevant is your problem, and fucking insulting. Thank you for the confession, <big>but stop fucking ignoring what I write!</big> "[17]
    • "No. Swearing at Pete works. Polite language makes no impact at all." (edit summary)[18]

    He eventually calmed down and offered this conciliatory post[19], but despite that I would appreciate an administrator reviewing his contributions because I believe further action is required. --Surturz (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I congratulate Skyring, for his calmness in the face of such profanity :) GoodDay (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    During my time in uniform, as a night cabbie and a parent, I grew accustomed to this sort of language. What is of more concern is the attitude rather than the expletives. This was about a paragraph I removed because the source did not support it. A polite discussion on the talk page would have sufficed. HiLo and I seem to have communication difficulties and I've opened a conversation on his talk page, trying to sort things out. --Pete (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You refused to have any sort of a discussion on the Talk page! I had to start one. YOU just kept removing the material WITHOUT discussion. And now your political mate Surturz is complaining about the way I started it. But it worked, didn't it? It got you to do what you just claimed would have sufficed all along, but didn't do! HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    [I wrote the following before an Edit conflict with Pete's last post. It's still completely relevant.] And that post from GoodDay precisely identifies the huge problem, both here and on the civility front, for Wikipedia. Pete ALWAYS uses polite language, but talks absolute crap. He cannot communicate effectively. His posts are frequently clearly driven by his political leanings. He ignores masses of what I post, claiming it to be irrelevant. Yes, I have verbally attacked him. It actually worked to get his attention on an issue today where he was deleting long established, well sourced material from an important article, WITHOUT discussion. He seemed to think that Edit summaries were enough, despite requests from me that he discuss the matter. That is the background to one of the posts Surturz is complaining about above. It actually helped to improve Wikipedia, by getting Pete to the Talk page, where attempts at polite discussion had failed. The other posts come from my own Talk page, where I was responding to what I see as an idiotic request from Pete to make up. In asking for that, he ignored ALL that had gone before. No judgement here can be fairly made without someone looking in detail at Pete's previous incompetence and POV pushing, over probably the past six months. I saw him coming to my Talk page as provocative nonsense. I have tried on uncountable occasions to have intelligent logical discussions with him. It has never worked. I've actually asked to to stop bothering me, because he annoys the crap out of me, and no Wikipedia policy seems to exist to stop polite bullshit artists, but he persists. That he even bothered asking showed his complete lack of understanding and perspective. We cannot allow polite incompetence and POV pushing to continue. Swearing at him today stopped him in his usual inappropriate tracks. No-one here can tell me it doesn't work, where politeness didn't. And if I can't tell an unwanted visitor to my Talk page, making an unwanted request, to fuck off on my own Talk page, we have become too precious. (BTW, I have on several occasions reverted politically biased nonsense posted by Surturz, the complainer here. I believe he would to love get rid of me from Wikipedia, not for the civility reasons he raises here, but because I have successfully called him out for inappropriate posts in the past. A silencing tactic, no less.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I reject this conjecture. I've said it many times: a diversity of opinion is what makes Wikipedia rich and strong. The beauty of the thing is that policies have evolved to keep us all working productively. I do not want HiLo (or any other productive editor) to leave the project. What I want is for HiLo to work with other editors, politely, respectfully and productively. There have been many occasions where HiLo has been brought here or to WQA or other places, and the behaviour continues. WP:CIVIL is an important part of the project and HiLo does not seem to grasp this, judging by his behaviour here and elsewhere. I am dismayed that he sees incivility as the only way to get people to respond to him. This is not behaviour we should encourage. --Pete (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, let's cut to the chase and stop wasting time here. There were two areas where the Naughty Words Police didn't like my work today. One was at the Talk page of Malcolm Turnbull. My approach worked. It got Pete to the Talk page, somewhere he now seems to admit he should have gone in the first place. Polite requests hadn't worked. If the Naughty Words Police can solve that problem, I won't do it again. The other stuff was on my Talk page. Yes, Pete annoys me in many ways. I've now repeated there a request I've made to him before, to not post there again. No posts from Pete will lead to no annoyance from me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @OP: "I believe further action is required" — what action would that be? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever it takes to stop the intimidation and profanity. --Surturz (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that anything will come out of this ANI, but if the result is not satisfactory, feel free to start a user conduct RFC. --Rschen7754 08:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. In the meantime, one step would be to stop the harassment. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it my imagination or is there a burgeoning of WQA-style complaints here since WP:WQA got closed down? Although "I think you have serious psychological issues surrounding certain aspects of politics and trade unions." is not good, I don't think this is what AN/I is for. This probably could be closed with a suggestion for the OP of opening if an RfC if he wants to. DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone care about the fact this whole incident began with Pete/Skyring repeatedly refusing to discuss his deletion of long established, well sourced content? He is now hypocritically saying that discussion is a good idea. Why wouldn't he discuss it in the first place? Was it because it was me, someone whose approach he doesn't like, doing the asking? Such behaviour is obviously unacceptable, but he does it with no rude words. Then he posted on my Talk page, after I've explicitly asked him not to, but again with no rude words. Does that absence of naughty words completely excuse all this behaviour? Those who say yes don't want a great encyclopaedia, they just want a terribly nice one. HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No action should be taken against HiLo48, IMHO. He hasn't vandalized any articles, nor committed sock puppetry. I would recommend a 'interaction ban' between himself & Skyring, though. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest an WP:RFC/U. It's generally a lengthy and ineffective process... but overall it's probably the best idea here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Inactivity in this area will set the precedence that no one should be banned or blocked at all for using profanity to interact with other users. Personally, I'm okay with that, but I want to see the result of this before I change my methods of communication.--WaltCip (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had past dealings with these two, and I want to look at a comment that Pete/Skyring makes above. He said, "a diversity of opinion is what makes Wikipedia rich and strong. The beauty of the thing is that policies have evolved to keep us all working productively." This is exactly where Pete goes wrong. He seems to think that this is some sort of adversarial system, like a court, where the best approach is for editors of multiple, in some cases, extremely polarized, viewpoints each editing according to their own POV, and that, in the end, it will all balance out in an NPOV way. This is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what we're supposed to do. Each individual editor is required to edit neutrally; if they feel they cannot do so on any given topic, they shouldn't edit that topic. They could, possibly be involved in talk page discussions, but not direct editing. Since this does seem to be a general problem for Pete, it may well be that an RfC/U is warranted. And while, yes, RfCU's are long, irritating processes that don't usually result in any major improvement themselves, 1) occassionally, sometimes, they do, if an editor sees large scale condemnation of their behavior; and 2) it's a necessary preliminary step towards actual sanctions. While we can't easily hash through all of the problems here on ANI, an RfC/U can, and then those results can be shown (along with whatever Pete's response is) in future formal proceedings. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Q, but no, you've got the wrong end of the horse there. What I mean is that every editor brings a different approach, a different set of eyes, and together we cover the whole elephant. We do it coöperatively, with respect and consideration for our peers, to provide the complete picture. If we just have one side telling the story, we don't tell the whole story. And if we have several sides throwing rocks at each other, we're playing a different game to what we should be. Which is to work together to build a great encyclopaedia. So far I think we're doing a good job, but we need to work on a few things and one of them is respect for the opinions of others. I appreciate your thoughts on what drives me, but you are not a mind reader, you are wrong, and I welcome the opportunity to shed some light. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone care about the fact this whole incident began with Pete/Skyring repeatedly refusing to discuss his deletion of long established, well sourced content? He is now hypocritically saying that discussion is a good idea. Why wouldn't he discuss it in the first place? Was it because it was me, someone whose approach he doesn't like, doing the asking? Such behaviour is obviously unacceptable, but he does it with no rude words, so that's fine by the naughty words police here. Then he posted on my Talk page, after I've explicitly asked him not to, but again with no rude words. Does that absence of naughty words completely excuse all this behaviour? Those who say yes don't want a great encyclopaedia, they just want a terribly nice one. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We can - and will - have both. No need to repeat yourself. GiantSnowman 08:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there is. My earlier post was completely ignored. That's what Pete does. He ignores key parts of my posts, and tells me they are irrelevant. His behaviour in these two incidents was completely unacceptable, BEFORE I used any of the naughty words that so offend some of you, but all you care about is the naughty words. They will pass. Bad editing as Pete was doing may damage the encyclopaedia forever. But you don't care about that. Just my naughty words. Without his bad behaviour, none of the bad words would have appeared. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many, many eyes on this page/thread - perhaps nobody felt the need to respond. I'd also advise you to start providing some diffs of the other editor's supposed-bad behaviour. GiantSnowman 08:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly cannot be bothered. Don't you believe me? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't be bothered, then what makes you think editors who are un-involved will be? GiantSnowman 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It may of value for some of the naughty word police here to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Many editors there have made the point that civil misbehaviour is often the cause of naughty words. It's time some of you stopped the vigilantism against me and my naughty words, and paid more attention to what I and others with broader perspective have actually said. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Reopening. If there is baiting going on here, it should be nipped in the bud right now before someone ends up getting blocked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Even the most saintly may be goaded into foul language. I'm easily impassioned myself with the combination of dark night, bare toes, unexpected furniture. The latest issue turns on a paragraph in the Malcolm Turnbull article, where we stated that a facility he approved as Environment Minister would put out 2% of Australia's greenhouse emissions, 10 billion tonnes in a year. The only source given was a web page of press release headlines operated by the Wilderness Society, and there was nothing on that page that mentioned Turnbull or greenhouse emissions. I deleted the paragraph from our article as not supporting the claims. HiLo is upset that I didn't seek consensus on the talk page for this removal. I suggested he read the source and see whether it supported the claims. The discussion is here.
    HiLo is claiming that he swore and carried on in order to force me to discuss the issue. I am unsure as to whether he ever actually read the source, as he keeps referring to the paragraph as "well-sourced". I thought the thing was self-evident: the article makes specific claims, the source cited does not. QED.
    Looking at HiLo's robust statements on the talk page, it seemed clear to me that we had a problem between us, and I sought to resolve this in direct communication here. The dialogue speaks for itself. Now, maybe HILo views me in the same light as I view (or fail to view) a piece of solid furniture in a surprise encounter with my big toe. But I don't deliberately set out to bait or attack or antagonise him, instead preferring to employ a "soft answer turneth away wrath" approach, but I'm really at a loss as to where to go now. If HiLo doesn't see within his own heart what is wrong with incivility - and it's not the language I object to so much as the attitude - then muzzling him is only going to breed unhappiness. Maybe a RFC/U is the way to go, and we can get this wrangle off of ANI. --Pete (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommend that you both avoid each other. Less drama, is best. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well here we are discussing the problem. HiLo and I have an overlap of interests and we'll encounter each other in normal editing work. There are other editors who find communication difficulties with HiLo in other areas, and I note a recent topic ban. The crux of the matter is that WP:CIVIL is a core policy and if diverse editors are to work effectively within the project, they must accept others as human beings equally worthy of respect as themselves and communicate in a civil fashion. People may have wildly differing beliefs and still coöperate amicably. --Pete (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could make an extensive response to that, but just as GoodDay has suggested, I would rather avoid Pete. I've tried to on my Talk page, but he keeps coming there. What recourse do I have? (Not interested in a response to that question from Pete.) And should I have reported him for his repeated removal without discussion of long established, well sourced article content, despite requests to discuss? (That's where this all started.) Or what other approach would have been appropriate? HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Pete, I think the "crux of the matter" is WP:NPOV. Or, rather, that both WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL are important. So, Pete, if you want to establish that Hilo48 has engaged in long-term violations of our civility policy, open an RFC/U. Similarly, Hilo48, if you want to establish that Pete has engaged in long-term violations of our neutrality policy, open an RFC/U. The issue is too complex to be handled with a simple ANI report. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, Q, but NPOV don't enter into it here. It's a simple matter of WP:SOURCE. Please see the discussion here, look at the old version of the article, note the specific claims being made and check the source to see if it supports the claims we make. The links are provided in discussion. Where is the NPOV issue? The WP:CIVIL problem is readily apparent. Would you (or anybody else) volunteer to help set up an RFC/U? I think that's the way to go now, but I want to be as fair as possible to HiLo (and to myself and other parties) and get all our ducks lined up nicely before we proceed. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need for an RFC/U here to establish a pattern of incivility on HiLo48's part: it was why he was topic banned from ITN. What is expected re: civility was patiently explained to him at that time. What I'm looking for here is evidence of baiting, i.e. that Skyring was in some way deliberately provoking HiLo48's all-too-common outbursts in an attempt to hasten this. If No evidence is presented, then GoodDay's "both sides are at fault, just avoid each other and move on" summation can be rejected, and we can try to figure out how to get HiLo48 to participate in mundane content disputes without flagrant hostility and incivility to those he disagrees with. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is probably worth noting here that Hilo48 became so uncivil during a recent DR/N that he was warned by two seperate volunteers that he was acting in an inappropriate manner. After leaving on his own accord and the DR/N was completed he felt the need to come back to the DR/N talkpage to leave this message: "I have to disagree with that. I was involved in discussions very early on, way back on the article's Talk page, long before the dispute came here, but I gave up due to the closed minds of some of the antagonists. When I tried to contribute to the conversation here, some didn't like my involvement and I was effectively told to piss off. The conversation here became so convoluted that only a marathoner would be bothered participating. My simple point is that not all voices were heard. This is inevitable when discussions become endurance events.--HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)" The user has an issue with conflict and antagonism and feels implelled to use these tactics to be a disruption. He then has issues with all those involved and either attempts to escalate situations or overstate them, placing himself as victim or the underdog, where everyone else is in the wrong. A topic ban would be a mild discouragement for this user, but it is a start.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, such a dishonest post. In my very next post in that thread I apologised for displaying my frustration and impatience in that way. In YOUR impatience to attack me here, you failed to mention that. I did not say that everyone else was in the wrong. As my words said, my concern was about the time it was taking. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you call this an apology: "Why should I calm down? This is a classic case of one editor (me) being growled at for upsetting the precious sensibilities of some, while incompetence and POV pushing, without naughty words, runs rampant. Being nice while being incompetent is a bad look. This process isn't going anywhere. It's being driven by a very small number of mostly far too inexperienced, narrow focus editors. Why? Because they want to keep whinging and whining after their country got beaten in some event at the Olympic Games. This is Wikipedia at its worst. HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)" I support a 48 hour block for disruption.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, HilO48 hasn't vandalized articles or created & used any socks. Therefore this report should be closed & (again) Skyring & HilO48 avoid each. GoodDay (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So admin are just for vandalsim and sock puppets? Great. They'll love hearing that. I guess this and all the other admin boards need not exist then? No, I think there has been more than enough demonstration by editors that Hilo48 has serious enough civility issues that he began to disrupt DR/N as well as other discussions in a manner designed to for disruption. Admin should take action and intervene here with an appropriate block. 48 hrs seems reasonable.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that comment GoodDay. I'll certainly aim to not engage with Pete/Skyring. A look at my Talk page will show a repeat of the request I've made to him before to not post there. The other (smaller) part of this problem was me reverting his deletion of long established, well sourced material in an article, and asking him to take it to the Talk page. It's an approach I use frequently on Wikipedia when I see such behaviour from anybody, and will continue to use. Unfortunately, his approach was to simple remove the content again, and again, eventually breaching WP:3RR in the process. No attempt to open discussion on the Talk page. (Nor any attempt here to condemn Pete's behaviour either.) I eventually opened a discussion. I guess I'll just have to ignore such vandalism from him in future and hope someone else picks it up. I would expect it to happen. It's his style. He has done it before. And I will see it, because we're both active on Australian political articles. Wish me luck. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here above we now see the user, make an accusation of another user of vandalism. Unless he provides clear evidence that the edit was an actual act of vandalism of the article he should not be making such claims. I believe that if Hilo48 is allowed to get away with this behavior they will show up AN/I again. This is an editor that feels it necessary to "prove a point" and disrupting discussions is but one of these points they attempt to prove. This all reminds me of another recent user who felt that making a point was more important than a welcome atmosphere for editors to work in.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I support a 48 hr block of user Hilo48 to discourage disruptive behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what this user does. They edit war as a challenge to others. On August 19th Hilo violated 3RR [20] on the Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics article. The history shows that nearly all his contributions seem to be reverts that generally involve the limit of 3 reverts, but may still be considered edit warring. Perhaps, if admin is not willing to block they will impose a 1RR on Hilo48, the minimum that I believe should be done to discourage the editor from disruption.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No. HiLo's pissed off a lot of people in his time here (me included), but no, we don't just issue "48 hour blocks" because of that to send a message (well, some admins have a bad habit of doing that... but that's not in policy or a good idea). Of all the complaints brought to ANI about HiLo this one's not well put together, and the least objectionable. Honestly, this feels way too arbitrary, high on rhetoric and low on content. I suggest this gets closed. I suggested the RFC above because it's the way for dealing with this sort of issue (not an ideal way)... but no, there's 0 consensus for a block here, and I don't see any indication of any other remedy that warrants the ink being spilled right here at ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We issue blocks as a discouragement to disruptive users. They are not punative. We don't need to gain a consenus before admin intervenes. RFCs are NOT the only way to deal with these users and this is as important as sock puppeting. Administration can choose to block or to apply a 1RR sanction on their own. This user has a history that, if not dealt with now will simply return as they have outright admitted on this thread they have no intention of changing anything. I support admin applying either or both a 1RR sanction and/or a 48 houir block for disruption. This is not unreasonable.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so we are clear, they have already disrupted DR/N to a point that two volunteers had to warn them, and it is in the history as well as his rant afterwards. He will probably get no further warnings at DR/N from myself. Next Disruption will probably see his comments closed. His activity on the Olympic Controversies article has been disruptive and not at all a collaboration effort. We can either support civil discussion and discourage disruption, or we give clear direction to behave in the exact same manner. So, again. I recommend admin sanctions for this user.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Determination of consensus for an edit at Mass killings under Communist regimes

    Mass killings under Communist regimes is currently under discretionary sanctions preventing any non-minor changes to the article without talk page consensus. My proposal for an edit has not received unanimous consent, but may qualify as "rough consensus". According to the sanctions:

    "3.The editor who makes an edit is responsible that the edit has consensus as outlined above. To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal. Such determinations are binding for the purpose of this sanction, but do not prevent consensus from changing by way of a new proposal. Administrators may ask for continued discussion if they believe that this would help consensus-finding, and they may weigh the arguments advanced in the light of applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to determine consensus or the lack thereof."

    I am asking for an uninvolved admin to make a determination of whether or not consensus exists for this proposal. If this is not the proper forum, please direct me where to go. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is more for active disputes, not requests for closure; it's better to go to WP:AN. You're not in trouble, so don't worry. I'll leave a note there asking people to come here. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal is hopelessly confused. In particular it states that "There is no net change to the article in terms of adding or removing content already there" rather some content is to be moved to an undefined new "estimates" section. But half of the "supports" insist that a sentence in the lede be removed entirely, and that's the likely (based on the article sanctions) result if the new section is not written up now. All that needs to be done to make the proposal clear is to write up the new section and make clear where it will be placed. Then a consensus might be reached. But you can't get a meaningful consensus based on half of a proposal. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Smallbones, of course supporting a "compromise" proposal does not mean editors must abandon advocating for their prior position. But this is not the place to be repeating your opposition. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just an ill-formed proposal. You need to state exactly what you want to do, not leave the undefined "estimates" section hanging up in the air. The article sanctions state that "edits" must be approved by consensus, vague generalizations cannot be approved by consensus for inclusion into this article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an ill-formed proposal. If you want to propose a specific amendment to the "estimates" section, go ahead, and it can be discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Any consequence for an editor posting a single edit that subsequently causes significant problems outside Wikipedia?

    This 22 September 2012 "Sand Monkeys" post by 122.60.13.99 lead to Asian soccer body blames Wikipedia for slur of UAE team (October 15, 2012). Sand Monkeys is a well known "racial discriminatory slang term used to describe a Middle Eastern individual",[21] and I've already made a request to ClueBot (who missed it) to address it.[22]
    From that IPs posts,[23] 122.60.13.99 appears to be a troubled account and needs admin action. Beyond that, does Wikipedia have a way to respond to single posts by editors where that post causes significant problems outside Wikipedia? or do we merely treat a single edit causing significant problems outside Wikipedia the same as any other single edit? In other words, should there be a different consequence within Wikipedia for posting "Sand Monkeys" to the United Arab Emirates national football team article since caused significant problems outside Wikipedia[24] or should the consequence within Wikipedia be determined without considering outside real world problems caused by the single post? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No. --Malerooster (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What consequence are you looking for? It's an IP that's unlikely to edit again, and if it does, is unlikely to be the same person editing. WilyD 13:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO your blame is misplaced. This is the sort of thing one has to live with in an open-source Wikipedia that "anyone can edit", for allowing a racial slur to sit unchecked for three full weeks. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, noting racism and blaming their confederation and FIFA for the actions is practically the national sport of low-ranking international soccer teams. This has far more to do with the UAEFA looking to blame someone that anything Wikipedia did. In fact, the real problem is that the Asian Football Confederation cited Wikipedia than anything Wikipedia did. That's why the UAEFA is upset at the AFC, not at us. Achowat (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Anyone reusing Wikipedia content should be aware that it is unreliable and should cross-check the facts before publishing them elsewhere. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Disgraceful and inappropriate edit. I agree it's futile to block the IP since it's probably since been reassigned to someone else. I am embarrassed but not surprised that edit lingered there as long as it did.
    I have deleted the edit from the article's edit history. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone reusing Wikipedia content should be aware that it is unreliable Remind me what is the point of wikipedia? John lilburne (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    we know enough about Wikipedia that we dont consider it a reliable source. Why should we then make any attempt to promise something to others that we dont believe ourselves? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you take the starbucks test. Walk into any outlet and ask the customers whether they can trust what is written in wikipedia. The percentage of those that say yes will be how ineffective you've been in imparting that singular fact. John lilburne (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As a bit of brainstorming, would it make any sort of sense to have a bot that can determine when potential racial slurs have been inserted into articles, and provide such reporting somewhere for people to review and check? We wouldn't want such a bot to automatically remove such slurs, since they be appropriate in the use of a contextually-significant quote, or in discussion of the origin of the term, so a human review is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone reusing Wikipedia content should be aware that it is unreliable. You should put this as a big yellow warning banner on the top of the articles, just to be sure. What say you?Dan Murphy (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We would hope that most people already know this. Wikipedia will never the be definitive authority on any topic, it can't be because it will never be complete and anyone can edit it. It will continue to be an excellent source of links on topics, and in most cases, provide some useful answers to basic questions. Even a "real" encyclopedia doesn't provide as much information as an expert in a given field, or as much as real research in that field will provide. It has been, and will be, more reliable than most other websites, more informative and better vetted. But fully reliable? Never. That isn't even the goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there already exists at the bottom of every Wikipedia page (even this one) is a link for "Disclaimers", which takes anyone who clicks it to Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which says in big type at the top "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia will never the be definitive authority on any topic The point isn't whether WP is the most reliable source, but rather is whether someone reading a WP will be miss informed as to basic facts as a result of reading it. John lilburne (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That would cut the donations by (at least) half. So NNNOOOOOOOOOOO, the WMF will never agree to that. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just think...flagged revisions/pending changes could have fixed all of this from the beginning. I still don't get why we allow IP addresses to edit anyways. We're still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit if we make people make an account. It would at least one step deter some of the vandals. SilverserenC 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pakistani POV eds deleting my userpage

    NOT A PAKISTANI PLOT 
    Explanation given according to Wikipedia policies; see WP:USER. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Two Pakistani POV eds are ganging up on me and have deleted my userpage. They claim there is some kind of breach of rule but I see no breach. They do not explain what rule has been broken and are trying to make it appear that I had put up a draft on my userpage. I have explained that it was not a draft but a copy of an existing article. They have taken offence because it happens to be a copy of list of terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012. My userpage should be restored and action should be taken against the concerned users. My discussion with them can be found on my very short talk page. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Your userpage was deleted as it was a redirect to User:OrangesRyellow/Sandbox, which isn't really a sandbox at all - it's a collection of quasi-Islamophobic links intended to portray British-Pakistanis in a negative light, followed by a list of terrorist attacks in Pakistan. GiantSnowman 14:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I've notified RegentsPark (talk · contribs), the deleting admin - this should have been done by OP. GiantSnowman 14:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the sandbox should be Mfd'd too.--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the editor who first raised this issue at the OP's talk page. After a few days of nothing much happening, I mentioned it to RegentsPark because I didn't want to be seen as a pseudo-admin (got enough problems right now, without that). Neither myself nor RegentsPark referred to any particular POV, be it Pakistani, Indian, Martian or whatever. I did wonder about WP:POLEMIC but thought it easier to deal with the issue without getting into a scrap. Obviously, I was wrong. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was merely moved to the user's sandbox and this was explained to him/her. Also explained that the only reason I moved it rather than deleted it was to give some time to use stuff from there in the article. Seems more than fair to me. --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Shortening the rope lest there is a nasty accident. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    What are you guys afraid of? That some Pakistani Mulla or taliban will take offence and issue a fatwa against Wikipedia? Wikipedia articles are meant to be copied and redistributed freely. The article on my userpage was not a draft but a copy of an existing article. This article Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012. Now go and delete that too, lest some Pakistani sees it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    An unattributed copy of material which you did not write, where you do not give credit to the actual authors. What is the purpose of the page? Why do you need it in your userspace? Unless there's some specific reason to keep it, you won't mind if we delete it, right? After all, you can just read the article instead... Franamax (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was keeping it there to try my editing skills on wikicoding and also to remind me that that articles needs work. (I have made some edits there. I generally used it to try my editing skills by changing it is some way or other and by looking at the effects by pushing the preview button. Then I would ignore saving the changes because saving the changes would be unnecessary.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. Most of us ANI regulars are not here to censor Wikipedia in favor of some government, but simply know a lot more than you about Wikipedia's policies and purpose. See WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:SOAP, which are relevant to this discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) ... And why can't you do that in a sandbox? Perhaps use a sticky note thingy if your memory is poor? You seem now to be suggesting that myself and RegentsPark are "Pakistani tricksters"] - a comment that is unlikely to help your case here. This thread was closed for a reason and re-opening it as you have could quite likely boomerang. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what can I say, he seems to see Pakistani evil doers all around [26] ... There are some technical terms in the real world for that, but let's just say that at some point he is going to run out of WP:ROPE with that kind of attitude. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, according to him I'm naive and have never interacted with Pakistanis, nor have I spent much time on Word Perfect (I don't know what Word Perfect has to do with Wikipedia, but whatever...that is what WP is short for :-) ) dangerouspanda 11:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    More content deletion / edit warring at Bishop George Ahr High School

    User:Jcullinan's recent edit to the article for Bishop George Ahr High School again removed sourced material regarding the school's firing of a swim coach after an incident with a student at the school. Previous removals of this same content a few days ago led to an ANI report, and consensus there and at the article's talk page was that the material was appropriate and properly sourced. The edit summary left this time states that "all events regarding this incident happened off of school grounds. The school had no rule [sic] in the crimes, therefore inclusion in this article is unwarranted." I know of no Wikipedia policy that says that the school must have committed the crimes (and I'm not sure how a swim coach does not fit this standard) or that they must have been committed on school grounds in order to be included. The user's name, descriptions on an article this user created that has been deleted and material on the school's website also make it appear that WP:COI is an issue here, which makes the user's apparent employment at the school and the removal of this content to be an additional issue. A tighter editing restriction on the article along with appropriate warnings / blocks for User:Jcullinan may well be needed to prevent further such incidents of edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know why this is at ANI. He or she did participate in a brief edit war but has not done so since being warned. In fact, he or she hasn't edited since yesterday and as far as I can tell you warned him or her today and then came to ANI despite his or her inactivity. Am I misunderstanding the timing of events? ElKevbo (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    After edit warring three days before, I saw the same edit warring this morning. While leaving a detailed warning it became clearer that there appear to be WP:COI issues that may well be clouding judgment here and after further consideration action at WP:ANI seemed appropriate. If the appropriate course of action is to restore the material and wait for another revert, I will certainly do so. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is the right course, and I see the material has been restored and is if anything even better referenced with three sources naming the school. I've left a note at the editor's talk page making it clear that further disruption is likely to end in blocks; they've now had two such warnings so if the material is removed by them again I think a short, immediate block if it's caught in time is the way forward. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jcullinan, based on the edits made to the article and his comments on his talk page, and I seem to have come to a consensus on the wording regarding this incident. Now it appears that User:Rhghes2137 has taken a turn deleting this material (see here), stating in the edit summary that "All events regarding this incident happened off of school grounds. The school had no rule in the crimes. The incident's inclusion on this article is unwarranted as there's no significant reason published in secondary sources to discuss school involvement." The fact that the person charged was a coach at the school would appear to show that the school was involved, the location of the sexual assaults would appear to be irrelevant, and the significant number of reliable and verifiable sources covering the incident and its aftermath -- including details of the response by the Diocese of Metuchen and the school in firing the coach -- woud indicate that there is appropriate justification for inclusion. Enhanced article protection and blocks seem to be warranted here to maintain the further integrity of the article. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given User:Rhghes2137 a a final warning. I won't block them myself, given that I've expressed an opinion about the editorial content of the article but if the blanking recurs I'll ask here if another uninvolved admin will consider doing so. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have blocked both editors because of clear evidence that they are sockpuppet accounts. Based on the identical spelling mistake made in this edit by one and this edit the other I can only conclude that this is one and the same person. I would not have blocked for disruption as that's more a matter of my judgement; however I think the socking is so clear cut as to leave no room for doubt. Any review or comments from others on the appropriateness of this are of course welcome. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And now a third editor has made an identical removal with an identical mistake in the edit summary. I've blocked them too and fully protected the article for a short period. Jake the peg anyone? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A few days ago, I posted this based on a legal threat I saw from Akkiiey (talk · contribs). Today, an anonymous IP who is presummably the same person posted these messages on his user page and on Qwyrxian's talk page. Despite that the user has made no mainspace edits, I'm proposing the user and IP be blocked given this behavior. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    2 week block for evasion. IP is reportedly static so it could probably be made longer without harm, but I think it's enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Your message here crossed with my comment on User talk:Akkiiey. The user-IP connection is very likely but with current checkuser rules we'll never prove it except by applying WP:DUCK. We can certainly block the Akkiiey account and I would support that. Blocking the IP might be more awkward if it is dynamic, and if Akiiey has not already been blocked then it is not evasion. The actual threat, btw, is pissing in the wind: it is an old story and the last significant challenge backfired big time nearly 12 months ago. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For some background, see this and this. It was also spewed over ANI, Jimbo's page, WT:INB and various other pages. And the incident last November was not the first time. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the legal issue to be somewhat interesting; as far as I have read, if Wikipedia servers were located in India, this person might actually have a case; similarly, if someone actually uploaded the "disputed" maps from India, they, too, might be in legal danger. In this case, I don't know exactly who he's planning to sue or ask the government to bring charges against. I somehow doubt that, even if Indian law somehow applied to those of us editing outside of India, they could get and enforce an extradition request on this issue. As far as blocking is concerned, I don't know why I have this strange hope, but I feel like there's a way to talk to this person. I'm going to leave another message on the named account; since the user has never actually edited main space, there isn't any particular disruption occurring...but others can block if they feel necessary. However, the block on the IP should not say "Block evasion", since the main account is not blocked. And WP:SOCK doesn't apply to someone who just edits while logged out, since it's clear the user simply doesn't know what s/he is doing. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Qwyrxian; basically it sounds as if he's threatening to try a private prosecution of Wikipedia in general. As Qwyrxian notes, it would be rather difficult to extradite Wikipedia for trial, since the English Wikipedia originating from China probably wouldn't be capable of doing anything about these maps. As long as our Indian editors stay away from these maps, I can't imagine any way that there would be a problem here: New Delhi probably won't take the effort to go after foreign nationals in other countries, and surely those nationals' governments would refuse to extradite for something that wasn't against their own laws. Treat it like any other graffiti, I say. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I had the impression he intended to have Wikipedia censored in India. The law that prohibits the disputed maps predates the internet, and our most relevant article never mentions a website being censored in India for showing those maps. Regardless, most legal threats on Wikipedia are total bunk, but still deserve a block. I had no qualms about blocking the IP because it's clear this person isn't here to join a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia. I think even in the best case scenario, Akkiiey starts to understand and then never edits again. I'm happy, though, to see that not everyone is as big a pessimist as I am. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption versus personalization

    REDUNDANT
    Render unto Arbitration Enforcement what is Arbitration Enforcement's. Nobody Ent 14:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Apteva has filed an arbitration enforcement action against me and against User:Neotarf, for our attempts to deal with his disruption on this page: here, in case anyone here cares. Dicklyon (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This was moved here from Wikipedia talk:MOS Apteva (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this not WP:FORUMSHOP? If it is at WP:AE why do we need a duplicate discussion/notification here? --Jayron32 13:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to close it immediately. Dicklyon was forum shopping at MOS, if any forum shopping is needed it would not go at the MOS. Apteva (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    JHunterJ

    Request blocking User:JHunterJ for violation of the 1RR restrictions at WP:MOS. These apply to admins as well as everyone else. If the reversion was so important, let someone else do it. This is clearly not a case of removing obvious vandalizm.[29] and [30] Apteva (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hilarious. For the record, I am not advocating for a block of Apteva for trying to skirt 1RR by first inappropriately deleting the other user's note and then hiding it after I restored it and warned Apteva against deleting other users' talk page comments. I also don't anticipate this to warrant my further comment, so I'm not watching this page; I'm sure I'll discover my potential block soon enough. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. Ridiculous wikilawyering ANI post. Nobody Ent 15:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. JHunterJ is not in violation of anything, and Apteva's removal of comments is not in accord with WP:TPO. --Neotarf (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that your perspective is correct Neotarf. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Apteva

    I'm looking through the history of WT:MOS and Apteva (talk · contribs) appears to be a keen contributor to the page and is editing in a manner which does not seem to be helping the atmosphere there nor in a manner helping to drive forwards consensus in a collegiate manner. Given the page operates under discretionary sanctions, is there any support for a page ban of one month? Hiding T 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral Apteva is comparing the infamous punctuation symbol in Mexican American to the Dred Scott decision [31]. Perspective seems to be lacking. Intervention is warranted, just not sure we're at the page ban stage. Nobody Ent 16:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This would appear to be the required official warning. The personalized charges referred to against myself and DickLyon at WP:AE (which make curious reading) have now been withdrawn. --Neotarf (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Metalvayne - disruptive editing, sock puppetry, and breaking topic bans.

    Indef blocked. If the socks continue, an official ban discussion on WP:AN would not be out of line. But for now, there's not much more to be done here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For some back history:

    1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766#Disruptive editing by User:Metalvayne - This link shows the last time User:Metalvayne was brought to ANI. It was over continual tinkering with music genre without source or edit summary despite many requests to stop. Additionally, homophobic vandalism was an issue raised. It was decided unanimously that he be topic banned from editing music genre for a year.
    2. Also over the course of that discussion, Metalvayne "retires", only to have three socks blocked indefinitely due to vandalism directly after. (Also in the initial link.) He is blocked for 24 hours due to sockpuppetry.
    3. Fast Forward to October. At this SPI case: [[32]] it is found that Metalvayne was using a sockpuppet to get around his topic ban, as virtually all he did was further arguing and tinkering with music genre. The sock is indefed, and he is blocked for a week. (Until October 16).
    4. October 17 - Right after his block expires, he uses his own account to break his topic ban, as seen in this edit. When I warned him about this, and some other unconstructive edits, here, his only response was essentially take it to ANI, and so I have.

    In short, he's broken his topic ban twice already, and shows no sign of changing, or adhering to restrictions placed on him. His responses are with attitude, he's not taking it seriously. As shown in the dif that shows my warning, he is also now going about on talk pages calling me names and telling people to "stay away from me"; things that while, don't really bother me, but it sure goes to show his intent to be unconstructive. Something needs to be done. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Metalvayne appears to have not the slightest interest in observing his one-year topic ban from music genres. My suggestion is to to block him for the duration of the ban, i.e. until August 28, 2013. If he manages to get through the year without any further socking he can return to normal editing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be worth a try, but personally I'm sceptical if he's going to stop socking. I am inclined to indef him as soon as any socks appear again. De728631 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to believe that Metalvayne has any intention of cooperating with any restrictions or that a one-year block will do any good. Indef him and be done.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tired of babysitting him like this, so I'd fully support an indef block as well. However, I would support the "1 year block, leading to an indef block if any socks are found", plan as well. (He makes no real effort to hide or mask his socks, so I'm sure he'd be caught if he were doing that. Four have been found already. He can't seem to help but to make the same sort of edits every time, regardless of account.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the "polite sock" persona. It's like dealing with Grundle's grungier twin. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for hearing me out. Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Having previously tried other measures to deal with it, none of which proved successful, I agree with the indef block. I imagine at some point he will plead that he has reformed, and will make excellent-sounding promises, but so far he has broken every such promise he has made here. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, he had it coming to him. This individual has proven to be a disrespectful saboteur of Wikipedia and did not have any interest in helping the cause once his recent block was alleviated, in favor of helping his own cause. He did a poor job of accepting legitimate criticism (as seen by how he removed many of his talk page postings), and exploited many pages and aspects of Wikipedia, while mustering the gall to play victim, too.
    He posted this derogatory, pathetic message about me and Sergecross73 on my user talk page, which was a message addressed to another user, yet on my talk page. In that comment, he depicted Wikipedia as a monarchy, unfoundedly so. Also, this post of his butted in on some conversation that had been resolved and dead for almost a month, and would not have likely been otherwise revisited. I don't usually remove material from my user talk page except for archiving purposes, but due to its rather loathsome nature, I felt that it was appropriate. Such comments don't attract trouble as much as they gratuitously seek trouble and end up receiving trouble out of obligation.
    Here is another comment where he revisited discussion that was dead and resolved for a long time, this time for over six months. Although it was addressed to me, it was on his user talk page, so I didn't receive it immediately. I decided not to respond, in order to be consistent with comments I had said earlier, and I believe I know why he asked the question. He probably (note the use of "probably" instead of something like "certainly") still thinks he can prove that I performed this edit, even though proving I did that would be like squeezing pineapple juice out of a rock, especially since I did not do that, and that this person's editing style and locations are much different from mine.
    The indefinite block, I feel, is legitimately reasonable and justified. Now the Metalvayne account will not be used again by this individual for any noteworthy editing activity. If trouble from this camp keeps up, though, then a shout-out to the long-term abuse page might be necessary. Sorry for the verbose nature of this post, but I sincerely hope these are the final words I have to say about this person in public. I really want to be done dealing with him, and I know others have a similar desire. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request ban of User:AndyTheGrump

    There's a consensus that no administrative action should occur here, and a couple admins have recommended the opening of an RFC/U. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Respected senior contributors,

    Highly abusive language on Talk page and AFD page without any provocation

    Since last 4 days, i am facing abuses on talk page and AFD page. I have shown my utmost calm and presented my points in the most decent possible way but the abuses continued. The latest comment made by him on AFD page is direct, highly derogatory and insulting where he called me an idiot.

    1. The first time he abused by using the word bullshit . I Chose to ignore it, maintained my calm, tried to establish the notability of article by clearing his concerns.
    2. Then he again used the word More garbage
    I requested him to use a decent language by saying - Words like Garbage, Bullshit and nonstop warnings, i would request you to use a decent language.
    3. But instead of correcting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrump again abused me by saying that heard enough bullshit from you.
    4. Then he nominated Ujjwal Patni for deletion. When i replied him point to point on AFD page things crossed all the limits and he abused by calling me an idiot. This is a serious personal attack on a public forum. I request for a straightforward ban on him for this abuse.

    I am not competent technically to understand pagelink or diff link, to lodge complaint at appropriate forum or to respond properly to such complaints. Just now i got a sock puppetry case warning as a reward by them. I would request senior contributors to help me and investigate the AFD page. If i am at fault ban me, and if Andythegrump is at fault then ban him. Pls don't ignore this request citing any procedural error or my technical incompetence.

    The AFD page also shows my Serious concern. I would prefer not to mention it here. Senior contributors may judge on that. I am not able to add a single word in last months. Two contributors revert every citation within seconds, abuse, give different type of warnings and attack. last two hours edit history of Ujjwal Patni reveals everything. Now most of the vital points of the article have been removed due to unexplained reasons. I must get a fair chance to work on the article without getting abused and a ban on him. Showed courage to lodge a complaint here because I respect the policy of WP:BOLD.

    Thanks...Nothing Personal and Nothing permanent. (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The blind leading the blind. As usual AndyTheGrump is correct in his assessment of an article and almost completely deficient in manners. Again it involves a likely COI editor who is barely acquainted with Wikipedia guidelines and markup, who has turned that AfD into a headache--I have closed it per SNOW, since there wasn't a chance in hell that it would end in keep. The reporting user is asked to take the time to read up on our guidelines for notability; I will let other admins decide on whether AndyTheGrump needs to be admonished or blocked for their various insults. There will be no ban; I think that's clear. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that the article concerned has been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ujjwal Patni. Unsurprisingly, since we have had months of discussion with this contributor, who has singularly failed to comprehend the need for proper third-party reliable sourcing, and insisted on posting the same questionable puffery time after time after time... As the talk page is no longer visible to me, I've no idea what the 'serious concern' was, unless it was the repeated claim that I am a sockpuppet of User:Rhode Island Red, who has had the misfortune to have had to deal with this nonsense even longer than I have. Yes, I used phrases like 'bullshit' and 'garbage', because that was what we were dealing with - a severe case of fingers-in-the-ears I-don't-want-to-hear-that tendentious editing that would try the patience of a saint (which I freely acknowledge I'm not...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (e/c)Calling another user an idiot [33] is completely out of bounds. Calling bullshit garbage sources "bullshit" and "garbage" is not an issue; however it IS extremely unlikey to do anything convince the editors promoting the bullshit garbage sourcing to begin producing sources that are not bullshit and garbage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing I can see wrong with Andy's actions was the "idiot" remark. If he didn't want to talk about it anymore the simple solution is too.... wait for it... stop talking. Referring to sources as bullshit and garbage was, as Drmies points put, an accurate description. It also seems screamingly obvious that in response to what the reporting user perceived as a coordinated attack they recruited/created some help for their own side in the form of User:Anay jain. So, Andy needs to stop making it personal and Mahaveerji needs to read WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to where you said he was correct in his assessment but deficient in manners. If he hadn't turned around and called the other user an idiot I would see nothing whatsoever wrong in his actions. I also have to agree that this thread is unlikely to change that and an outright ban is a near impossibility. If someone wanted to do the legwork to open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AndyTheGrump that would be the proper way to address the more involved issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. I agree with you on all points. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, on the now-deleted article talkpage Andy began a response with "Listen dickhead...", which may be straining the bounds of what is tolerable around here these days. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc, if you want to make a case, I guess we can restore the talk page for the time being. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You know my stance on civility (i.e. I find this sort of thing silly and inconsequential), was just throwing that out there for discussion . If you want to undelete the talk page temporarily to see, feel free...I'd left the window open awhile ago about to get a diff, but after a bit of afk, refreshed to see it was gone already. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this would justify a ban. TFD (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No ban. Perhaps a boomerang about competency for the original poster. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Without yet getting in the specifics of what solution is appropriate in this case, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. Using it as your personal playground to be a bully in is not a simple matter "civility" as in tea, crumpets, and how you hold your pinky but the destruction of a working environment. --Tznkai (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    +1. I don't have all that much to add, I just wanted to voice my support of the above statement. --Conti|✉ 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What he said. --Jayron32 22:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Some users seem to feel that being in the right as far as content gives them permission to insult others. It's an unfortunate situation, but not one that can be resolved by ANI. It puzzles me why there are some users who have been brought here for this sort of thing again and again yet none of those who are upset by it ever take the next step of opening a user RFC. That is the option in between ANI and arbitration. My only guess as to why it is not used in these cases is that it it requires discussion with the subject rather than just asking for someone else to impose sanctions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    (edit conflict) WP:Civility states that it is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  The problem here is not discussion or policies, it is enablers of incivility.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary:

    • Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia
    • Per the consenus above, the reported behavior may be unacceptable but it's not an ANI issue, some one should file an RFC/U.
    • Per the current consensus at the Civility RFC no one should act should act as "self appointed civility police."Nobody Ent 10:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh give me a fucking break. One minute admin is forcing their hand down editor throats, ripping their guts out and spilling them all over the place with sanctions for just arguing endlessly, but we don't have civility police? That is the stupiest thing I have heard. Of course we don't have civility police...and admin ARE NOT just janitors. And again, ANI does not require a consensus for admin to intervene.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Yeah, I think a RfC/U is the best way forward. He may be openly grumpy, but I feel that sometimes he's needlessly aggressive to other editors who are working completely in good faith. It's a shame, because I know he's acting in good faith too. Beware the tendency to support people because it appears that people oppose them for whatever reason (incivility, minority opinions, what have you); that sort of group behaviour has, in the past, allowed serious harassment to go on unresolved because even arbitrators are unwilling to take action. Sceptre (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak to all past situations, but in this particular case the editor that Andy was in a dispute with did not appear to be acting in good faith. A reasonable assessment is that the other editor was using multiple SPA sock accounts to create a blatantly puffery-laden BLP on a non-notable subject, and then antagonizing other editors by throwing out accusations of collusion/conspiracy/suppression, etc on the Talk page. I was also the target of the SPA/sock's wrath. When the other editor realized that the bio was being considered for deletion (and it ultimately was deleted), he simply started attacking other editors, Andy included. That situation may not justify incivility, but the incivility was clearly provoked and it was by far the lesser of the two evils. While Andy may live up to his name (i.e. grumpy) from time to time, crucifying him in an admin action would serve no purpose other than to curtail a productive editor. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can administrators take a look at the recent edits to the article and Talk page. It seems to me that both Betablocker4 and Broncofan12 are the same editor with a single purpose account bent on adding some local trivia to the article, from a non-notable subject. All the while the real goal seems to be to pain the NN subject as victim and the the others as villains. Right now I am a day and a half out of surgery and don't have the inclination to keep up the explanations. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    At a glance I see at least five SPAs that are probably socks in the recent history. As such I have semi-protected the article for a few months as it seems this is not the first time this has been an issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further examination  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. sockfarm blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kay Sieverding just for the archives. Feel free to load any more in there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    SNIyer12's disruptive editing

    There is a discussion at the WikiProject Baseball talk page regarding SNIyer12's failure to follow consensus and continued re-insertion of content that does not belong. I am not really involved in the situation, but as nobody else has reported it here, I am doing so. Please note that the editor has been approached on their talk page and has not responded. I am not very familiar with the situation, but as I understand it, one instance is this insertion of content on 1996 New York Yankees season. As you can tell from the page history, this is not the first time SNIyer12's edits to this page have been reverted. I hope that some of the more involved editors can elaborate more fully on this, I am simply starting the discussion as no one else has done so. AutomaticStrikeout 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we might've taken this user to ANI before, but I don't recall for sure. This editor has violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:POINT in an ongoing fashion for several years now. There is a minimal, at best, engagement from the user in discussion on various talk pages, but it doesn't change anything in the user's behavior. It's not vandalism, but it's disruptive, and it's gotten on my very last nerve. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    SNIyer12's conduct has been brought to ANI in January 2007 and July 2009. I see the second time he got a 48 hour block. It accomplished nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue, ultimately, their being non-responsive to concerns raised to them, and that they engage in very slow moving edit wars across multiple articles. SNyler has a habit of obsessing over various topics, and if what he inserts somewhere (often SYNTH) is challenged, they just wait a little while, then reinsert in the hopes that nobody will notice. When they get reverted again, the process continues. And in some cases, this process lasts over a year or more. My personal inclination is that if they won't respond to the concerns, a block is the only way to end the slow moving edit wars. I've taken articles of theirs to AFD, and have attempted to engage them on numerous topics, so would not consider it appropriate for me to take such action myself. Resolute 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your desired end-state here? A block? That's how I'm reading this. Skimming through some contributions and his lack of responsiveness, I think that might be the only way to get his attention. Go Phightins! 02:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. If the disruption was limited to just one article, I'd say topic ban him from that article. However, it appears that more than one page is in question, so I'd certainly say a block is in order. AutomaticStrikeout 03:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, blocks are not the answer. Neither are bans. Use the RFCU for community sanctions by vote.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like some sort of block IS the answer. If the guy continues to corrupt articles and won't talk, then solely going through the RFCU bureaucracy is insufficient. It will take time and will allow continued damage to wikipedia. Put him on ice for whatever amount of time the RFCU will likely need to run. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They have been warned over and over for years now. Personally I would have blocked them long ago if I didn't feel like I was probably too involved to do so. At the very least he/she needs a block at a step up from his last block. He/she was blocked 48 hours...lets block him/her a week and see if they are willing to start talking. And RFCU is fine, but more often than not they lead nowhere. But if people think we should go that way lets do it. But for an RFCU to work they have to be involved and talk, and well that is the problem currently, we can't get him/her to talk. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable...Go Phightins! 16:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    1RR restriction broken

    curvy sticks should remain unthrown --Jayron32 23:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Mo ainm has broken 1RR at UK City of Culture page. The user has made 2 edits within 24hrs here [34]. User also made the same edit today [35], shortly before warning me off 1RR rule here [36]. The user is aware of 1RR, yet flaunts it in this case.

    User is also applying WP:IMOS to a British related article. 46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This user does not appear to play well with others. Their last 50 edits include 20 reverts.46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the authority of the 1RR restriction? I don't see notification on the talk page or in the page notice when editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is assumed that any page relating to the Northern Ireland The Troubles is under 1RR, though id imagine it would be impossible to mark every page with said notification. Despite this Mo ainm was aware of the 1RR restriction, and felt the need to warn me of this yet had broken the restriction 2 days prior.46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I need an opinion of someone familiar with the Troubles. Most of the articles covered by that are obvious, this one isn't, and I can't assume it is. The 2013 holder of the award is Derry, in Northern Ireland, but the main topic of the article isn't Northern Ireland specific. It is about an award from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thats what I thought. How can this user apply Ireland Manual of Style to this article? But I think its a block if he can warn me of 1RR having broken 1RR already. It seems like he is trying to game 1RR or wave the 1RR flag to prevent users editing. It doesnt seem right.46.7.113.111 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Meritless complaint. Reverts of IP edits are categorically exempt from the TROUBLES 1RR. And I'm just about to implement an AE block on this IP for quacking per an unrelated AE thread. T. Canens (talk) 22:20, 17 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, continued; proposed block

    I recently noted concern about an editor whose editing skills were seriously lacking and who had refused to engage on his or any article Talk page. The thread is archived here. It was generally agreed that the edits were disruptive, and the editor unresponsive, but that in light of the editor's apparent good faith we should tread lightly, offer help and hope that things turned for the better. I think that was the right approach, but it appears that it's not working - since then, the editor (Davebrayfb) has continued his disruptive editing, most recently to undo a months old redirect in the face of Talk page consensus. [Here.] Perhaps one of his last six or so edits has survived reversion. Anyhow I'm not sure that the soft approach is going to work. I'm not adamant about a block but I think now that one is warranted and hereby propose one, something at least long enough to get his attention. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs? You are actually asking for a block (with no time mentioned I suppose you want an idef block) that is not vandalism related but you don't show any diffs? You just want us to research through a discussion when even with diffs admin doesn't block for disruption?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the word "continued" in the section title. Detailed diffs were given in the original report only a few days ago, but such is the turnover speed at this board, it is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Apparent_competence_issue, as the OP has already pointed out in the second sentence of the report. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I'm breaking kayfabe here, but this one item from the school teacher's super-secret play-book:
    What teacher says What teacher means What child hears
    You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way. You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way. You are a bad person.
    Well done, that's good, but there is an even better way to do it. You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way. Well done, that's good, but there is an even better way to do it.
    --Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Are we recruiting editors from elementary school now? Why does WP waste its time trying to rehabilitate these types of editors? If all the energy expended on them had been turned to creating article content, we'd have ten times as many FAs than we do now and one-tenth the editor attrition. I've looked over his edits, and JohnInDC has had the patience of Job. Block the account, keep an eye out for his or her return, and move on. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand a little on Tom's comment, I have made repeated, friendly and patient efforts on the editor's Talk page to guide them toward more constructive editing practices (starting here.) I've also templated him occasionally to set up a proper AIV case in the event he got worse fast. None of my efforts garnered more than vague and non-responsive responses. (He has edited his own Talk page 6 times, not one entry longer than a sentence, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.) The prior go-round here at ANI ended, as I said, with a general consensus that the editor's work was in fact disruptive, but probably in good faith, and that additional efforts should be made to engage them. Kudpung posted a friendly plea on the editor's page (diff here) suggesting the editor avail themselves of the many mechanisms for learning how to edit well, and observing that a block might result if they didn't. Here at ANI, Kudpung said that we should wait to see if there was any reaction. Davebrayfb did not respond to Kudpung's plea, and continued the same sort of disruptive editing he had been engaged in before. (I supplied one good diff above.) With all that as prologue, I have returned to suggest that persuasion and discussion, having consistently failed to produce any change in this editors behavior, are not an effective approach and that an attention-getting block (or indef, whatever the collective wisdom counsels) is required. All prior disruptive diffs are listed at the linked entry above; I did not reproduce them here because this page seems to collect a good bit of clutter as it is, but of course would be happy to repost them if it would be more convenient. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "Zack of wikipediawriters.com"

    According to s.p.a. User:Sharadha Bain, User:Faustus37 is somebody called "Zack at wikipediawriters.com" and was paid to write the puff piece Jason Shulman diff. The tone of the complaint leads me to suspect that the client didn't realize what a breach of ethics they have paid for, and just wants to know why we rejected their advertisement. Meanwhile, wikipediawriters.com uses the trademarks of Wikipedia to pimp themselves out shamelessly. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A reminder that it would be unethical to suggest that we DDoS them, but it should be totally fine for the legal department to scare them, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal is now aware of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles like Danielle Babb are curious. The notability there is marginal, to say the most. Resolute 01:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is with wikipediawriters.org more than with this one writer of theirs, who's also been a good content contributor for us. I think he is (or was) just one of their many contractors and I suspect he was paid a lot less than what wikipediawriters.org received for his work. I suggest we tell this guy to do no more paid editing and tell him he's welcome to keep contributing useful content.
    In the meantime, we need to figure out ways to better deal with wikipediawriters.org and similar organizations.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Gregory Kohs is unpopular here for many reasons I won't go into. (If you're interested in the backstory, search Wikipedia for his name, MyWikiBiz and Centiare to find many megabytes worth of discussions, noticeboard threads, etc.; go to wikipediareview.com and wikipediocracy.com for still more megabytes of his side of the story).
    At one point, he proposed to put paid articles in MediaWiki format on his own wiki with GFDL (what we used before CC-BY-SA) licensing for reuse by Wikipedia. This gave Wikipedia editors a ready source of pre-written articles they could then move over to Wikipedia if they met our criteria. After a several subsequent years dealing with spam and paid editing, I've come to realize in retrospect this was a pretty good idea for all parties; certainly better than all the covert stuff we have now. There's so much animus nowadays between Kohs and Wikipedia, however, that I don't see this ever happening, at least with his firm.
    I bring this up not to rehash (or rebash) Gregory Kohs' activities but because I think the underlying concept is worth further thought.
    Paid editing on Wikipedia is sort of like the US' illegal immigration problem. Exposure on Wikipedia is worth so much money that material will find its way here one way or the other ("show me a 15' border fence and I'll show you a 17' ladder"). Is there a way we can at least partially triage or channel it in an intelligent way?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, George I of Great Britain and Acrocanthosaurus and Cogan House Covered Bridge all became well written without a single cent changing hands. Could someone explain that to me? --Jayron32 03:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I assure you I am not "Zack of wikipediawriters.com." Faustus37 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    These articles were also developed without a single cent changing hands; I appreciate the work done on them. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, our friend and my accuser User:Sharadha Bain has contributed a grand total of two edits to Wikipedia. TWO. I'm over 5,500 edits at this point going back a good 7 years plus now. I've created 200+ articles in that time, mainly dealing with the State of Idaho. The vast majority of my edits were made in an altruistic sense. Try to prove otherwise. Yes, I have written Wikipedia articles for pay. There's nothing wrong with that. I remind you COI does not prohibit that practice and never has, provided said articles do not conflict with well-established notability standards. I firmly believe nothing I have ever written here violates either principle, especially in light of WP:NOTPAPER. Believe me, I've rejected many more paid article requests than I've accepted based on standards I believe acceptable here. Evidently others do not share my inclusionist view. Well, such is life. Frankly it's only because of this CNet article that the witch hunt is on in earnest. So the game is up, and the exclusionists have won. Do what you will. Faustus37 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you fancy that the only reason anyone's concerned about the burgeoning of hired guns is a CNet article, you've come very late to the game; there've been a whopping lot of us very unhappy about this syndrome for years now, something that pops up at AfD on an increasing basis. That being said, perhaps you could turn the experience you laud into a better grasp of WP:AGF -- casting our very legitimate concern over articles written solely because mercenaries are paid to do so in deletionist/inclusionist terms is a smokescreen at level best. You would be a great deal better served by a sober explanation of why you feel your conduct is okay than by aggressive hostility that anyone dare question you. Ravenswing 05:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing aggressive about my comments. I'm a firm disciple of Realpolitik. Argue the point, not the person. Question my good faith all you want. Even with clients I support (and I don't support many), I only guarantee my work for a week online. This is made very clear to them from the outset. I'm very well aware the purists were who they were long, long before the aforementioned CNet article. Frankly 95 percent of the "hired guns" you reference are stupid. They guarantee everything. I guarantee next to nothing. I know the jackals of the Wikipedia culture. But that begs the question, why the hell is it really that important? Most thinking people already know Wikipedia is a guide to the source and not the source itself. It's not like we're going to crash the Internet here. So what if the Muse is paid to impart knowledge? Is a bio of someone like Jason Shulman really going to detract from a bio of Gandhi? Really? REALLY? Even today American high school students cite Wikipedia as a source at their own peril ... Faustus37 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps its time to take COI back to the community to see if there is now WP:consensus to add a clear prohibition of paid editing - Wikipedia's reputation , such as it is, is being undermined by multiple reports of paid and COI editing in the press. Recently as I have understood, there is a rise in opposition to such editing. WP:RFC - Banning any user that is cited as a paid editor and implementing WP:Flagged revisions to end the defaming of living people via the project will help massively to raise the projects reputation as a respectable source reporter.. Youreallycan 06:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Without further ado, let's test how that would work with a live example: Sidel.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Previously deleted promotional article, easy, speedily re delete and block/ban the re creator indefinitely would be my interpretation of the NPOV Wiki project position. Youreallycan 08:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A company with €1.350 billion in revenue is absolutely notable even by German wikipedia standards (which are far stricter than ours for companies). Wikipedia always had poor coverage of notable companies (and was always full spam of non-notable ones like many IT start-ups.) Tijfo098 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) YRC, I am on your side regarding the defence of integrity of the Wikipedia project against commercial exploitation. I'd personally like to see that article deleted as an obvious "created for financial gain" reasons. But the article is well-referenced, would easily pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP, and would pass a WP:AfD nomination. My apologies for resorting to cliches, but "the genie has been let out of bottle a long while ago" and "Wikipedia is a victim of its own success" and so on. Like it or not, I think we just have to accept that acceptable articles might be created for reasons we don't like.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This has also been discussed at Jimbo's talk page, for what it's worth. Graham87 08:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Our COI policy document is poorly written. It doesn't make the distinction between the COI, which exists whenever an editor is editing in a topic area that they or their employer make money from (which is of course very common), and problematic actions potentially caused by the COI, which is an independent issue. This lack of distinction caused me a lot of grief recently. Gigs (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Paid writing is not prohibited, regardless of how much Jimbo dislikes it. An RFC was closed in July with, in part, this summary: Overall conclusion: Nothing in Wikipedia's best practices concerning conflict of interest can be said to have changed as a result of this discussion. The situation therefore remains as it was before: roughly, that conflict of interest editing is "discouraged" (although it remains unclear exactly what it is that is being discouraged and what form the discouragement is supposed to take); that editors with affiliations are encouraged to be open about them, and also to avoid making potentially controversial edits in the relevant area without prior approval; and that we don't post information about the identities of other editors (WP:OUTING). Nobody Ent 13:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Making paid editing forbidden would also create a nightmare of enforcement and cause even more witchhunts at SPI, which is already buried. The solution is management, not barring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This "discouragement" reminds me a lot of the history of domain names. Everyone said at first that in order to register a .com you had to have some kind of working company, not just be squatting, etc., in order to keep the riffraff out --- meanwhile some well connected people bought up the good stuff and made millions. I would predict that the people ignoring your AN/I process are the ones who will be making the big money here; some of the people waiting to see what consensus is will be will end up working for them for peanuts. I would like to see you encourage a fairer, more open set of standards to encourage a free market and more equal opportunity for all editors. Wnt (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re to Youreallycan of 06:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, by all means, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sneak every last marginal policy that has been opposed in with this irritation. Nothing says cabal like omnibussing lots of partial fixes through for a minor complaint. Hasteur (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated dumping of Primary Sources and copyvios into Hinduism articles

    User:Pilot2020mi has only had an account for three days, but has been dumping multi-thousand byte bits of primary source text from Hindu scriptures, as well as some alleged copyvios, into Women in Hinduism , Criticism of Hinduism, and Varna (Hinduism). At User talk:Pilot2020mi he has been warned for these issues by three different editors, with other editors giving cautions in their Revert edit-summaries. Contributions here: Special:Contributions/Pilot2020mi and note this user has never once posted on a Talk page, responded on his own Talk page to concerns raised, or left a single edit summary, ever. Thanks for any help getting him to take a step back and deep breath. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll issue a formal EW warning, after which WP:3RRNB seems to be appropriate if they continue. - Sitush (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant sock

    Can I have User:Dubs boy blocked as an obvious sock of 46.7.113.111, who was blocked last night (see above and AE thread). I'd do it myself but I'm involved.

    While we are at it, could someone close Talk:Derry#Requested_move, which is up for closure today anyway? It was started by 46.7.113.111, was identified early as disruption, has been closed twice already, and is a magnet for this user. --RA (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question has actually self-identified as 46.7.113.111 [37] so there should be no issue with blocking. I also second the request for closure of the requested move. As the initiator of the AE request and a major participant in the RM discussion it would be difficult for me to be more involved. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. My internet was running slow, so I turned off/on my router and found I was unblocked. I thought I had been unblocked as I have been given no reason for my blocking. I set up an account so that my vote would count in discussion. I had dabbled with wiki back in February but it is only now that I have commented at Derry talk page that I have been blocked. I have not made any controversial edits, only commented at a talk page. Is that a crime? And I have present a great argument at Derry talk page for a proposed change, which seems like the most likely reason for users to try and block me?Dubs boy (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you are the sock indicated but I would point out that editors are supposed to be here to improve the articles rather than exercise their debating skills and mess up discussions with misdirections and misstatements to push an agenda. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally uninvolved having actually read through that morass of a RM, I can only conclude that you, Dubs boy, have been unable to effect a change in consensus and are continually arguing the same point over and over again. Even in the face of info digging by a couple of the editors there which showed that the statistics is against your proposal, you nonetheless continued to flog the same carcass. Raising a discussion on the talk page is laudable but after your proposal failed to gain any traction, the sensible thing to do would have been to call it a day. Others want you blocked because your continuing the same argument does nothing to help the article and is disruptive. Anonymous editors can get their "vote" counted as much as anyone elses so you need not have worried on that account, provided they make reasoned policy based arguments for it. There's no need for a sock block. Either way, it's best that you realise you've failed to gain consensus for a change and call it quits. If in time something changes drastically then it can always be revisited. There's no point doing a General Custer. Blackmane (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    just to add, that I will put my point forward so long as the discussion is open. I would say also Blackmane, that as an involved editor you are probably not aware of the POV that plagues this page. Note the comments by AjaxSmack, also involved.
    I understand. I thought I had made a reasoned argument at the talk page in keeping with WP:COMMON NAME. I know its the same argument, but its a valid one, and the argument of the opposed hasnt changed much either. I had presented facts that have simply been ignored, so you can understand why I am still trying to flog the so called dead horse. Also if you look at the talk page you will see that 24 users have voiced concerns at the bias of the article talk page against 19 pro keeping the page as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please block as a sock block. The user's IP address was blocked, so they turned on and off their router to get an new IP address, then created an account, and is straight back to the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. --HighKing (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note HighKing is a suspected sock. see here [38]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I received no reason why I was blocked in the first place, so I couldnt possibly know what that behaviour would be. I had been given a 3 month block for no obvious reason. Raising an RM and contributing to that RM is not disruptive and certainly not deserving of a block. If anything I have been subject to harrassment from a number of users who essentially ganged up on me, and a few of them have come here to hammer in the final nail in the coffin. Dubs boy (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You were blocked per this decision on the Arbitration requests for enforcement. I've notified Timotheus Canens of this thread. --RA (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 4 months for block evasion, extending the previous 3 month block by the original admin. Very likely someone else as well. If another admin feels I've been entirely too generous by extending this only one month, no offense will be taken if you modify the block, just ping me afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm wondering if they are a sock of User:Scandal Bird, who filed that SPI after creating the account and sleeping a great while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) [39] ... I was going to say I thought a month's extension was more than was needed. Indef it and mark it with {{Uw-deoablock}}. --RA (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In case anyone had any doubt left -- yes, I'm that stupid: I've just closed the RM discussion. Nobody Ent 14:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't suppose anyone would care to summarise this in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Derry/Londonderry? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DENY would say we shouldn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Me a sock of 46.7.. lol! What have I got in common with him? The sock spotters here need to get their act togther. HighKing is 100% a sock. I wish I could bet £1m on it. I'd win for sure, and yet, SPI declined on HighKing. It really is laughable. Scandal Bird (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Crap, crap crap. WP:TROUT me now. I misread the "tone" of the preceding comment, and thought that the "Me a sock of 46.7.." bit was an admission. I missed the whole tone point of the comment and sock-blocked him. I've now undone the block, but he might still get caught in the IP auto-block. I'll just slink back to my gnome-hole and hope that I did not inflame an already drama-filled situation too much. :( - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the autoblock at Special:BlockList, but I have to admit that I'm using more of a giver than take-a-wayer when it comes to blocks. Their statements above didn't remove my concerns. Oh, and I think this is yours-> <((()))>< Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File permission issues

    Resolved

    Thank you Dennis


    I need help with an issue of permission for file use. I tagged some files which are listed in my CSD log. The uploader left this message on my talk and I now fear the editor has an extensive upload log that needs scrutiny. ( User has no other uploads ) I hope I am correct in this matter and not bringing undue attention on this editors contributions. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Dennis. I looked up the OTRS page, but I couldn't find out what to do in this case. Who does what to whom? I do not follow what you mean by the '...blue links already has OTRS links on the permissions.' If this was done, it was in error. Can you please point me to the blue link you mention. Could it be that this file inadvertently meets the necessary criteria, which can simply be added to the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurnard (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Gurnard, please see my talk page for more information. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=518552603"