Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NickSchweitzer (talk | contribs) at 03:09, 1 December 2012 (→‎CopyVio on Arizona State University: Thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Start a new discussion

    User:Bluerim

    Bbb23 and BWilkins have now responded to this report and neither has decided to issue any blocks. If there is further concern about Bluerim's editing, take it to the newly-opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bluerim. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Over the past few days, User:Bluerim returned from about a 20 day break from Wikipedia and reverted changes that I made to the article (List of God of War characters and reversion history) that were based on a discussion asking for outside opinions on what to do (as these issues have been going on for the past few months and I've had two RFCs and Third Opinions requested but none helped because Bluerim couldn't accept what they had to say). I had also corrected some sources on the page which he reverted and has done in every revert (for which he said "Sources can be corrected" but keeps reverting them). He claims he's making corrections or improvements but he's doing the same revert, with maybe small differences if there are any. There's been a discussion on the Talk page (titled Outside comments/opinions) for about a month. Bluerim's changes and reversions are contradicting some of the things brought up. Another editor (User:Sjones23) reverted him for the same reason I have: the discussion post. I today added a new section to the article (which has been long overdue) and added information to the lead because of it. Bluerim reverted back to his version before Sjone's revert (although he retained the new section) and hid his reversion by only claiming that he made corrections to the lead, the new section, and added "one word" to another section. I feel that Bluerim's reversions are disruptive and are making it hard to improve the article. There's a discussion on the Talk page but he either doesn't post or he leaves short comments and doesn't answer questions or doesn't fully explain himself which can be seen in his most recent post there. This is also not the first time I've had to report this user for similar conduct. --JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewing the talk page I'm not seeing inappropriate behavior by Bluerim. There's nothing wrong with short comments -- we actually have an essay Be concise encouraging them. NE Ent 12:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much for the short comments, it's the fact he avoided answering my posts, and his short comments don't really say much. If you see here, I left comments that I would have liked to have had answers to. Instead of answering or responding, Bluerim made this reversion to the article (which is what I was referring to about hiding his other revert) and made this post on the Talk page which did not answer any of my questions, nor did it provide or help with anything to solve the issues. Also, did you check the reversion history of the article itself? That's really where the disruption is. --JDC808 ♫ 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's reverted the page again, claiming I'm the only one who has issues, despite the fact another editor reverted him for the same reasons I have. The biggest problem with this user is that he is very hard to work with for consensus building because he keeps reverting and resists community input (as noted by the RFCs and Third Opinions on the Talk page, where practically all of the outside editors agreed with my points but Bluerim challenged their opinion which is why we're still having these issues). This has been an ongoing issue with this user for months and it's really ridiculous. As mentioned before, I've had to report this user for similar conduct as seen here which links the three previous reports prior to that one. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should contact an administrator about this matter, since edit warring can make things worse, which is why it is not tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, to take a look at this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, edit warring is not acceptable. However, a failure to accurately read the situation is also not good. Bluerim (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As per edit warring comment, then why did you keep reverting when you knew there was a discussion on those issues? As per other comment, that's why there are links provided. --JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The link JDC808 provides above as a "revert" is actually an edit. NE Ent 02:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one? --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This link. By the way, as Bbb23 does not have enough time to review this thread, I've asked another uninvolved administrator, PresN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to give his thoughts on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure it was that one? If you look at the last three changes, I made a revert at 10:04 November 25th, then Bluerim reverted that at 12:01 November 26th, which is what you just linked (notice mine is +2,841 and his is -2,841). I believe NE Ent was talking about this one. It actually is a revert (technically a revert with an added edit). Look at the differences between this revert and this one (the one I believe NE Ent was referring). They're identical reversions with the exception of in the latter, Bluerim reverted my additions to the lead (which made the lead the same as the first reversion) and he made two minor edits to the new section. And so it's clear, there are three intermediate edits between those two: your first revert of Bluerim, me adding the new section, and then me editing the lead because I added new section. And okay about the admin. --JDC808 ♫ 05:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case then, I apologize for my comment about the link above. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Just making sure everything's clear. --JDC808 ♫ 05:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, then. While we are still waiting for the administrator to respond, based on the relevant differences provided above, I think that Bluerim refuses to get the point. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not going to have time to review this thread today. So, either another admin will have to, or given that this appears to be principally about edit-warring, the report could be taken to WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I "get the point" - my latest edits to the article do incorporate some suggestions. There are, however, some weaknesses with the other additions. In short, the article reads less like a piece of prose and more like a fan entry. The issue I have here is that one over-committed editor can't see the compromise, which was possibly not helped by another editor who may not have the experience to see the process. Yet another editor had no issue with my recent post on the Talk page, and stated brevity was fine. I can elaborate, but hope for some more flexibility. JD means well, but his writing does need work and he just needs to haul back a tad (a la the string of attempted complaints and comments on my Talk Page, such as "being left not choice"). Let's work together without melodrama. It can be done.

    Bluerim (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, JDC808 is not overcommitted (I feel that this is unfounded) and the problem here is that you were edit warring while discussion was taking place, and please do not make unfounded assumptions about JDC808. Since your edits created controversy, a discussion was necessary according to the rules and common sense. Unfortunately, you also seem to have ignored good faith community concerns and consensus as relevant on the talk page of the God of War characters article. As visible in Talk:List of God of War characters, there are discussions such as an RFC, which led to community consensus amongst uninvolved editors. I also feel that Bluerim is being a little disruptive, which according to this policy, is valid, fulfilling 3 out of the 6 criteria that defines disruptive editing. Also, we should consider listen to outside opinions of others who have commented on the talk page and take these into account. I would like to quote the definition of WP:IDHT:
    In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.
    Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.
    Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

    I am still waiting for administrator input about this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean well, and I applaud your efforts for peace, but you did err in reverting back to some inferior material. JD means well but many of his edits have needed tweaking. I have compromised on several points, but look for the same in him. Bluerim (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As per "inferior material," please see my most recent post(s) at the Talk page. --JDC808 ♫ 02:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, as has been said before, this is a content dispute and belongs in discussion on the article talkpage or in WP:DR processes? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried. I've tried requesting opinions from outside editors. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've briefly looked at the history of the article. The only issue that would call for administrator intervention is edit-warring. As I see it, both Blue Rim and JDC808 have been edit-warring. However, the last edit to the article by Sjones (who has not been edit-warring) was over a day ago, so at least the edit-warring has calmed down for the moment. If I had looked at this earlier, I would have either blocked both Blue Rim and JDC808 or I would have locked the article. Hopefully, all of those things can be avoided if the involved editors behave and restrict their dispute (amicably) to the talk page. If they don't, then sanctions may be appropriate. And be careful about declaring consensus. I've too often seen one of the disputants say "Consensus has been reached" and then proceed to implement the alleged consensus. Best to have a clear consensus and an ininvolved editor implement it. As BWilkins said, there are dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving seemingly intractable content disputes. I'll leave this topic open for a bit in case anyone wants to say anything further.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to say I wasn't wrong when I made my reverts. To get to the point, the most problematic thing is that Bluerim does not understand consensus. This has been a big and ongoing issue with him. That's probably the root of this entire issue. I'm not just saying this because I think it's true, other uninvolved editors have pointed this out to him. As Sjones made aware, there's been discussions on the Talk page where I've requested RFCs and Third Opinions. Practically all uninvolved editors were in agreeance with my points (which is about 5 or 6 uninvolved editors), but Bluerim challenged their opinion (even questioned their writing abilities at one point) and to put it bluntly, he pretty much said they're wrong. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you're well into WP:RFC/U territory. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editor User:Escarlati

    I have a dicussion with User talk:Enric Naval here and here.

    User talk:Enric Naval calls for "support" of User:Escarlati here.

    User:Escarlati, in spanish, make a personal attack over me, and say that he do not wants to talk by reason of language limitation here. Then User:Escarlati reverts all my editions (whatever article). I try to talk with he, here[1], but he not say nothing, and whatever article he say in diff 'statu quo ante' and only reverts my editions. He reverts me in many articles:

    --Santos30 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Disruptive editor is Santos30. Santos30 being carried out in several articles and editions massive edit wars to defend a non-neutral POVwarrior, editions which was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia. Now move your warrior Pov this by cross-wiki wikipedia. I request for measures against Santos30 for these actions disruptive and undermine the statu quo ante and viewpoint neutral. I'm sorry my English is not good, because I use a translator. Escarlati (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. This is totally false and another personal attack.--Santos30 (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The logs tell us that you have a SUL account and that as Santos30 (talk · contribs) you are indeed blocked indefinitely, for abuse of multiple accounts where the master account is Domenico (talk · contribs), on the Spanish Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake, the case is here, I was a retired User and I not inform of changes in my nick User. But what User:Escarlati say is false and is another personal attack, never I was blocked for " massive edit wars" or "POV warrior". User:Escarlati came here to make personal attacks and reverts me (User:Escarlati not talk and not give bibliography) as you can see in the diffs. User:Escarlati say that he can not talk in english, but quickly he came here to try to silence me with administrative actions similar as censure in Wikipedia spanish (you can read it in spanish).
    If User:Escarlati does not want to talk or give bibliography, then he should not reverts me here in wikipedia english ( anything or whatever says or do in wikipedia español, wrong or right ). I do not want an administrative action for no user, I want to be free to make editions or talk in discussion.--Santos30 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    User Santos30 is engaging in a reversion-war and trying to impose his point of view. He just placed a non-neutrality template in the article on the Crown of Aragón which should be removed because he is the only one claiming that it is not neutral. [11]--Maragm (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    False. The imposed point of view is in the last edition of User:Escarlati [12]. He delete my bibliography and not gives any other reference. Template is placed 24 hours after I explain in the talk my reason of the template here. Nobody answer the talk. No bibliography to clarify in the article. --Santos30 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, after this talk User:Eric Naval answer here. I keep waiting for User:Escarlati here--Santos30 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Santos30, you were given many sources at Spanish wikipedia and then here at English wikipedia. All users at Spanish wikipedia agreed to use the Cross of Burgundy for the Spanish Empire and its colonies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I had hopes that Santos30 was a reasonable editor. But his last edits and POV-pushing in talk pages have exhausted my patience. Santos30 is not here to write an encyclopedia, he is here to glorify Castile and remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy. He keeps modifying related articles to support his POV, which makes it even more difficult to detect the problems. He is a pseudohistoric troll, and he needs to be blocked and reverted. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You should see first for articles that must to be clarified. Why you not look for the missing bibliography here and stop your personal attacks and stop looking for my punishment?. Im not here to "glorify Castile" and "remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy". Im here understand and share my knowledge of Latin American independence. But I see those articles of colonial viceroyalty with mistaken or confused or POV information and I try to clarify.--Santos30 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We achieved some understanding in Treaty of Villafáfila and Council of Castile. Probably because there are sources that explicitly cite exact dates with meridian clarity. Which means that you can't push your preferred dates. But as soon as there is some ambiguity, or a way to twist sources into saying things that they don't say, we get lockdowns, edit warring and tendentious picking and interpretation of sources. I am not willing to spend hours and hours collecting sources and quotes, only to have you cherrypick a few sources that don't really support your changes, followed by a return to your original position and edit-warring to restore bad sources and remove good ones.
    Some examples:
    • this revert was specially annoying because it removed a couple of hours of solid work for no good reason.
    • this revert introduced wholly incorrect flag and coat. He already edit-warred the similar changes in Spanish wikipedia as his alter ego Domenico [13][14][15][16]. Needless to say, the changes didn't stick. In the Spanish wikipedia he was less sophisticated and it's easier to see that one of his main motivations is the glorification of Castile (the other one is his hate towards the Cross of Burgundy flag)
    • [17]. He replaces 2 contemporary books with a 1835 biased political pamphlet. In the talk page he refuses to acknowledge the problems with the source. He had already editwarred over those dates with an IP, causing the protection of the article. In a last attempt to compromise, I started a RfC, I expect a tsunami of wikilawyering over it. He demands an arbitrarily high sourcing standard for the date he doesn't like, refuses to compromise, refuses to acknowledge the flagrant logic flaws in his position, refuses to acknowledge all the sources that give a different date, etc. He neglected to mention that his attempts to put the same date in the Spanish wikidia were all reverted [18][19][20][21] and that he failed to provide any source that supported his position, and that he didn't address any of the obvious flaws with that position.
    • [22][23][24][25][26] Changes Cross of Burgundy to push back the usage of the flag a few centuries and claim that it only had military usages. When I tried to fix it he tried to restore his POV with "clarifications"[27][28][29]. In Spanish wikipedia he removed historical references because they made clear that his POV was incorrect[30], this change stuck during months.
    • [31][32][33][34] Repeated attempts to remove the historical relevance of the Cross of Burgundy in Flag of Florida. Now he has returned to his original position using a compilation of sources that don't really support his position, in Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag. Of course, he ignores the sources that directly and clearly contradict his position, which were given to him months ago.
    • [35] Flag of Mexico was given an incorrect flag in order to remove any mention to the Cross of Burgundy. Another manipulation that went unnoticed for months.
    Santos30 started in Talk:Spanish_Empire, when I tried to fix his POV pushing it propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Castile#abolishment_date, Talk:New_Spain#flag_was_the_.22estandarte_virreinal.22, Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag and Cross of Burgundy, and now it's propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Aragon#Sovereignty_and_Independence. It also affects the flags and coats of arms in Spanish_Empire, Flag_of_Spain#Cross_of_Burgundy and several articles in Category:Viceroyalties of the Spanish Empire.
    Santos30 opened this thread because his latest wave of tendentiously-sourced POV-pushing was reverted. Again. He already tried to make many of these changes in the Spanish wikipedia, where he failed to convince anyone and refused to acknowledge an expert opinion that he asked for himself. He doesn't want to be blocked for edit-warring for WP:3RR, so he comes to ANI to cry foul. I have a small hope that a good WP:BOOMERANG happens here. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • False: I say that I don't speak english and I explained he all in spanish wikipedia before. Escarlati (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • However your fingers are speaking in english. And suppose you are the expert, your "explained he all" in spanish was poor or null, without references, not one citation, no book. Nothing. Enric Naval cannot muzzle Wiki-enlish with omissions, WP:NPOV and mistakes decided by Wiki-español. And you Escarlati cannot came here to be a gunman of "status quo".--Santos30 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Edward321. This user follow my editions 28 and 29 november [[37]] and I believe that reversals are not explained. I want to ask if he is administrator, or what is the reason of their behavior, because I explain my editions:

    --Santos30 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, boy, now Santos30 is spreading his OR of sovereignty of Castile to other articles, and dragging editors to ANI when they revert his OR..... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Santos30 is making some good work in american independence articles so instead of a full ban I was thinking of a topic ban on:

    • flags
    • coats of arms
    • anything related to Crown of Castile / Crown of Aragon, broadly interpreted

    Any thoughts before I propose it in AN? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Enric I am not castilian, you are mistaken. Too far mistaken. However seems that you are from Catalonia. But the problem is that Crown of Castile gives a date to History of Latin America as nation sovereign, the same to Spain in the Corts of Cadiz, but oposite, for Latin Americans will be independence. But do not worry I have no time to lost in Catalan independentism. I am not interested. However you can not come with your POV seems from Crown_of_Aragon#Nationalist_revisionism to misinterpret the history of Latin America.--Santos30 (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a nice theory you have there. Pity that it's all based in your misinterpretation of sources, and your refusal to hear to reason. The New Spain discussion has wandered into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory and in misinterpretation of sources. Sorry, man, but wikipedia is not the place to push your personal theories about the glorious past of Castile. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#topic_ban_for_User:Santos30. Please comment there, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPA apparently promoting an author to which he/she is personally linked

    I would like to get some administrative oversight a recurring problem I have been having with the user Tristan noir.

    He/she has apparently had a Wikipedia account for over four years, but until very recently had only ever edited one article, Tanka prose which he/she had created and was the sole significant contributor for. (The sole exception was adding a spam-like link to the Haibun article.[38])

    The article made ridiculous claims about Japanese literature, and was based almost exclusively on the works of the Lulu-published poet Jeffrey Woodward. The earliest version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article, and its bibliography included a book edited by Woodward that hadn't been published yet. Assuming good faith, when I first came across the article, I thought "tanka prose" was an inaccurate/fringe translation of the term uta monogatari, and so I moved the page there.[39]

    He/she initially tried to blankly revert my edits, still refusing to cite reliable secondary sources[40], and I reverted back [41]. This led to a long dispute with the editor on the article's talk page. The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me.[42][43]

    He/she appears to have also brought in a fellow SPA account to whom he/she is connected in the real world to form a tag team; it is difficult to believe that the latter user just happened across the dispute less than two days after it started.[44]

    Eventually, I proposed a compromise with the user that he/she create an article on so-called "tanka prose" that didn't claim to be about classical Japanese.[45] The user agreed to this[46], but then went on and made an article that basically made the same ridiculous claims as before.[47] I removed the most offensive parts of the article, but the user continued to attack me and defend his/her right to post fringe theories about Japanese literature, as well as advertisements for Mr. Woodward's publications, on the article's talk page.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]

    Eventually I got tired of the dispute and I nominated the article for deletion. The user continued to rely almost exclusively on personal attacks in his/her comments in defense of the article there.[55] One other user, Stalwart111 expressed a similar view to me on that discussion, and was subsequently accused of being my sock-puppet.[56]

    Consensus was ultimately reached that the subject was not notable enough to merit its own article, but some material may be merged into the article Tanka in English at a later date.

    During the time in between my proposal of a compromise and the user's creation of the new article, he/she posted more promotional links/information for Woodward publications to the Haibun article.[57] I ultimately got into a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page over whether such links qualify under either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE.

    Since the effective deletion of the Tanka prose article, the user has been engaging in a campaign to undermine my edits on other pages, such as Index of literary terms[58][59] and Haiga[60][61], where he/she continued to try to promote fringe ideas propagated in the works of his/her favourite authors.

    While the initial dispute over "tanka prose" was going on, I created a user-essay in my userspace under the title User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique, in which I questioned Woodward's reliability as a source for Wikipedia. It was misplaced, and really should have been put on WP:RSN, but at the time I was not aware of the noticeboard. Recently, the user made an attempt (without ever consulting me prior) to have the page speedily deleted on shoddy grounds of it being at "attack page" and "misleading"; the request was rejected, and the user was told to put it up for deletion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique. He/she immediately did so, still refusing to discuss the issue on my talk page or the talk page of the subpage in question. There, the user basically posted the same flawed arguments against the page as before[62]; however, User:Uzma Gamal pointed out that the page should be deleted and if necessary Mr. Woodward should be put on WP:RSN.[63] In light of this, I posted a comment that I would not be opposed to deletion, since my page was by then out-of-date and no longer really needed to exist.[64] The page ultimately got deleted, of course, because I was the page's creator and was not opposed to deletion. However, the fact remains that the user in question clearly made the request for deletion in order to make a point and undermine me, and he/she should have discussed the page's content with me on my talk page or on the page's talk page (he/she never attempted such).

    User:Stalwart111 there suggested posting a notice about Tristan noir's behaviour here[65], and so I have done so. I hope someone can provide some insight or assistance in dealing with this user, who has been posting spam on several Wikipedia articles over the past few months, and regularly attempting to undermine my edits.

    elvenscout742 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I just noticed while re-reading the discussion that I actually proposed the "tanka prose" compromise only a few hours after the dispute started ([that tanka prose is a modern English genre] was not what your article claimed, and that is the only reason I saw fit to fix it ... [s]top claiming "tanka prose" dates back to ancient Japan ... and we will have no more problem[66]). Tristan noir and his tag team partner continued to openly argue that "tanka prose" was an ancient Japanese genre, and only later pretended to accept the terms of my initial compromise, which is the only reason the dispute continued beyond 13 September. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've said all I have to say about Tristan noir on the aforementioned MFD here. I maintain Tristan noir is simply not here to build WP and he has consistently failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Admins can make a judgement for themselves. Stalwart111 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Response - User Elvenscout ably summarized the AfD nomination that he made on Sept. 30 to delete an article on “Tanka prose”; the administrator’s decision on Oct. 13 was not to delete but to merge acceptable content with the article Tanka in English. What Elvenscout neglects in his summary above is to point out that his displeasure with the AfD decision led him, within a few hours on Oct. 13, to nominate the same article for deletion via this RfD. One of the participating editors in that discussion reflected that the nominator Elvenscout was engaging in forum shopping. The conduct and timing of this nomination, too, might readily be viewed as pointy. The administrator closed that RfD as a “keep” on Oct. 20.

    It should be pointed out, also, that only a few days after the opening of the original AfD, Elvenscout, on Oct. 3, sought to broaden his attack and lobby for his POV with this tendentious post on the Tanka in English talk page. He there directs the reader to his user page, to a “critique” of the Woodward source from the article he’d nominated for deletion, although as of Oct. 3 neither the AfD discussion nor the contents of his user page had the slightest bearing upon the Tanka in English article. While the AfD discussion was still in its early stages, from Oct. 4-5, Elvenscout sought advice from User Stalwart111 on possible future actions against this editor; administrators can review their chummy discussion here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And also here and here.

    I tried to disengage myself earlier from controversies with Elvenscout with minor edits to the article Haibun here on Sept. 18 but Elvenscout, whose edit history shows no prior interest in this article, followed me there on Sept. 21 with an edit that introduced an error of fact concerning an EL to the article. This action, and his several repeated attempts to delete material or to slant the article to fit his POV, led to a lengthy dispute on the Haibun talk page that dragged on for three or four weeks, and was only “resolved” when the two editors other than Elvenscout who were involved simply stopped responding and let him have his way. The dispute is so lengthy that instead of offering diffs I’ll simply point to the sub-headings “In re External Links” and “Removal of external links” for the full context. Elvenscout’s conduct there, if it does not actually cross the line, verges closely upon WP:DISRUPTIVE.

    I further attempted, on Oct. 6, to disengage myself from conflict with Elvenscout by editing the article Prosimetrum, another article that his edit history shows no previous engagement with. However, I was followed by Elvenscout within hours to that page as well. On Oct. 9, Elvenscout in the dispute on the talk page here, as he did with the Tanka in English talk page previously, inserted further references to the ongoing AfD, a matter wholly unrelated to the Prosimetrum discussion. Elvenscout again engaged not only this editor but the other contributing editors in a protracted and unproductive debate that might fairly be characterized as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The debate is so long that again I can only point the reader here to the relevant talk page sub-headings: “The Tale of Genji,” “Examples,” and “Alternative Definition.” The same arguments can be read in summary insofar as Elvenscout, unable to come to terms with fellow editors, then took his dispute to WP:Dispute Resolution on Oct. 14.

    While the above disputes were being conducted simultaneously at RfD and WP:Dispute Resolution, Elvenscout employed my user talk page in a manner that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:WIKIHOUND and WP:HUSH. Some of his offensive posts can be read here and here. He attached a warning template that I found confrontational and inaccurate. I therefore removed the template but Elvenscout promptly restored it while adding further offensive comments. During this same period or shortly before, I asked Elvenscout on three occasions, here, here and here, to refrain from lobbying against me and making personal attacks, but his WP:SOAP and WP:WIKIHOUND behavior continued, as alluded to above as regards his pursuit of me to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles.

    Elvenscout makes the flimsy complaint that my MfD nomination for deletion of an attack article that he created in his user space on Sept 25 and maintained until Nov 17 was pointy. His complaint should be judged in the context of the nature and substance of his aforementioned AfD, RfD and Dispute resolution nominations. Elvenscout also offers the ridiculous accusation that this editor and another user (Kujakupoet) formed a tag team on the Uta monogatari talk page; User Kujakupoet, if one consults the talk page edit history, made one contribution only to the discussion. His frequent speculations about my possible relationship to one author (Woodward) that he has frequently dismissed as non-notable have often crossed the line from general accusations of a possible COI to speculation about my real-world identity and flimsy attempts to assert that I and the subject author may be one and the same. Such speculation is in direct conflict with policies on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIKIHOUND. Perhaps the most remarkable accusation that Elvenscout lodges against me is this: The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me. I will ask Elvenscout to cite specific evidence of a threat and, should he be unable to do so, I will ask him to retract his false witness.Tristan noir (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In my above (vain) attempt to provide a brief summary of Tristan noir's history of harassing me and undermining my edits across several talk pages, I left out some minor details, but now I am forced to address them by the latter's LONG ad hominem argument above.
    My misguidedly posting Tanka prose for RfD was on the direct advice of the AfD's closing admin.[67] If I knew then what I know now I would have withdrawn my own nomination.
    My edits to the Tanka in English article and its talk page were never meant to be "attacks". The fact is that METPress is an unreliable "publisher" of information, with a demonstrable history of releasing fringe/nonsense/offensive material (see the introduction of The Tanka Prose Anthology, particularly p.13, for one example).
    My removal of Tristan noir's spam/POV additions to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles were justified. The latter user has been consistently trying to post fringe theories and Woodwardian gibberish, as well as specific promotion of Woodward himself, to several articles, and the reason TN has lost all the disputes he describes is that Wikipedia policy and the majority of reliable sources have been consistently against him.
    My posting this notice, as well as all prior attempts to bring TN's attacks against me to the Wikipedia community, have been in an attempt to find consensus as to what to do with article content. TN, on the other hand, has consistently relied on attacks against my character.
    I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity.[68] to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me.
    elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (The above quotation was the very first thing TN said to me on a talk page, and, needless to say, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I had posted or what was in the article in question.elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    Additionally, in response to TN's above accusation that I have been "following" him around Wikipedia rather than the other way around: I have edited hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and probably at least 50 since October; TN's entire edit history consists of edits to 33 pages (including talk pages), 10 of which are in the Wikipedia or User namespaces. 4 of the pages in the mainspace were on the subject of his made-up genre "tanka prose", 1 was simply to add a link to that article, 1 was to make pointy "citation needed" remarks to undermine me. Of the 17 left: 7 were first edited by me, and TN "followed" me there, 6 TN found by him/herself, and I have not touched them/am not interested in editing them (all of these latter edits were made in the last 5 days, apparently in order to distract attention from Stalwart's pointing out that TN has never made a valuable edit to Wikipedia). I have only "followed" TN to 4 pages, 2 articles and there talk pages. These articles are Haibun and Prosimetrum. In the case of Haibun, TN's edits to the article were limited to using spam links and peacock words to promote Jeffrey Woodward's publications; for Prosimetrum, TN was fervently trying to post fringe theories about what the term prosimetrum means and which Japanese works it covers. As for the pages TN edited after me: TN tried to post spam links and fringe theories to Haiga and posted irrelevant personal attacks against me on Talk:Tanka in English, Talk:Index of literary terms and Talk:Haiga. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Contrary to WP:BATTLE which states “Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear” and to WP:WIKIHOUND which defines hounding as “the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work,” Elvenscout, even as this WP:ANI discussion proceeds, has continued his personal attacks against this editor in other venues. He has employed user talk pages here on Nov 27 and here on Nov 30 as his personal soapbox to renew old controversies and to lobby directly against me.

    Elvenscout has further sought to reintroduce a prior dispute regarding his MfD deleted User page by replacing his former hyperlink to that attack page with the acrimonious language of his Nov 28 edit here on the talk page of Haibun. He has also revisted the article Tanka in English and, with this Nov 29 edit, rendered its text basically illegible with his contentious citation tagging.

    Elvenscout, on Nov 30, has also posted his revisionist history of the article Uta monogatari (“I am adding this note for posterity, and to explain why the article shifted dramatically in September 2012”). Apart from this further evidence of his desire to recycle old accusations against this editor, his comments on this article’s talk page are particularly troublesome when placed in their proper context. With this edit on Oct 17, Elvenscout replaced the former Talk Page Comments with the templates “WP Poetry” and “WikiProject Japan.” On the previous day, with this edit, per his edit summary, Elvenscout had removed his “own comments relevant only to a past argument relating to material that formerly appeared on this page.” That edit was reverted on the same day by User Bagworm with the edit summary: “Do not remove one side of a conversation - see WP:REDACTED.” Elvenscout’s suppression of the former talk page on Oct 17 removed both sides of the conversation; I therefore assumed his gesture was made in good faith and offered no complaint. His most recent “history,” however, has in effect again censored “one side of a conversation” — his opposition’s, in this instance – while resurrecting and recycling his former arguments. If Elvenscout’s “own comments” on Oct 16 were “relevant only to a past argument,” what possible purpose can their restoration on the Talk Page now serve?Tristan noir (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please tell TN to stop making personal attacks like the above? My reasoning for doing everything he mentions was clearly established multiple times in the edits themselves, and his assuming bad faith on my part has been troubling me for almost 3 months now.
    My informing User:Drmies of the need to watch out for TN and one other editor while editing the Tanka in English article was justified, given TN's constantly attacking me for making similar edits.
    My informing User:BDD[69] that I had replied to his query, and stating the reason I forgot to inform him previously was equally benign (the reason was TN's ridiculous assumption of bad faith/personal attack[70] distracting me).
    My making a slight edit to my initial response to User:BDD[71] in order to clarify my meaning, in light of TN deliberately getting my subpage deleted and making my reasoning unclear, was also justified. (I am beginning to think TN deliberately posted my subpage for deletion without ever trying to discuss it, specifically to blur the meaning of posts where I had linked to it.)
    My edits to Tanka in English were extreme, yes, but they drew the attention of a couple of good editors and led the article being significantly cleaned up and made into something resembling an encyclopedia article. The fact is that before I added those tags the article was already illegible because of how poorly written it was (almost every sentence read as "The first A was B", with no clarification of A or B's relevance to the article).
    I would like to hear what TN thinks is "revisionist" about my recent posting on Talk:Uta monogatari[72]. I merely provided a statement of the reasons why the first half of the page's history seems to be a completely different article to what is there now, in the hopes that concerned editors would not think User:Bagworm and I had engaged in vandalism in our completely overhauling the article. Also, I am not sure if Wikipedia policy demands that the previous history of the page be deleted because of its copyright violation?[73][74] TN has, unfortunately, yet to explain why his initial version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article from two weeks earlier...
    elvenscout742 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction TN's article was a NEAR carbon-copy of the Woodward piece. The final four words ("and Contemporary Haibun Online") of Woodward's piece were cut, and Gary LeBel's name was added to the list of "other notable poets who adopted tanka prose in the 1990s". Also, while six of the ten work's TN's article cited were Woodward's (the other four, naturally, did not actually use the phrase "tanka prose"), TN failed to cite the one Woodward piece that had clearly had the most influence on the writing of his article. This blatant copyright violation has never been properly addressed. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin attention needed at Talk:John Todd (occultist) and Talk:Gail Riplinger

    AnthonyMark00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    AnthonyMark00 has done nothing but made combative posts, making bad-faith accusations ("your actions are malevolent!") about editors ("Or you can go sabo his page as well!") (even going as far as to imply that everyone involved in an article he just came across was a corporate shill) and sources ("none of them are Christian!"), ignoring any refutation of his arguments, and insulting other editors. He's also made patently false accusations about users. He's also screaming "LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE!" way too early in discussions, and "NOW I AM WATCHING YOU!".

    He has been trying to push a pro-Chick Publications POV, as can be seen at Talk:John Todd (occultist) and Talk:Gail Riplinger.

    When one of his edits to an article was reverted, instead of even trying to consider my reasons, he posted a bad-faith vandal report in an article (more than once), refusing to acknowledge that the report and it's placement were wrong.

    He often treats his ignorance as to the existence of something as definitive proof that something does not exist.

    WP:AGF and WP:NPA were pointed out to him repeatedly. WP:NPOV and WP:RS were explained repeatedly. He has no excuse for his behavior.

    My initial treatment was civil though stern, but as his combative arrogance continued, I have not been able to react calmly. I don't care if I get a few day's block for my most recent reaction, as long as it it is made perfectly clear to him that his behavior is inappropriate.

    I have contributed to this site for several years. I created Debtera, I overhauled Aetherius Society and Dybbuk, I have caught many of the sockpuppets of Josh24B, CentristFiasco, and Krizpo; I have contributed a fair amount to discussions at Talk:Asherah, Talk:Jesus, Talk:Indigo Children, and Talk:Number of the Beast; and I have removed plenty of vandalism at List of people claimed to be Jesus and Seven Princes of Hell.

    He has contributed nothing positive, only grief and annoyance.

    I cannot see how this can be allowed to continue. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Well that is a completly one sided view. And I imagine from the last few messages Ian sent to me he must have felt he needed to get this in first! But I find it quite sad especially the facts that he is leaving out, what ACTUALLY happened yesterday. Like people not bothering to leave the reason for revisions on the talk page and what I thought was people just ignoring obvious errors that had been made setting up the article. And refusing to even respond to me (which I'm sure he did) because I am new to the site.

    Yes I got angry! And wrote some passionate things! But at no time was I disrespectful to anyone personally (until AFTER I was personally attacked). And I certainly did not use any foul language or Charracter assasinations. The previous disagreements can be found on the relevant pages. Which I will also point out is where you will find the resolution that was put in place by an administrator.

    I respect this site.. But I respect myself more! So I am not going to allow this to be turned on me. Your decision is of course your own. But as you have noticed I had abided by the rules (dispite after the warnings they were being broken by others) And then today when I was working on a completly seperate article when I noticed some feedback left by him in regards to the changes I was suggesting.

    I responded to him civily, to which he replied a direct statement on my charracter (assasination) by refferring to a passage in the bible. So I defended myself in the same manner! Which seemed to upset him. Until it eventually came to the point where I had to tell him I would refuse to respond as I felt he was targeting me regardless of whatever I do or write.

    And the evidence of this is that he can be found attacking me for the edit I suggested on the John todd article, but elsewhere he can be found saying to others that he has no problem with the changes!?!

    So not only has he started the SAME argument we were BOTH warned against yesterday, but because we know that it's not down to the content of my work, that then makes it a campaign of harassment!

    Thank you AnthonyMark00 (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have any diffs to provide any evidence? Just go to Special:Contributions/Ian.thomson, click "diff" next to my revisions, copy the link and place it between [single brackets like this]. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldnt know how to do that right now. I would tell you whats mine there. But I'm sure you will understand why I wont! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for proving all my descriptions of you. I explained how to provide diffs, you ignored my explanation, allowing you to pretend you've got an excuse to refuse to provide evidence for your accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And I think the fact you are now hunting down my edits, speaks for itself! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That there's anything to hunt down doesn't speak louder? Presenting diffs of the editor's post in question is the standard means of presenting evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    See what I mean? Not even here can you leave me alone! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Making accusations without evidence against the person that reported you here is not likely to win you any support. The case against you has been made with diffs that appear to support the claims being made. I very strongly suggest you reconsider your refusal to provide diffs to support your side of the argument. In addition, if I may comment on the substance of the dispute, you really should read and understand Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and also the policy on verifiability. The sources you appear to be using are not likely to meet these requirements, IMHO. Instead of hurling abuse around at those you disagree with, you would be better advised to chill out and try to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Continuing to abuse other editors here is likely to earn you a block. - Nick Thorne talk 04:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anthony, you need to stop. Period. Leave Ian (and Sean Hoyland, for that matter) alone. Leave those two articles alone. Go work on something else that's totally unlike those subjects. Better yet, go read some of the various policies that have been linked to you. The two Nick Thorne have linked would be a great start. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works; a lot of what's gone wrong here is because of that, and that's okay. But now, you need to stop editing until you do understand. I also don't think you're able to edit neutrally on this subject, and I think that continuing to try will only get you in deeper trouble. You started out this whole thing by claiming that there's some sort of corporate conspiracy at work, and things only went downhill from there. Ian got a little too heated in some of his replies with you, but nowhere, nowhere, has he made the kind of statements you're saying he did. He's not stalking you, either. You need to take a step back and look at what you're doing; right now, you're not seeing straight. If you can't stop, then blocks are the next step. (Indeed, I'd consider a block now, but I'm not gonna do it myself; I've entangled myself in this more than enough already, I think.)
    Ian, FWIW, I think you might benefit from a break from these topics for a day or two; you seem to have gotten a bit emotionally invested in them. But that's totally up to you; I wouldn't consider anything like an official "reprimand" or whatever. I personally think your behavior has not been outstanding: probably should have left well enough alone at ANEW, for example, and calling people (NOT AnthonyMark, but the subject of the article) "charlatan" and "rapist" is not a good way to make your point, even though both those labels are supported by the article and the points you're trying to make are valid. But, I'd say you haven't behaved horribly either, given the vitriol. You started out a bit too snarky, perhaps (cf. the charlatan diff), and you lost your cool a bit at the end there, but it's understandable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi Writ

    Were back here again, same place we were yesterday! So nothing has changed for me! So again I will agree with you.

    But below is the reply I just spent a couple of houts putting together. So you can ignore that and we can take it from here.


    So my ability to defend myself is based on my technical capability to use the site? What I mean is everything I have mentioned can be found on ("this") page & the ("Gail Riplinger") page. And so if what I said is true, Would your not be interested unless I link to it correctly?

    And what sources Nick? As stated this has actually been resolved. All this is about is if Ian is allowed to continue to harass me or not!, which I think has been more than established here.

    Also this does not demonstrate my point if you look ("Here"). It does not show you what I was talking about. As before this point people were undoing the changes to the article and not putting that information on the talk page. But my own page.. which somehow got deleted.

    But ("Here") is where I realised I hadnt been actually reading their responses.. But by that time things were already said and heated.

    And then after that ("I realised what was going on!") But something is missing there as you can see Writ was responding to me. It was along the lines of "oh".. As I did read the guidlines but I thought as they are the sole printers & have been for over 10 years & that her book is also their biggest seller made it an obvious exception (that is also included in the guidelines).

    Looking over everything I see now it was the way I dealt with it & that I didnt try to reach any kind of understanding. But at that point I had found comments he was writing about me. Which only made things worse.

    And I should also point out because I had not seen the responses just the work being undone I was upset as it seemed to me the rules say you have to make the notes in the talk page right? It seemed like no one was even bothering with that & just changing it back. I was writing why I'm changing it, then they were changing it back again without a word.

    But you can see some people where responding to me on the talk page about YouTube videos?! When I was only talking about a YouTube video of a recording of JT affirming his faith. And how that is the last instance of him speaking in public about his faith which (and I was proven right) the evidence for is wrong!

    Look I know about the Good faith guidelines. But Wiki is meant to be a site where if you see what you believe is an error that you can correct it! Which is why I am here! You guys cant expect everyone to agree with you.. Although I realise it must be a team effort.

    But everything is ("here")

    You can see that I had no problem with people treating me respectfully! And that should have been the end of it. But as you can see even when Writ asked him to stop he did not! Then I got a personal message that lead me too me to his page, with him saying all manner of things about me.

    I didnt realise it's like facebook & that people can write whatever they liked about others on their page, is that right? (I can see he has now deleted it)And what made it worse was that I had been told if I was to respond to the abuse I was getting then I would be blocked. So I was in the twisted situation (as you can see where he was writing personal abuse towards me, and I was instructed to take it?!)

    But even after that (and some ("advice")I left & walked away.

    And now today, if you look under ("Sources") I find some very negative feedback from him on the changes I suggested about the main title of the article being still unchanged. I decided I would be best to inform him that I had already discussed this with someone, then I realised that he ("himself")had already agreed to the changes!

    At that point I was confused & hoping that this had not turned to a personal vendetta. But you can see that after my very reasonable responses(which he and others had already agreed to). He made a passing comment on the article and then implied I was a ("bad Christian").. And as you would have seen by now it is not the first time.

    After that I realised what was going on and tried again to ("end the conversation.") Until I had to refuse to respond to him.

    And we have the twisted situation where having suffered abuse, it is ME defending myself. Against something that I have defended myself from already!?

    Now I was looking for this as he is right something should be done. As you can see from the comments even on this thread! Whith him (asking nicley) what my changes are only to then reveal the true line of his questioning.

    Now having written all of this I will say that looking back though the notes I admit I was a hard ass. But also that I did not come here with a preconception of bad faith in you all. But it was down to what I thought was people ignoring me and being egotistical, and the fact I was spending time to do research just to see it get taken down without a word to me that got me angry. As I explained before I felt that was unfair.. Which I already admitted was down to my own ignorance.

    And after writing this essay I'm ready to finish with the site. So my life will go on. But what has happened since then & the way Ian has acted & disregarded direct instructions more than once.. Has been disgraceful!

    If you allow him to act like this. After repeated warnings, flagrantly saying things like "I dont care if I get in trouble". Then you will letting yourselves down & literally lowering the website to the standards that you claim to be far away from! Such as sites like Twitter & YouTube! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • NOTE As stated im done with this! I accept whatever judgement! Now it's 7am and I have to go to work :( And yes Wiki was worth it.. But I NEVER want to go through this again!

    AnthonyMark00 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    (Edit conflict) It is highly disrespectful of other editors' time to expect them to wade through a lengthy discussion to try and work out just what statement(s) you are complaining about. The onus is on you to be clear and concise. This last post reads like a rambling rant and it is very hard to understand exactly what you are trying to say. Those who are experienced here have seen these types of replies to allegations before and that experience has shown that often the ones who indulge in such tactics do have a case to answer, regardless of what others may or may not have done or said. The best advice to you is, if you have a valid case to put, use diffs (instructions for this are at the top of this page) and be short and to the point. Oh, and recognise and admit the errors in your own conduct first.
    BTW, you appear to be under some serious misaprehensions about how Wikipedia works. It is not "meant to be a site where if you see what you believe is an error that you can correct it". What we are meant to be doing is writing an encyclopaedia. That means that we are not conducting original research, what we "know" is irrelevant. What matters is what the reliable sources say and there are very strict rules about sources, especially in controversial topics or on biographies of living people. You really do need to take a step back and understand the principles here before you continue, otherwise you may find yourself on the receiving end of an enforced holiday from editing Wikipedia.
    You will never have to go through this again if you simply follow the rules and be civil to to other editors, no matter what provocation you perceive. - Nick Thorne talk 07:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Nick on basically every point he makes. Personal beliefs are addressed at WP:POV, which I suggest Anthony read. We are primarily an encyclopedia, which is supposed to present information in accord with encyclopedic standards. It is possible that Jack Chick's works are considered reliable sources as per WP:RS by some Christian groups, and I think I have even, on admittedly rare occasions, even seen some of their statements endorsed by other Christians. However, even in those instances, there are certainly better sources to express the opinions of those groups, and as per wikipedia policies and guidelines those are the better sources to use.
    I have to agree with Nick that the best thing for Anthony to do is to make a fairly thorough review of policies and guidelines, perhaps particularly WP:RS, WP:CIVILITY, WP:POV, WP:TPG, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE before engaging in any further edits of this type. Speaking as one of the most obviously "Christian" editors around here, I have to say that however thoroughly any of us are convinced of our own views regarding subjects, our own views are simply our own views. We are all human beings, and it is clear at least some of us are wrong regarding matters of personal beliefs, giving how thoroughly and completely these beliefs can sometimes contradict each other. It is for that reason that we tend to rely primarily on independent sources which meet WP:RS standards, and most favor those which have been, in some way, peer reviewed. I urge him to thoroughly read the pages linked to above, and if he has any questions raise them on the talk pages of those pages, and conduct himself in accord with them, before engaging in conduct of this type again. I think if he does so he will be much more likely to be succeed. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had some time, and some sleep, as well a review of the guidelines provided. And cannot argue with any of the views above. My attitude had been less than gracious. And although at times I felt justified in my defence, reading back through the comments, even I find my attitude upacceptable!

    So alas, I can only put it down to the stress of long hours, ignorance & a touch of ego & a keyboard with no visible buttons. So for that, to all concerned, I'm sorry..

    EVEN IAN! (In fact I think the both of us, remembrting our values, would even make a good team to work on the GF & JT article!) AnthonyMark00 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiredbee

    I received UTRS #5010 from Wiredbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), in which he states that he is not a sockpuppet of RobertRosen. Looking through his contributions and the corresponding SPI for RobertRosen, I am inclined to believe this claim based on the fact that there was no IP match and considering his UTRS statement, and would have unblocked him if not for the fact that he has engaged in socking himself, with alternate accounts Northerncreek, Norwichlass, and FriendOfMorpheus. However, in our conversation in UTRS, he has agreed to use only one account. Please review this matter. (Note: I have modified his block specifically to allow him to edit his talk page as well as this page.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The CU linked them to User:Wiredbee in the investigation. [75]. The SPI results were inconclusive, not "Not related" in regards to RobertRosen. This could mean that they geolocated in the same area but on a smart phone but not a PC like Roberts, or one of many other possibilities. Even if this is completely true and he is "only" linked to these other accounts, there is overlap in accounts and there is abuse in multiple articles. Friend of Morpheus was just blocked. Normally the shortest block I would have given at SPI would be two weeks, so I would recommend against unblock before then regardless, but not convinced there isn't linkage. As User:Reaper Eternal made the blocks, I've notified him of this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I made the blocks. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also add that there may be two sockmasters, yet meatpuppetry going on between them, further justifying scrutiny here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guys, please go ahead and do the investigations. Just make sure that you do your investigation with enough reasoning and patience. I've said before that I have no acquaintance with RobertRosen and I repeat the same. It was a mere co-incidence that we shared the same point of view and expressed it strongly. I'm in no hurry to get my account unblocked. If you need 2 weeks to complete your investigations, please take 2 weeks. Wiredbee (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    i would oppose any unblock until the user can convincingly display that they understand and are willing to follow our WP:BLP policy. One of the many socks before they were blocked left a long tirade vowing to bring Bunker Roy down. I cannot find which one now to determine whether it was from the Wiredbee sock collection or the RobertRosen sock collection, but since even if they are not sock puppets they have been MEAT puppets, the BLP / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS concerns are the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was expecting TheRedPenOfDoom to come to this forum and oppose the unblocking of my Wikipedia account. I haven't seen all contributions by TheRedPenOfDoom but looking at the earliest archive on his talk page, I can see that he has been contributing to Wikipedia since 2009. I'm sure TheRedPenOfDoom has contributed selflessly towards making Wikipedia as the greatest knowledge repository in the history of mankind. Compared to TheRedPenOfDoom, I have contributed nothing to Wikipedia. I have contributed to Wikipedia in donation, but what I have received from Wikipedia (knowledge) is priceless. In the current situation, I'm piqued with the Wikipedia team in general and TheRedPenOfDoom in particular because you've chosen to take a hardline stance against my genuine position. I have two points to contest and if we're unable to reach a consensus on these two points, then I would suggest that you keep my account locked forever. I will continue to use Wikipedia, I will continue to donate money to Wikipedia and I will also contribute to Wikipedia with my writing skills. However, I will never look at the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy wiki pages again, nor will I bad mouth Wikipedia. But I will certainly tell the world that Wikipedia is not telling the truth about Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. And people will believe me because I've worked in Barefoot College for 3 years.
    My first point is that the reference to the Time magazine post by Greg Mortenson should not be used at all in the wikipedia pages of Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. There is no basis to include the data written by Greg Mortenson and this rationale has been logically explained by BlackMansBurden at the Barefoot_College talk page. If you ignore any other misdemeanors of BlackMansBurden and focus only on the issue about the Time magazine post, you will see my point. As BlackMansBurden has also explained in the talk page, Time is a reputed magazine but the writer Greg Mortenson is under a cloud for telling lies in order to achieve personal glory. Greg Mortenson's lies have been compiled into a book by Jon Krakauer. Recently Greg Mortenson was asked by the Montana state attorney general to step down from his own charity and return US$1 million in charity funds.
    My second point is that TheRedPenOfDoom appears to be playing the Devil's Advocate by taking the spotlight away from a controversy in which Barefoot College / Bunker Roy were proved as plagiarists. It is responsibility of Wikipedia to provide links to reliable sources which explain the controversy in full detail. Although TheRedPenOfDoom has created a section "Returned Awards" that describes the controversy in brief, he deliberately chooses a source that only describes the controversy in passing. The Hindu newspaper and the Frontline magazine are published by the same publication house. Therefore, if source #1 is reliable, then source #2 is also reliable. It should not matter that because source #1 was published earlier, it alone should be used as a reference. Either we should use both the sources or we should use source #2. In addition, source #3 should also be given as reference. Also the section "Returned Awards" should be rephrased as "Controversy".
    That is all I have to say. I will not make any further comments on this topic any more. Wiredbee (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the above post does nothing but bolster my concern that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather continue to pursue a POV campaign and is not above using this ANI board to continue BLP attacks rather than present evidence that they are going to be a productive member of the editing community. oppose unblock.
    I will leave it to another party to redact any inappropriate BLP content from Wiredbee's screed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    based upon Wiredbee's answers to my two questions below rather than their initial response above, i withdraw my 'oppose' and wish to be considered as having "no opinion". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In terms of contributions Wiredbee and the three other sock accounts were editing the same two articles disruptively and indistinguishably to BlackMansBurden. In particular Wiredbee's objections to Time magazine as a source and his forum shopping concerning TRPOD are no different from the edits of BlackMansBurden. Whether these are the same person or just two closely coordinated users is irrelevant, since there are just too many common abnormal features in their editing. Wiredbee has given no reasonable explanation of his three other sockpuppet accounts, all editing with the same common purpose. The three accounts were discovered accidentally by a checkuser and, given Wiredbee's outburst above, should probably remain blocked. Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Just to clarify, I wasn't the blocking admin. I just tagged them and restored talkpage access for the socks, since Uncle G (talk · contribs) had blocked them without talkpage access.)
    The lack of an IP match is meaningless given that RobertRosen freely admits to block evasion using tor and related anonymizing networks.
    That said, however, I believe that this is sockpuppetry or blatant meatpuppetry. Both groups are obsessed with adding large amounts of negative material to the Barefoot college and Bunker Roy articles. For example:
    • Wiredbee originally adds a "criticism" section.
    • Northerncreek revises and expands that negative material with further poorly-sourced content.
    • Norwichlass further appends to that section.
    • Northerncreek expands the references.
    • Wiredbee adds material accusing Barefoot College of plagiarism.
    • Northerncreek adds more negative material
    • Wiredbee expands the references.
    • TheRedPenOfDoom reverts this massive addition, and Wiredbee restores it.
    • TheRedPenOfDoom reverts it and adds a listing of an award received by the Barefoot College, but BlackMansBurden removes positive sourced content.
    • TheRedPenOfDoom reverts.
    • BlackMansBurden makes an edit that indicates the potential use of a misconfigured proxy. (Note the conversion of a pipe character to the HTML encoding.)
    • BlackMansBurden reverts TheRedPenOfDoom again, removing positive content. (A revert war then ensues until I block BlackMansBurden indefinitely for sockpuppetry.) TheRedPenOfDoom and Annette46 then expand the article.
    • Wiredbee returns and reverts the addition of a large amount of positive content, so Annette46 reverts Wiredbee's edits as vandalism.
    • Northerncreek replaces a reference with www.architexturez.net, and is reverted.
    • Northerncreek, Norwichlass, and Wiredbee are blocked by Uncle G for sockpuppetry.
    On Bunker Roy:
    • Northerncreek, Wiredbee, and Norwichlass insert a large amount of negative content over several months.
    • TheRedPenOfDoom and Wiredbee revert this material back and forth.
    • HotPepperSpray removes positive content and adds negative content. Again, note the conversion of characters to HTML encoding which indicates a misconfigured proxy.
    • TheRedPenOfDoom and HotPepperSpray revert back and forth until Courcelles (talk · contribs) blocks HotPepperSpray with {{checkuserblock-account}}.
    • Wiredbee randomly deletes a reference and is reverted by Qworty.
    • BlackMansBurden accuses Bunker Roy of plagiarism, and is reverted by TheRedPenOfDoom. They then revert back and forth a couple times until I block BlackMansBurden.
    • Wiredbee adds numerous tags, something BlackMansBurden oldid=524134275 also does.
    Furthermore, both groups add ANI complaints about TheRedPenOfDoom citing WP:NPOV and WP:NPA respectively (Northerncreek and BlackMansBurden) Even if they ultimately are not the same person, they are obviously colluding and both are socking to put down Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice presentation. I found much of this when investigating last night, entirely too much overlap to be a coincidence and I completely agree with Reaper Eternal's conclusions. The blocks should stay, and the User:Wiredbee reblocked for an indef period for sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Checkuser note: regarding The SPI results were inconclusive, not "Not related" in regards to RobertRosen. This could mean that they geolocated in the same area but on a smart phone but not a PC like Roberts, or one of many other possibilities, please do not read that much into an  Inconclusive result — at least, as far as I'm concerned. When I close an investigation as "inconclusive", it means that the technical data I got do not allow me to make a determination one way or the other. If I believe that there is the possibility that two accounts are operated by the same person, then I usually close as  Possible. In this case, I could confirm that Wiredbee was operating three other accounts, but, as far as their connection to RobertRosen is concerned, it's something that will have to be determined based upon behavioural evidence, as I said earlier. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guys, thanks for compiling a detailed dossier of the events leading to my blocking. While everything in the event listing is true, it is also true that BlackMansBurden and me (Wiredbee) are not known to each other. If you check the Barefoot College revision history from Nov-17 onwards, you will find that I did not attempt to revert most of the critical material that I had written. I only challenged the Barefoot College claim of training 3 million people to be architects, engineers, doctors etc. and the x-reference to the Aga Khan Awards controversy. It was just a coincidence that BlackMansBurden and I (Wiredbee) stuck to this position. So while you may continue to block my account indefinitely, you should at least ask 3-4 other Wikipedia editors to review the material on Barefoot College's wiki page and take a decision. These editors should be known to be unbiased and preferably familiar with the workings of charitable organizations / NGOs in India and other developing countries. Wiredbee (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to expand upon 1) your understanding of how WP:BLP impacts your actions on wikipedia, and 2) what your intentions for editing are, should you get unblocked? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • TheRedPenOfDoom: My answer is as follows...
    Point #1: I've visited Wikipedia only as a reader until the two Wikipedia pages of Bunker Roy and Barefoot College, which I edited using three Wikipedia accounts: Norwichlass, Northerncreek and Wiredbee. I agree that using multiple accounts to edit a WP:BLP implies an intention to drum up support for the edits. Multiple users contributing to a page could be seen as multiple people agreeing with the same point of view. Therefore, I'm guilty of this indiscretion although that was never my intention. The correct way for editing the WP:BLP would have been to collaborate with an experienced WP:BLP editor like yourself and then publish the material. I have seen critical material posted on several WP:BLP including that of Greg Mortenson. Therefore, there is surely a protocol for publishing WP:BLP which I did not adhere.
    Point #:2 I would like to collaborate with you and possibly some other experienced WP:BLP editors to edit the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy Wiki pages. I would like to know from you if the Talk page is the correct medium to engage in the discussion or you would like to suggest some other medium of communication. Once we've got these pages out of the way, I would like to contribute towards building up other pages in Wikipedia. I would be able to spend a couple of hours every day towards contributing to Wikipedia. My interests are towards Science, Technology and Computers. Wiredbee (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond My Ken and Yworo

    ‑Scottywong| babble _ 18:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Just read his recent edit summaries. Yworo (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Any reason you are edit warring over image sizes, instead of having a discussion? WP:BRD and all that... Fram (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram: To answer your quite reasonable question: yes, there is a reason, but you might have to be inside my skin to understand it. I've been the victim of Yworo's campaigns before, and in the past I eventually decided to be a good Wikipedian and retreat without making a fuss. He went away after that, and I thought it was over, but he appeared again recently, coming across a formatting edit of mine that he disagreed with, and then went back through my recent contribs, deleting formatting changes in about a dozen articles. Even then, I held back, but I decided last night that I wasn't going to take his b.s. anymore, that it wasn't right for him to walk all over me, that I had to take a stand against his bullying. In reponse, I probably over-reacted, I'm sure -- it's hard to know exactly when to stop, once you get going -- and I'm sorry if I went too far, but I don't apologize for fighting back against an unimaginative and authoritarian bully, who, if he isn't stopped, is bound to do it again to other editors less able to respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any traces (AN/ANI discussions, RfCs, ...) about these earlier campaigns, or is this the first time that it has lead to the dramah boards? Fram (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC, the discussions took place on my talk page (I can look back through the history if you like) - I don't recall it coming here, but I could be mistaken (my middle-aged brain being what it is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Visual disabilities. The Image Use Policy is quite clear that images should be manually sized only if there is a good reason to do so. Manually sizing the images prevents the visually disabled from adjusting image sizes as needed using their preferences. I've had the discussion with many editors over many years. I had it with BMK in 2010. He is the only editor who, even after understanding the issue, refuses to allow anyone to change "his" articles from "his" personal preferred image style. Yworo (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Yworo, Forum shop much? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Personal attack removed) Yworo (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote the relevant part of the policy: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference unless you use upright with a scaling factor, so the use of upright is preferred wherever sensible." Yworo (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Then start an RfC or similar venue for dispute resolution, don't edit war on multiple articles. Things like [76] don't look good on either of you, and the fact that you are specifically targetting articles by Beyond My Ken for this treatment is worrying. Remember that 3RR is not a right, you can be blocked for edit warring without ever crossing 3RR. Fram (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to note that I stopped mostly after one revert, then tagged the articles. BMK reverted both the change and the tag and has two or three reverts on each article, as well as multiple personal attacks in the edit summaries. Yworo (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It worthwhile to note that only people with accounts can set their thumbnail size in preferences. That means that everyone that Yworo pretends to be concerned about who does not have an account -- i.e. the majority of the world -- only sees what is in the article. What that means (and what Yworo seems not to understand -- although he only brought up the accessibility issue recently, he's been doing the same thing without regard to that for quite a while -- is that the question of accessibility for the visually impaired is a browser issue and not a Wikipedia one. We set up the articles so they look good, and specialized browsers are responsible for making them accessible for the visually impaired. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And we have a policy that is a compromise taking into account the visually impaired and the many types of devices, phones, tablets, etc. which our readers use. We take into account that the residents of the third world don't have 1920 x 1200 monitors: if they are lucky enough to have access to a computer, it is likely 800 x 480. Our policy and default thumbnail sizes are the way they are for multiple reasons, and you have been willfully ignoring this for years. If you think the defaults should be changed, the proper place to go about it is on the talk pages of the policies concerned, not in article space and through edit warring. Yworo (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Edit summaries like "you're soo special", "kicks the legally blind into the gutter"? Oh wait, those are yours. Yworo, you are trying to blame this on Beyond My Ken, but as far as I can tell, this is a typical situation where both parties should step back and change their approach. Stop reverting, stop tagging, and go for outside opinions on the actual dispute, not on behavioral aspects, which look bad for both of you. Fram (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram: (Sorry, I had a response to you, but I had to revert when Yworo took my response to your earlier comment and moved it down here) Yes, I will step back immediately. I would ask that Yworo stop culling my contributions for things to delete. I may not be the epitome of the perfect Wikipedian, but I've contributed a fair amount in my time, and I would appreciate receiving that consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk)

    Looking at what lies behing this section, the image size debate, it seems that the policy is way out of line with what actually happens in our articles, and Beyond My Ken isn't the exception with his fixed sizes at all. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2012:

    This seems to be one of those policies that is not really in line with what actually happens in our articles, even in the best of them. Singling out one editor and focusing on his articles (articles he made a lot of edits in, and where you had no prior or other involvement in most cases) seems to be an unproductive way of enforcing a policy most people don't care about anyway. Fram (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks a lot like a WP:HOUNDING case here. Is Yworo crawling through BMK's articles to find problems? I can't imagine he stumbles on BMKs randomly.--v/r - TP 15:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor persistently edits in a manner which reduces the quality of our articles in a particular manner, then it does not constitute hounding to periodically use said editor's contributions list as a guide to remedying that, especially if the user has had it patiently explained to him why he is in the wrong. I've done the same in the past with BMK's (thankfully now historical) insistence in inserting superfluous whitespace above and below article bodies. As for the thumbnail policy itself, I'd say it's nearly universally respected these days, and that a small sample of FAs is hardly indicative (two seconds' examination of Folding@Home, for instance, shows that its images are almost all charts or screenshots which may be difficult to read if arbitrarily scaled, and that it is therefore a valid exception). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say edit summaries like "kicks the legally blind into the gutter" takes it out of the realm of engaging a problematic user on failing to address policy and into the realm of a personal vendetta. Just my personal opinion. Yworo should have asked someone else to engage with BMK sooner.--v/r - TP 18:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is unacceptable, but so is spreading a diatribe against another editor across 18 edit summaries attached to edits on different articles. (Some of the edits, like this one, are mildly negative, but the edit summaries are worse.) Kanguole 21:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not said anything excusing BMK.--v/r - TP 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected

    I've protected the page. as I noted in the link above, I chose protection over blocking in the hopes that you two will talk this out instead of continuing edit warring. But if it continues, further sanction may occur as necessary. - jc37 08:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not. Fourth revert on another article. Yworo (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One wonders who User:Westeastis here, an account created just today, really is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer: troll sock, now CU-blocked by Salvio. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we ec'd as I was reporting that. Glad that's cleared up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Even without an account, I'm annoyed by explicit sizing and I sometimes remove the explicit sizes when I come across them, but these days a lot of them are in protected templates so are impervious to normal editing. The default sizes presented to me as an unenrolled user are usually preferable to (smaller than) the big sizes people set manually because they want to sell more of whatever the image depicts. I'm not a believer in the manual of style controlling anyone's editing, though in this case I agree that what it says is right for the encyclopedia and also conflicts with observed (unfortunate) practice. One of these days I'll get it together to install my own personal snapshot of Wikipedia on my home computer, so I can (among other things) set the defaults the way I like them. At that point the manually set sizes will be even more annoying. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Using hidden comments to make a space by User:Beyond My Ken

    I have come to an impasse with Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) with my attempts at discussion with him and his insistence on pushing his own formatting.

    The issue is his using the wikimarkup <!--spacing--> into articles right after the last entry in ==External links== and above the footer navbox.

    He has edit warred over this issue and was reported here for it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Disruptive Editing by User:Beyond My Ken on Reach for the Sky.


    He was warned here and here by an admin.


    After the report, later, I started a discussion on the MoS project page: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Spacing and Using the hidden comment function to create space between a template and text above it. I invited User:Beyond My Ken to participate: [77]. He warned me not to post on his talk page again unless "required to by Wikipedia policy": [78].

    He has repeated the issue here now: [79]. I discussed the issue with him on its talk page.

    I apologize for posting here at this forum but I have exhausted my options. Regards.Curb Chain (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Well, this is a lot of to-do over a white space. What is it, exactly, that you want to come from this discussion? How will it end differently than the prior discussion? Personally, I would just let it go. It's a line of white space, could you please explain why you're so invested in this? WP:LETITGO seems to apply. Go Phightins! 03:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) A discussion in an obscure corner of Wikipedia does not a consensus make.

    The spacing comment is a simple device which solves a simple problem: when there are navboxes below a "External links" section, the navboxes can be visually too close to the text, making it difficult to read and unpleasant to look at. In the rendering of an article page, space is provided before every primary section header, so that it is set apart from the end of the section above it. This is to help visually separate one section from the other, which helps make it easier to scroll through the page. Unfortunatley, navboxes are an afterthought, and do not have any in-built way to provide the same separation. Doing so internally would be difficult, I understand, because any space built in on top of a navbox would have to go away when more then navbox is stacked, as they often are. The spacing comment simply provides the visual breathing space afforded to the rest of the page by the software. It hurts nothing, and does not add appreciable "white space" to the article. (Many of my edits do, indeed, work to eliminate big blocks of white space which also make reading an article more annoying.) That CurbChain and a small handful of people continue to consider this as a major problem – serious enough to bring to AN/I (!?) – is inexplicable to me. The issue has been discussed a number of times, with the result that the edits have been judged not to be a problem, but the handful continue to pick at the scab. Beyond My Ken (talk)

    Incidentally, CurbChain's summary of the AN/I report he links above is hardly accurate. I would say that the comments which best characterize the community's reaction to it are
    • "Sheesh! All this over adding a nice bit of white space at the arse end of an article???",
    • "About the lamest thing I have ever seen here" and
    • "I admit I cannot discern a good faith reason for this huge dispute over something that is not an issue. This ANI section should be closed."
    I think that would be appropriate here as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certain that you can add extra spacing for your own personal viewing pleasure by just modifying your own personal Special:MyPage/skin.css or Special:MyPage/skin.js file? Almost all navboxes use the navbox class, so it would seem trivial to add extra padding at the top of the navboxes if that's what you like. I'm sure someone at WP:VPT could help you do it. I, personally, don't see the point in adding it to the wikitext, when there is a perfectly suitable CSS solution. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? Seriously?
    My reaction now is the same reaction I had when I trouted BMK for this in the diff above: who the hell cares? Except even more so now. I admit that I like BMK's version better. I don't really understand why he cares so much about it, but I definitely don't understand why anyone would care enough to revert it. This is, again, a single line of whitespace. This shouldn't even warrant a discussion on a talk page, much less a thread on ANI, even less the three threads on ANI that I think this makes. This is the dumbest thing ever. We need to drop this and never speak of it again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) Or it's maybe possible to make it a user preference. Adding it to some articles and not all articles leaves a non-uniform spacing at bottom, and that can mess with someone who did have that set up in CSS/JS. I think it should be left to CSS/JS/prefs not adding it manually in WT at bottom of page. On the other hand, I think this is honestly inappropriate for AN/I, as it's little more than a disagreement on how the article spacing should be created. Just my two cents. Yeah, this really shouldn't be hashed out here. Ever. Again. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's disruptive, aggravating and pointless. He's been asked not to do it for years now. My preferred solution would be a week-long block on the next occasion, doubled for every future infraction. Unfortunately BMK will always have interference run for him by the sort of well-meaning but naive enablers evident above. In the end, BMK is but one man, and so ultimately his idiosyncrasies will be ironed out of articles despite his efforts. In the meantime, editors should simply revert his more common problematic edits on sight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    His last block in 2010 for a 3RR violation was for 24 hours. According the theory of escalating blocks, any perceived infraction of any sort should be for 48 hours, not a week. Long term editor. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 04:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts exactly Chris. User:gwickwire when you say, "... WT ...", what do you mean? (Do you mean Wikipedia talk pages?) The issue is that User:Beyond My Ken adds this formatting to only the pages he edits. I started a discussion at the appropriate venue, per the admin who closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Additional discussion about BMK.27s behavior to determine if all pages should be formatted per User:Beyond My Ken's reasoning and he choose not to participate in the discussion. As mentioned by User:Thumperward, an administator (in the same section): "The only real harm is the minor annoyance of having to manually verify every one of BMK's edits to ensure he hasn't snuck any whitespace in.". Germane to the topic, he is reverting people who are removing the whitespace. Yes it is disruptive because many editors have told him to stop, and as pointed out by Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), this has been going on for years.Curb Chain (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I also find these "comments" to be annoying and unnecessary. Articles should present the same and not have idiosyncratic formatting inserted. If BMK believes extras spacing is needed, he should work with the folks who design the way text is laid out in mediawiki and those who create the skins used by Wikipedia, not take it upon himself to "fix" it in this idiosyncratic manner. I can attest that he does revert this crap back in when other editors remove it and even edit wars to maintain it in articles that he imagines that he owns. He needs to stop this. Yworo (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. This is not a new thing for User:Beyond My Ken. I multiple unrelated and separate editors complainingMultiple, unrelated and separate editors complain about these formatting style edits that he makes. I see above that he continues to issue with other editors about formatting and reverts and engages in edit wars as indicated in the section above. I concur with your statement: "He is the only editor who, even after understanding the issue, refuses to allow anyone to change "his" articles from "his" personal preferred image style.".Curb Chain (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly 68,000 edits for BMK, nearly 74% of them in article space, since 2009.[80] Three blocks, 2 of them reversed, all in 2010 (two years ago). He can't be that bad, folks. RfC/U, maybe? Doc talk 05:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You suggested this the last time. Should we go ahead with it this time?Curb Chain (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not recommend it if were for a blocking thing, to tell you the truth. I am not familiar enough with the whitespacing issue to comment on it, but I've known BMK for some time and firmly believe him not to be a disruptive editor that needs an advanced block schedule to prevent further disruption. Doc talk 05:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like BMK's white space, which should actually be the default in this now footer-happy encyclopedia. I also hate Manual of Style thuggery, which reverting BMK on this matter smacks of... Carrite (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was the case, then the MoS should be changed to standardize ALL articles to this formatting. As mentioned already, we have CSS/JS/prefs to handle this and that is where it should be handled. Personal preferences are technical issues which are resolved the software.Curb Chain (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any blocks per Writ Keeper. Interested parties should start a RfC on the topic at hand (insertion of blank line before navboxes.) MOS stuff can be highly contentious... Tijfo098 (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A pertinent discussion was started on the pertinent page where he did not participate. So a RfC needs to be started?Curb Chain (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A question, or two: can I see two diffs, of the same article with and without this blank line? Because I have to admit, I don't have a fucking clue what you all are talking about with CSS/JS and all that. Second, Chris, this lexicon of "enablers" is not productive. Writ Keeper is no one's pussy (that's what you meant, I suppose), as far as I know, and painting with that brush is unwarranted. But let me see those diffs: I gladly admit that I'm a moron when it comes to all this stuff about rendering, but I reckon I know about as much as a lot of our readers (not writers and coders), and how the page appears to non-geeks (sorry Writ Keeper and gwickwire...) is what matters a great deal to me. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    scroll downscroll downCurb Chain (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense taken at all, I do know a little more than the average user probably. All I was saying (rather, agreeing) was that if he doesn't like whitespace it would be much better for all if he sets up a CSS/JS code that would take the code before a navbox class code and ass (typo) add whitespace before it for only his viewing, instead of doing it on some pages for everybody. I think then, he should apply for that to become a preference/gadget in MediaWiki, so other editors can enable it as they wish. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with no whitespace, but I can see both sides of the argument. Therefore, I proposed that he use his own CSS/JS to workaround it for himself and himself alone. Also, I apologize for anything weirdly worded or techy in this, it's 1 in the morning for goodness sakes. gwickwire | Leave a message 06:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse this view. I propose if BMK reverts, wars, or adds whitespace to be an immediate block.Curb Chain (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any blocks against BMK; I don't see grounds for blocking Curb Chain but I wouldn't be upset if it happened anyway. Based on looking at the MOS talk page, nobody seemed to have any real problem with BMK's formatting changes, though there was a suggestion to find a cleaner technical mechanism, and a procedural concern about not having prior consensus for the edits. So yeah, this looks like another example of what Carrite calls "MOS thuggery". Attempts by MOS zealots to WP:OWN the whole encyclopedia have been one of the project's long running sources of pointless conflict, still ongoing despite multiple arb cases, bot wars, and everything else. They should just be told to back off instead. Suggestions to adjust presentation formats by individual user options are inappropriate since the vast majority of readers don't log in or have accounts, which is as it should be. In principle BMK should propose standardizing his style change on the appropriate MOS talkpage, but I can at least sympathize if he's disgusted with the MOS cesspit. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unproductive comment: As mentioned: a pertinent discussion was started on the pertinent page where he did not participate. User was invited to comment.Curb Chain (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at that talkpage and I think BMK is right that you have an "idée fixe". I didn't see any substantive opposition to BMK's whitespace, just bureaucratic objections which should get stuffed, by deleting the MOS if it comes to that. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then maybe you should look at WP:MOS as this is also an unproductive comment.Curb Chain (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with WP:MOS and I don't agree with the premise of its more zealous contributors, that slight stylistic inconsistencies between Wikipedia articles are intolerable. I see many criticisms of Wikipedia in the real world about its biases, inaccuracies, trivia bloat, or whatever; nobody ever complains about how some word is capitalized in one article but not in another, but that's what the MOSsies fight about. I'll walk back the "get stuffed" comment above a bit, but I think WP has a recurring problem with would-be MOS enforcers using the MOS as a vehicle to treat the project as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. IMHO you are also engaged in this battleground editing, and as such if there is administrative intervention, it should be against you rather than BMK. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think about his edit warring over it? Blockable offence and he repeatedly and consistently wars over these MOS "trivialities".Curb Chain (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In at least that article, you were also edit warring, and it also looks to me like you were hounding him. Why don't you leave him alone going forward, and if someone else takes issue with the whitespace, then maybe there's something to talk about. The previous ANI concluded that you were being WP:LAME, so you should accept that and find some other way to contribute. I'm not moved by the purely MOS-based objections since the fix for that is to downgrade the MOS from "enforceable" to "suggestion". 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that certain people can effectively own articles, simply by edit-warring in such a way as to also make other editors appear to be edit-warring. But the question here is, if a single editor (BMK), is warring with multiple other editors, who typically do not edit war with other regular editors, then what is really going on here? Yworo (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it was User:79.223.4.134 who was in an edit war with BMK. That subsection was the discussion I started.Curb Chain (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much ado about nothing. This is an issue to work out on the talk page of the article, just like any other issue, and definitely not something that warrants any administrative action. There are multiple ways of introducing clearing space, and this is simply one of them. Apteva (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are editors who disagree with this layout. There are alternatives which User:Beyond My Ken has not tried such as the CSS/JS but instead, he is belligerent in his actions when people oppose his layout which is a type of ownership behaviour.Curb Chain (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a diff of somebody disagreeing with BMK's layout? Handling it with user javascript or preferences is the wrong approach for reasons I described. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#User:Beyond My Ken, [81], [82]. Did you want specific removal of <!--spacing-->?Curb Chain (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, what reasons did you describe? And what is your registered name?Curb Chain (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous RfC/U on same editor

    We been taken for fools for quite some time: Under User:Beyond My Ken's first username, User:Ed Fitzgerald, a RfC/U had already been filed for the exact same disruption he has been perputratingperpetrating for years. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald. Germane to the topic? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald#Evidence of disputed behavior #3: "Edit warring and specifying image size against consensus".

    According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald#Outside view by Baseball Bugs, there was no edit warring taking place, but there sure is now.

    I propose a ban from the project as this is long term abuse and his behaviour has obviously not changed.Curb Chain (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a formal ban proposal? You need to cross your "t"s and dot your "i"s for that, you know. Doc talk 06:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I don't know! I have never done this. All I know is that this disruption has to stop. And how would I do that!Curb Chain (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC/U dates from 2008 and had minimal participation. (I had almost forgotten about Ncmvocalist.) At the risk of being called an enabler, a community ban—this seems to be what Curb Chain is calling for—is unlikely to have any success at all. However, discussions about community bans should take place on WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that I like some of BMK's edits. But there are certain edits that are quite out of line with our policies and guidelines. His belligerent attitude with his own idiosyncratic formatting is disruptive to other editors and he does not drop the issue when multiple people ask him to stop. The only way I see this is a restriction and immediate block when he makes the edits which have been outlined here.Curb Chain (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mostly indifferent to the whitespace thing and disagree with his image size changes, but I think you're being much more belligerent than BMK, who is at least doing some work on the affected articles. And if you're saying you like what he's doing but he should stop anyway because of guidelines, that's the essence of bureaucracy. The guidelines come into play if someone has a substantive problem with what he's doing. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Put things in perspective: He uses a "WP:BATTLEGROUND" attitude when editors revert the formatting/style changes that he uncompromising with. I see no reason why he should be exempt from edit warring blocks when he clearly and stealthy disrupts the project and cannot work, cooperate, or compromise with other editors.Curb Chain (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban of BMK. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Much ado about nothing. NE Ent 12:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So User:Beyond My Ken continues to push the idisyncraticidiosyncratic formatting that is in contravention of WP:COMMENT, then, editors goes and removes it, then he reverts it without an edit summary. Are we supposed to engage in an edit war for every article he edits?Curb Chain (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything on WP:COMMENT that says whatever he's been doing isn't allowed. It simply seems to be a description of uses of the invisible comment tags.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Curb Chain seems to misinterpret many Wikipedia policies and pursue his own pet agendas. See below. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode" is a rather drawn-out way of saying "don't use invisible comments to introduce whitespace to articles". At one time BMK edited said guideline to include the word "inadvertently" in an attempt to create an exception-to-prove-the-rule which would explicitly permit deliberate use of this tactic; that edit didn't take, because there is no support for it in the wider community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, except that the comment isn't changing the formatting. You can see it yourself: open up two windows of BMK's revision, remove the comment from one, hit preview, and compare them. It's the newlines that are adding the whitespace, the comment isn't affecting the appearance of the article at all. That's why WP:COMMENT has never been relevant to this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That certainly makes his edit warring to maintain the comments completely inexplicable and harmful behavior. Yworo (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow. I didn't say that his edits had no effect; they are adding whitespace to the final appearance of the article. It's just that it's not the comment that's doing it, it's the rest of the edit, so WP:COMMENT isn't relevant. If anything, this is the most harmless edit war possible: although there is a visible difference in the two revisions, I very strongly doubt any reader would notice or care, so there's no real damage done. The only damage is the that done to the editing community by these kinds of discussions afterwards, which is fully our fault (BMK, CC, and the rest of us) for not dropping the stick and moving on. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the damage is done by BMK edit-warring to restore something that has no effect. He should simply let other editors remove them without putting up a fuss, because as you say, the comment is unnecessary achieving spacing. Similarly, he should stop removing tags about cleaning up images, because this is how we get eyes on image issues and there is no requirement that there be a talk page discussion introduced at the same time. Maintenance tags should not be removed until the issue is resolved. If he insists on violating the MOS on image sizing and placement, then he will simply have to put up with tags on the articles. His behavior over multiple issues harms the community - that one of the issues is a non-issue makes it particularly appalling. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If people were just removing the unnecessary comment, then I'd agree with you about letting others remove it. But they're not: they're also removing the newlines, which *do* have a visible, though very minor, effect. I don't know about the other thing, so I'm not gonna get into that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The explanation is that the parser ignores a single newline, but sees newline-comment-newline as being two justaposed newline characters (and thus introduces a gap). This is incongruous with editor expectation: if one cannot find two blank lines in a row in the editor window, one will assume that no excess whitespace will be added. In effect, BMK is using a comment to mask his addition of an extra newline with an unexpected effect on page output. He doesn't do it by habit these days, and at least the wording is just "spacing" and not "spacing, do not remove" as it was in the bad old days, but removing it should still be uncontroversial. This ANI trainwreck will accomplish nothing, of course. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how a comment that reads "spacing" can be used to hide the addition of whitespace, though. If it said anything else, then I'd see your point. But whatever; I don't understand why any of this is controversial. It'd be nice if BMK and CC would both just friggin' quit it, but blocking/banning people over a line of whitespace seems just as inane to me. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, but to me, this is only a problem if we continue making it a problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: ban of Curb Chain

    • Support ban of Curb Chain per demonstrated battleground mentality for wanting to ban another editor for simply disagreeing with him. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously going this route? Bad idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous. He was quite clear that the motivation for the ban is not the disagreement, but rather the edit-warring behaviour used against multiple editors by BMK. Yworo (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous is the call to block (and now to ban) an editor for inserting any whitespace; see the proposals of Curb Chain at 07:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC) and 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC) above. Battleground mentality at its peak. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous. This is long term tendentious behaviour by User:Beyond My Ken when an editor reverts his style to what guidelines say. Intimidatory tactics like these allow his abuse to continue.Curb Chain (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worth looking into Support block (see below). Curb Chain's very first edit[83] (April 2011) was MOS-based (and a bad edit in my opinion), suggesting a reincarnated editor from possible previous conflicts. Some other edits[84] seem reasonable (not 100% MOS battleground editor) but I haven't looked at enough diffs (too tedious) to speak to large patterns. If there's an RFC/U I might try to do that. Possible alternatives: interaction ban with BMK, site-wide topic ban on MOS enforcement. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • More recent edits of Curb Chain remind me of the indef-blocked troll User:Shaz0t, although not quite as egregious. [85] [86] [87] [88] [89]. Deleting largish amounts of material, much of it sourced, mostly on spurious grounds, but with edit summaries peppered with invocations of Wikipeda policies. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This edit by Curb Chain is borderline vandalism for the source says: "In the Hall of the Mountain King was famously used in the 1931 film M, in which Peter Lorre's character, a serial killer who preys on children, whistles it." I suspect much his other edits are similar. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which in no way supports the removed text "This well-known piece has seen extensive use in movies and commercials, usually in accordance with a dramatic and fantastic or ominous event" (emphasis mine) That's not vandalism, that's removal of wp:or. Note the section is pretty horrible, a mish-mash of factoids, criticizing an editor for any improvement is ridiculous. NE Ent 12:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clear vandalism with misleading edit summary: the passage deleted is a quote and it is found in the source! Tijfo098 (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have stated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curb Chain. And found an interesting piece of wikihistory there: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernolákovčina/Archive. Curb Chain might be returning editor who was already banned once before. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice catch. I added some Bernolákovčina diffs (page overlaps) but have examined only a few of them. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indiscriminately deleting both sourced and unsourced materials with misleading edit summaries was the signature of Shaz0t. And Curb Chain does not disappoint [90] in that regard. It just shows how easy is to actually vandalize Wikipedia as long as (1) you intermix vandalism with some, mostly irrelevant, gnomish/formatting edits and (2) do it for so long that OMG one becomes a "trusted" long-term editor and (3) use some plausible edit summaries. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • His reasons for deleting material vary as the wind blows, but are always spurious. In October he deleted stuff because he personally did not have access to some science journals e.g. [91] (there are more like that) in violation of WP:PAYWALL. Also he deemed Quest Diagnostics unreliable about drug testing, which is a highly questionable judgement. Note the obsession of Shaz0t with drugs as well [92]. The amusing part about this is that Curb Chain's erratic behavior gives the impression he is editing under the influence of some stuff like that, unless it's deliberate pure trolling and vandalism... It looks after he is banned (again) a massive clean-up effort will be required to undo all his vandalism. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like at even at maximal AGF, Curb Chain has a WP:COMPETENCE problem severe enough to be damaging to the encyclopedia. I'm all in favor of CLEANSTART but the idea of starting clean is to separate yourself from your past mistakes and STOP MAKING THEM. We don't need incompetent editors morphing accounts like this. So, I'd support a block. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Spot check of diffs presented doesn't support. NE Ent 12:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, at least based on the reasoning provided in the ban statement above - it's a tit-for-tat concept. Block for socking if proven are fine, but not based on this tenuous grasp of policy being used as the reason for a WP:BAN (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    Oppose Even if sanctions are warranted, a CB goes way, way, way to far. We ban to protect the pedia, not satisfy WP:BLOODLUST. Curb Chain has a clean block log, so a CB is like using a sledgehammer when a peach switch might work as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          13:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest possible oppose A community ban of a hitherto unblocked editor for a single ANI comment? Absolutely ridiculous. If the SPI proves sockpuppetry, then an appropriate sockblock is called for, but even then a ban would be overkill. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for a single comment. For serial vandalism and trolling. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism and trolling are not a part of your WP:BAN argument. Tijfo, I've found your reasonably sane here at ANI in the past ... this train of thought is souring those findings (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That wasn't the reason you gave when you requested a ban. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest possible oppose This is jaw-dropping and appalling. It's nothing more than an attempt by an editor to defending a Wiki-friend by intimidating Curb Chain into dropping this issue. Throwing a complaining editor under the bus has become the favored approach to dealing with problem editors who have been around long enough and/or have crossed the magical threshold where the number of edits they've made means the rules no longer apply to them, but this is a new low for ANI. Meanwhile, all of this is diverting admins' attention away from the problem editor at issue, who is clearly editing tendentiously, and continues to be given a pass for doing so because he makes lotsa edits. And we wonder why the level of collaboration on this project is in a tailspin. --Drmargi (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Curb Chain and WP:SELFREF

    He repeatedly misunderstands WP:SELFREF, which does not prohibit articles from referring to part of one another or to pictures/diagrams on the page. [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]. Another example was found by 67 above [101]. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether the text at WP:SELFREF explicitly refers to "see below" self-reference or not, they should be avoided because they have a tendency to break as pages are edited, and "below" means nothing in the context or spoken or screen-read articles. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing here at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Curb Chain's deletion of sourced material

    none of this belongs here - file an RFC/U if you think something else needs to be done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Since some examples above were challenged by some !voters, let's discuss them in this section. I'll make subseciton for each example so they can be discussed independently. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Example 1

    [102] The first sentence is arguably a stretch, but the rest is well supported by the sources. The Forbes sources says "Sex symbol status and all, Miller wants [...]" The German source says: "Heidi Klum, die vor knapp 17 Jahren für die Kamera entdeckt und vor fast elf Jahren auf einem "Sports Illustrated"-Titelblatt zum Sexsymbol erkoren wurde". Tijfo098 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Example 2

    [103] Material based on a journal paper deleted because Curb Chain doesn't seem to understand WP:PAYWALL. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In the same article, more sourced material deleted based on the same claim [104]. No explanation why it might violate NPOV. Furthermore, after deleting the source (Sexton and Zilz), he deletes the rest of the material based on that as unsourced [105]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Trouts for all

    To Beyond My Ken, for changing image sizes after you had been previously warned about that in the past

    Follow me to join the secret cabal!

    Plip!

    To Yworo, for holding up a solution to which there is no problem

    Follow me to join the secret cabal!

    Plip!

    To Curb Chain, for diging into a editor's back history to stir the drama pot

    Follow me to join the secret cabal!

    Plip!

    To myself, for continuing to stir the drama pot

    Follow me to join the secret cabal!

    Plip!

    Now go forth and post in this report no more. Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend one more, a large one, for Tijfo098 after his/her efforts to manipulate the discussion and malicious use of SPI, above. --Drmargi (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Misleading edit summary at Konrad Henlein

    Thus, close: not for this board. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, despite good faith assumption I am dropping a notice here because I do not have time to look in depth at the issue. The edit in question which was perhaps a failed undo attempt did completely change the meaning of the article text in a verifiably false and misleading way. Richiez (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You'd be better off posting this on the article talk page, where your comment would be more likely to attract the attention of someone with access to the sources and could identify what the passage should say. -- Dianna (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) That sounds like a content dispute. As a first port of call, discuss this on the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And, the edit linked above appears to be a direct revert of this edit. I don't understand what the problem is here. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the point involves a revert I made, I can tell you that what I did was revert the ip edit back to the prior cited text, which someone else did. Further, I checked the linked page of: President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, as to the matter. I would agree that the talk page is the place for discussion of this prior cited point. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User "No More Mr Nice Guy"

    NO ADMIN ACTION
    Shut up. per request NE Ent 00:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    He does not exist yet he is actively undoing edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.200.99 (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    No more mr nice guy does in fact exist, but he doesn't have a user page, he's edit warring on Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence. It's currently under a 1RR, and he's at 2.

    This really needs to be put on 3rr notice board, however, he hasn't been warned yet, so I 've warned him on his talk page  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

    Well, under WP:ARBPIA 1RR guidelines, a warning isn't necessary: "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." However, this specifically does not apply in the case of IP edits: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." [all emphases mine]
    NMMNG has been editing in the topic area for long enough to know these sanctions, and is acting within their terms. Had the IP made an account to edit, there might be a case here, but until NMMNG breaks 3RR, there's not much to do. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    IP edits are exempt from the 1RR restriction and I reverted on that basis. Also, I thought I do exist (cogito ergo sum and all that) but I'll think about it some more. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you create a user page with "I exist" (in Latin if you prefer); that way, the IP will not mistakenly believe you don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But what if he's right? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At least two alternatives. First, "I may exist." Second, "I exist" with the assumption that if you don't exist, the non-existent you is a liar.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, especially where living persons are concerned. This includes content in user space. If there is any question as to whether No More Mr Nice Guy actually exists or not, that sort of statement needs a reliable source. - SudoGhost 20:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikito ergo sum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're telling me to create a SPS to support information that has already been challenged about a (possibly) living person? That can't be right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on indent level, it looks like your comment is directed at me, but I didn't suggest that, did I? In any event, I think you should take this to OTRS or some parallel deity. BTW, are we trying to prove you exist now or that you've ever existed, and, either way, are we trying to prove your personhood, or some other -hood like non-human animal or vegetable, etc.?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Horologium (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Maldives Article

    There's a section in the article on the Maldives which I'm currently trying to edit. The consensus on the talk page for the last year has been that the section needs rewritten, as it is unsourced, biased and sarcastic. I've tried rewriting it several times, but the edits are always reverted by the original author of the section (Raptor232). I've tried multiple times to engage him on this and discuss the edits but he refuses to communicate. Any edits to his work are immediately reverted and the editor accused of vandalism. I don't know what the procedure is for resolving disputes with a user who's being completely uncommunicative. I was hoping someone here could help out. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Where's the discussion at Talk:Maldives? Where's the attempt to engage on User talk:Raptor232? As far as I can see you've been warned a couple times because the other editors percieved your edits as vandalism. Before this goes any further you might want to try opening a new discussion inviting both Raptor232 and Vacation9 to collaberate on a way to move forward with the section. At this time ANI (emergency intervention) is not appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. You might want to try an edit request on the talk to see what other editors think. Vacationnine 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I were tried to communicate with the user 86.17.19.215 on his (talk) page but the user keeps reverting to the disruptive edits. --Raptor232 (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There are three open discussions about that section on the Maldives talk page. Jesus christ, people, they're not invisible. How about someone actually take a look at the original article and then at my edits, and then at the multiple posts made on this subject on the talk page. Tell me how they constitute vandalism and how I could have done any more to engage this guy in a discussion. I don't consider reverting a good-faith edit and then accusing the editor of vandalism on his talk page to be constructive. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I show only one section that you joined long after it was stale. Please remain calm and use civil language. Your postings on that page show the same level of organization as a drive by vandal. You were bold in your re-write, Ramtor232 reverted you for what I assume was a "Drive by IP Vandal" argument, and you reverted back. At this point you failed the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle in that you did not open a new section raising your concerns. It is a failing of wikipedia that IP editors are treated as second class citizens, but the way you overcome it is not by repeatedly reverting, getting yourself into trouble for edit warring, and not discussing the issue. As I said before, open a new section explaining what you want to change and why. Heck, they might even agree with you. Hasteur (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have directed the user in question to the talk page multiple times to discuss this. Ok, I didn't start a new section but what I wrote is clearly there and I made every effort to direct Raptor232 to this page. This was ignored completely. You can hardly say I haven't tried to discuss these edits. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I reviewed the text in question, and to be honest, the IP editor actually has a point here (though discussions should have been made on the talk page). Some of the text he was removing is, in fact, extremely biased and sarcastic "Unfortunately, President Waheed appears to be too busy lurching from crisis to crisis led by the nose by his coalition partners and by Nasheed, to bother about a small matter such as an investigation into allegations of a military coup." As this is nonetheless a content dispute, I will begin posting on Talk:Maldives and hope that all other involved parties will join me. Kansan (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Separate, but related issue with this article

    I was looking at the disputed section trying to come up with a way to phrase things a little more coherently, and stumbled upon a paragraph that is a little to closely phrased (as in, exactly the same) as the source text. This is outside of my normal WP activities, so I don't know if this is what is referred to as a "cut and paste" edit, or a copyvio, or outright plagiarism or what (and I'm sure there is some board specific to reporting this kind of issue that I'm not aware of), but it seems serious so I thought I'd mention it here. See the talk page subsection Talk:Maldives#Neutrality_of_Section_on_2012_Coup for the paragraph in question. I'm going to try and "fix" this paragraph, but seeing as how this is a really long article, I wonder if others might check some of the other sources against the article text to make sure this isn't happening throughout. Ditch ∝ 20:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    (Clarification: I am User:Kansan. I had my username changed yesterday.) I have tried to remove one particular source from the article that is problematic (it appears to be a blog post from an author who makes no attempt to hide his bias, and from a less than reliable news website with articles like "The miraculous nature of the Koran" [106] Raptor232 continues to insist on placing this source in the article. I have attempted discussions on the talk page: [107] [108] [109] but Raptor simply reverts with little to no explanation of why the source is reliable or why my concerns are unfounded - simply asserting that the site *is* notable, end of story: [110] [111]

    Additionally, he simply reverted Ditch Fisher's attempts to reword material that appeared worded so closely to the original source as to border on plagiarism. Again, no communication here. [112] We need a neutral set of eyes to come take a look. Against the current (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollback abuse?

    No. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is this not an obvious example of rollback abuse? It is a patently lazy MASSRV both of reliably sourced material, with sources verifying the material, and numerous other changes. The content removed includes several reliable sources and contains no obvious BLP violations. It also includes several minor edits. Editors who misuse rollback "may have their rollback rights removed" according to the guideline. --86.40.108.80 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That wasn't rollback. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And even if it was, rollback with an explanatory edit summary is to be treated as if it were a normal edit. Monty845 19:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, the editor in question does not even have the rollback right. We are not able to remove Twinkle access from editors. Monty845 19:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the case, both of you now need to stop your reverting (since you did it as well) and agree on a consensus via the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say "no administrative action to be taken" on this one. --Kinu t/c 19:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request review of personal attacks

    Close per consensus: nothing here is actionable. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Four personal attack statements were removed from an article talk page with proper RPA notices added in their place.

    That edit was then restored by one of the alleged editors who made them. Some neutral eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I think that was a pretty clear-cut violation of WP:CIVIL, and an argument could definitely be made that that was also a personal attack. I'm in agreement with you, Wikiwatcher. Go Phightins! 22:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Quotes: "and that relied overly on your POV to whitewash anything negative" and "I deliberated for an hour over whether I should post a response to your outrageously rude and distorted comment" and "Your obvious contempt for this article is shared by no one I'm afraid and your constant berating of this article had become boring long ago" are no personal attacks, not at all. A case can be made that "Get a grip on reality; Sellers' FA is here to stay and if you don't like it then go troll somewhere else" is not cool--in the past, editors and admins have considered "troll" a personal attack, but it depends on context. But if anything requires admin intervention, in my opinion, it's the all-too hasty removal of comments about edits. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my opinion, calling a good faith contributor a troll is likely a personal attack. I tend to agree that this instance doesn't require admin intervention, unless the situation deteriorates. Go Phightins! 22:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the facts: When Wikiwatcher started editing the Peter Sellers article it was B-rated, and was still B-rated two years later. User:Schrodinger's cat is alive and User:Cassianto worked on it this summer and got it to FA status. Now Wikiwatcher wants to take the article back to its B class version, and presumably what? Sacrifice the FA rating? Wikiwatcher had his opportunity to "improve" the article for two years, and someone else came along and did it. If he really isn't happy with the article it is his prerogative to request a re-assessment, but after an article has been assessed and upgraded we don't revert to old versions based on a talk page consensus. If he wants to put forward his request for a revert to an old version of the article he can do that in a reassessment, if it is granted. Personally I think Schrodinger's cat and Cassianto should have just ignored this farcical proposal, and if an argument can be made it was a personal attack then an argument can be equally made that it wasn't unprovoked. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it was unprovoked...I'm just saying it probably wasn't necessary and that assuming good faith might have been an order. Go Phightins! 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but good faith and Wikwatcher don't go hand in hand. You don't know his history Go Phightins, he's picked holes in the articles for a long time now and has exhibited a disgusting trolling attitude towards the Peter Sellers article, not to mention opposing the FAC. He has issues, and is a troll, sorry, but that's what is persistence amounts to. He is miffed because he couldn't get the article beyond B class and we took over "his" article. Once, twice, even thrice one could assume good faith that he is concerned with the article but the extent of his comments over many months amount to pure trolling and trouble making. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You would be right in that respect. My only basis for these comments is looking at the history of that talk page, and the comments themselves; I haven't had any run-ins with Wikiwatcher in the past, so on the surface, it appears to be somewhat of an attack. Go Phightins! 22:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an editor who requested his name be removed from the history of editing the article because he said he was ashamed of it, even after it passed FA. Plenty of diffs can show you what he's like. I can think of far stronger things any one of us could call him which would violate NPA, this isn't one of them. I strongly suggest speedy closing this somebody as this clearly isn't constructive or a cause for concern. This editor recently tried to remove another editor's comments from the talk page!! That's more a cause for concern!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in that respect I'll defer to your judgment as an editor for whom I have great respect. Go Phightins! 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Boring sock again, 201.235.34.98

    Resolved

    Can someone block 201.235.34.98 (talk · contribs) for now? SPI under way: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. Thank you. btw I did not notify. -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Drmies got it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing. Sorry it took me a while--big fat article, slow internet. Plus, the history didn't make it all that clear that there was something going on. ;) Drmies (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. What was going on between you? Drmies has a tracking somehow? Sounds great. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Twee zielen, een gedachte, mijn beste Piep! Drmies (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Might as well add the next one 190.16.235.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same geolocation, same articles, same comments. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, but the 190.xxx IPs seem to be volatile (temportal) and so stale for SPI purposes. I am fine with the blocking of 201.xxx mentioned, SPI pending. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The 190 IP lists as dynamic, but it technically appears to be a cable modem. I added it to the SPI just to make it easier for me to watch. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unilateral 'move' of an article under AfD discussion to another subject.

    In a series of moves, without any attempt at proper discussion, let alone any attempt to establish consensus, the contentious Palestinian incitement article has been renamed 'Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict' - effectively creating a new and broader subject which has not been discussed at the AfD - one which must necessarily include Israeli incitement of violence against Palestinians, which would no doubt make the article even more of an arena for dispute, and do little to ensure encyclopaedic content. I consider this change of article topic most improper, and have to question the motivations of those involved (who are from among the few contributors which have !voted keep, against the current clear consensus favouring delete). Can I ask for an uninvolved admin to move it back (I am unable, due to intervening edits and the creation of redirects), and for those involved in this unilateral move to be asked to explain their actions. This is a difficult topic area, and this undiscussed and arbitrary action can only serve to confuse the issue - though frankly, I'm unconvinced that this wasn't the intention of at least one of those involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The title was changed twice within the space of 3 minutes.[113] Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    it does not strike me as inappropriate to move an article with a POV title to a more NPOV title on a broader subject that can then be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Without discussion? In the middle of an AfD? And no, I'm not convinced that the new title is actually 'more NPOV' at all - it looks like an admission that the blindingly-obvious coatracking of the original article could be 'balanced' by tweaking the title, while making no effort whatsoever to change the content. And do you really think that an article under the new name will stand the slightest chance of giving the subject proper encyclopaedic coverage? We don't need more articles on the IP conflict, we need better ones... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, there is no prohibition against continuing to do any work on an article which is at AFD, and that includes changing the title of the article. The article can still be deleted under the new title. --Jayron32 00:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a change of title, it is (if NPOV is remotely adhered to) a change of subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which will be deleted when the AFD expires. They're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Pay it no mind Andy. Seriously. --Jayron32 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the overwhelming consensus at the AfD which means that the article (which I agree fails at least four Wikipedia policies, let alone guidelines) is going to be deleted in around 29 hours time, is renaming it a major issue? Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (E/C) Perhaps, but so? The old title was hopelessly ambiguous (No one could know, whether the Palestinians were inciting or being incited.) Besides, it looks like it will be deleted in another day anyway. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I've seen happen in cases like this though is that the activists who support the move now try to invalidate the prior calls to delete, claiming it's "not the same article" anymore. It is quite ill-advised to move mid-stream. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup - though the only thing that has changed in this so-called 'article' is the title, and a token word or two in the lede. Nobody other than the few !keep voters seem remotely convinced by this. It is self-evident from the AfD discussion that Plot Spoiler for one intends to continue with his propaganda effort, and would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent any negative material regarding Israelis being included. But then the 'topic' was cherry-picked in the first place for its utility as a propaganda platform anyway. If WP:NOTHERE means anything at all, this has to be a perfect example of what it is about... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that the article is well sourced and that several editors involved in the AfD suggested or support the name change. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of contributors have stated that the article should be deleted as contrary to policy. Which it no doubt will be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Being well-sourced is not the primary criteria in determining article retention, that is a common error usually made by newbie editors. As for the "several editors involved in the AfD suggested or support the name change" claim...well, yes, the "several" including you who had earlier weighed in on keeping the article. You make it sound like people who have previously called for deletion have been swayed by the name change. Your wording is deceptive. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) AndyTheGrump—would you find an article such as Israel and the apartheid analogy more defensible (especially more compliant with policy) than an article such as the one we are discussing, which is presently named Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? If so, why? Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus Stop, we know that pro-Israeli editors have long had a stick up their ass over the Israeli apartheid article, but that is supported by a wide swath of reliable sources and is not a slated fork of another article. Editors have made arguments to have it deleted in a dozen-odd AfDs over the years, but that opinion has always been a minority one. As I have noted elsewhere, it has long been a tactic of the editors of your particular POV to create garbage articles like this "Palestinian incitement" thing, to try and use it as a wedge to get the apartheid analogy article deleted. You have never won an argument with this underhanded tactic and you never will win an argument with this underhanded tactic. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed "Bus Stop" was a major protagonist in the Judaism and bus stops classic a few years ago (though, confusingly, "Bus Stop" was not the author of the "bus stop" article. It's been part of the repertoire for years.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a debate on the relative merits of articles. And neither is it another location for debate on the proposed deletion of the one under discussion. However, since you asked, Bus stop, my own personal opinion is that Israel and the apartheid analogy is an article of questionable encyclopaedic merit - along with many other of the articles relating to Israel, Palestine, Islam and the like. It is by no means the worst of them though. In my opinion, we'd be doing a great service to our readers if we got rid of most of these soapboxing articles, and concentrated on a broader neutral coverage of topics in articles not cherry-picked to promote one faction or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    COI re Bipolar disorder and Bipolar spectrum at WP?

    I do not know where to post this info, and I assume only admins can access IP info re who is doing edits, so I am posting here. Please move my comment if this is not the apropriate place to post it. "the Wikipedia entries ‘Bipolar Disorder’ and ‘Bipolar Spectrum’ were edited from a computer belonging to AstraZeneca", and much worse not Wiki-specific, is alluded to at that site. If an admin can direct me to the specific edits, I will check them as to WP:RS and content for WP:V. ParkSehJik (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Old news - see Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. Or do you actually have any evidence of more recent COI editing, as opposed to using this as another excuse to draw attention to your hobby-horse? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Also note that the blog post you link to is from 2010, and merely says that "As a British blogger noticed recently, the Wikipedia entries ‘Bipolar Disorder’ and ‘Bipolar Spectrum’ were edited from a computer belonging to AstraZeneca, ensuring that everyone is on the same diagnostic page as the industry.”". It doesn't even say who reported this, when, whether it was even confirmed, how much was edited and so forth. These questions would have to be answered first. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted here thinking an admin has tools to get an area IP for the pharma co, then search the article hisory edits for the IP address, in a matter of seconds. One of us can then read the content and verify with the sources upon which it is based, for which an admin is not needed. I posted notice at the COI board per Harizotoh's comment, pointing here. ParkSehJik (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins have no more tools than regular editors to look at the IPs that have edited a page in the past. Simply look at the article's history, look at the IPs, and then lookup the IP on WHOIS to see who owns it. I skimmed through the histories myself and didn't see anything out of the ordinary, but then we're not really told where in time to look. Checkusers have the ability to see what IP a registered account is using, but this is never used to fish for COIs, and edits >2 years old are far past for the tool to work (the data is expunged by that point). Regardless, as a general rule it is safe to ignore anyone who publicizes a claim without providing evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Anyone can look at article history for IP contributors - and Wikipedia certainly won't disclose IP's or similar data regarding registered users to other contributors. Unless you have specific allegations, you are unlikely to get far with this. Do you have any evidence that there has been more recent COI editing of the articles concerned? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Over the years, a couple thousand different people have edited Bipolar disorder. It's a common condition. AstraZeneca is huge. Probably about 1,500 of their employees have a bipolar diagnosis. It would be odd if none of them had ever shown an interest in our article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistence on BLP-violations by User:Popcorn1101

    Popcorn1101 blocked for one month. LadyofShalott 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Popcorn1101 (talk · contribs) has made it his mission to add Alawi Shia to the religion parameter of infoboxes for biographies of people who are part/connected to the Syrian regime. In many of these cases this designation is blatantly false (as they are Sunnis), and in all cases it is without any sources. See examples here: [114] [115] [116] [117] [118]. Some of the most egregious ones are Najah al-Attar who happens to be the sister of Issam al-Attar a Musim Brotherhood leader. Farouk al-Sharaa, as well, is almost uniformly prefaced as "the most senior Sunni member of the government of President Bashar al-Assad" in news reports.

    The user has had ample warnings on his talk page, and hasn't responded to any of then and has already been blocked once before over the same disruptive edits after I notified an admin, but he's back. The despicable sectarian undertones of his edits aside, there is a serious BLP issue here. Yazan (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello? Yazan (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Popcorn1101 (talk · contribs) for a month for disruptive editing; the next block will probably be indefinite... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Salvio! Yazan (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent Vandalism by 208.122.71.124

    I first became aware of this user when looking at his edit for the Rube Goldberg article, where he changed an instance of "Goldberg" to "Yanker man janson". Looking through his contribution log, every single edit that I checked was an instance of clear vandalism.

    Glancing at his Talk page, it's a litany of warnings for vandalism and similar nonsense. He has also been blocked four different times during the last year, the last one for three months. (Ending just this last week) Since this user has been warned and blocked so many times, I felt that this was more appropriate for the ANI than the Vandalism board. And since he has contributed absolutely nothing to the site, I feel that a ban would make the most sense. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nah, even repeat offenders should be reported to WP:AIV - and I don't think a ban is necessary; they are very rare for anonymous users, and this is a school where there's likely more than one possible responsible person. This was the only instance of vandalism since the last block; if it continues I suggest a 6-month block, but otherwise only warnings.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the "only instance of vandalism since the last block" because the block only expired on November 20th. Since then, the one edit made by the user above was vandalism. I'm aware the IP is associated with a school...so what? Does that mean indefinitely tolerating vandalism? If any student using school computers is serious about editing Wikipedia, they can simply register with a username. Problem solved.
    I'm not sure why you're defending this, since this account has contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever to Wikipedia, while actively detracting from it. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the IP vandalizes again, take it to AIV and ask for a "school block", which will (hopefully) result in a block until about May or June - or longer, if the admin sees fit to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is defending it. You're just being told the standard approach to school IPs, which is to wait and see if we get multiple new violations and then report it to WP:AIV, which will most likely result in a longer block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm no expert on Wikipedia protocol, although I can't help thinking such an approach is too slow and inefficient. (Why not just ban in such instances?) Anyways, thanks for the heads-up. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I echo all of the above. An ANI report is not necessary to emphasize the fact that they are a repeat vandal; this will be clear from the block log, which presumably any admin will view in determining how long to block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the most stable of IPs will eventually get reassigned; that's why IPs are never indef-blocked or banned. The normal SOP is to issue escalating school-blocks (3 mos, 6 mos, one year, two years). -- Dianna (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again

    After admin Black Kite's 48-hour block for disruptive editing expired, LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned immediately to editwarring over diacritics (what he was blocked for before). In fact, he appears to have done absolutely nothing but editwar about diacritics at Lech Wałęsa and argue tendentiously about them at Talk:Lech Wałęsa, despite being warned to not do so. His edits are extremely WP:POINTy, insisting on adding "better known as [version without diacritics here]" to this and (previously) to other articles with diacritics, as if anyone could not understand that "Wałęsa" is sometimes rendered "Walesa" in English. If not stopped, his "WP readers are idiots" editing would affect many thousands of articles. He has been on a WP:BATTLEGROUND campaign against diacritics at WP:RM, WT:MOS, WT:AT, WP:TENNIS articles, and any other forum he can think of to shop this to, for months and months. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The reason given for my block was that I reverted several attempts by User:SMcCandlish to trash titles and contents of my RfC on "Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLP". Trashing the contents of somebody's RfC is like rewriting the comments of another user, and is surely forbidden. There was a comments section for making comments, but User:SMcCandlish trashed the contents of the RfC itself.
    • The reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. There are several guidelines covering diacritics:
    • WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
    • WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
    • WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).
    • MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article"
    • and I am not aware of any decision that all of these are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation.
    • I do not think that politely discussing, on the article talk page, the reasons why the English version of Lech Walesa's name should not be totally stripped from the article constitutes "disruptive editing". I do think that SMcCandlish's repeated insults and repeated attempts to intimidate other users (see also discussion here) and silence polite discussion are far below the minimum acceptable and tolerable behavior on Wikipedia. I believe that he deserves a block for refusing to tone down his abusive, vindicative, and insulting behavior, even though cautioned by other users. The insults, character assassination, and veiled threats under "Better use of WT:BLP time" below this RfC are also surely far below minimum acceptable standards of behavior on Wikipedia. You can see another example of such intimidation and character assassination here. LittleBen (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Ben... please learn to use the SHOW PREVIEW button (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No seriously - please use the 'show preview' button. GiantSnowman 12:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever is decided otherwise, two things need to change; LittleBenW needs indeed to use the preview button (24 edits in this discussion already, to compose one message? The last 17 edits on Talk:Lech Wałęsa all by the same editor, for the same comment?), and templates in userspace should never be used in the mainspace: <ref>{{User:LittleBenW/Template test|Lech Wałęsa}}</ref> was part of the Lech Walesa article until User:Volunteer Marek removed it; moving it to template namespace will not help in this instance though, a "Google search" is not a reliable source that should be introduced into articles. Fram (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • A Google search of only agreed-upon reliable sources, as was the suggestion, is surely the best way of determining what reliable sources say. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template {{User:LittleBenW/Template_test|Lech Wałęsa}} : Sources for Lech Wałęsa on Google searches only reliable sources (the list of reliable sources can easily be changed). This template makes it so easy to research English-language usage (and rank the results) that it surely eliminates stupid excuses for not observing the above Wikipedia guidelines as listed above. LittleBen (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect the only answer to this problem is going to be a diacritics-related topic ban for this editor. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he asked me how to start an RfC on your behavior. He came to me and asked. Nice try though. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. I make no secret of having done this; I also asked Dominus Vobisdu for help, as I really don't have the first clue how User RfCs work. I did not know the full back-story, and I was surprised and relieved to see SMcCandlish bring the case here last week. I freely admit that I painted a bit of a target on myself during Ben's RfC by describing my contribution as an 'expert opinion'. I am not, and do not pretend to be, an expert on diacritics. However, I felt I had sketched out my area of knowledge, and its relevant to the discussion, fairly clearly. I was therefore surprised by the vehement hostility of Ben's reply. I found his behaviour thereafter to be hectoring, wilfully ignorant, and generally obstructive. I would especially emphasise the following points: (1) persistent biased description of his own views, opinions, perspectives and so on as 'neutral' and 'NPOV' (for which, I refer to Bernard Woolley's observation that "Railway trains are impartial too, but if you lay down the lines for them that's the way they go."); (2) constant not hearing what others are saying - in particular, claiming not to understand Agathoclea's perfectly clear and lucid use of English; (3) his wildly incompetent editing style, resulting in dozens of consecutive edits to the same few pages, and making it really difficult to get a word in - as I mentioned in that discussion, at one point it took me four attempts to get past edit conflicts with him in order to post a single short paragraph; and failing to sign comments, or indent correctly, leading to misattributions and unclear threading;(4) his persistent attempts to censor others' opinions by unilaterally declaring repeated moratoria on other people editing his RfC, and collapsing sections of the page which contain criticism of his views and methods; (5) his fiercely confrontational style, including inserting ad hominem attacks into his comments to me after I had already replied to them. My response to this report can be found below. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Kite: Please explain why your user page contained the statement, "In response to this abuse of power by ArbCom, I am withdrawing my services as an editor and as an admin, except for commenting on this case. Although I have great respect for some members of the current committee, I do not feel I can contribute while the current ban motion is still viable. Should these things change, I may reconsider, but if not then I thank all those who have made my time here so pleasurable, and I apologize to those whom I would otherwise have been happy to help" on around Nov. 17, right before blocking me. Also you did not specify any rational reason or any successful RfCs or other decisions that justify your premature closing of this RfC. You reason sounds like a deliberate fabrication. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What exactly does the message on Black Kite's use page have to do with anything and what exactly is the purpose of copying the entire thing here serve? Does Black Kite not know what his message says? You're really reaching for straws by using it and it gives me a very low impression of the strength of your argument.--v/r - TP 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • He said quite clearly that he is withdrawing his services as both an editor and an admin., so his coming back when crony SMcCandlish asks him to get rid of me (see Black Kite's talk page) is pretty gross behavior. Black Kite is still refusing to give a rational reason for his behavior, right? LittleBen (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • What is your point? Black Kite is in protest of something unrelated and voluntarily walks away. Obviously he still checks his userpage, saw what he deemed inappropriate behavior and handled it. Which policy was violated by Black Kite? He can do what he wants. You do not get to dictate the terms of his break.--v/r - TP 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • And SMcCandlish asked him no such thing. He notified him of this discussion. His previous comment on the talk page was in response to BlackKites handling of your edit warring on the 3RR page. It is quite normal and expected to notify and administrator who blocked a user of further disruption by that user. You keep digging your hole deeper by misrepresenting the facts. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support topic ban, for the last two years we've had non-stop excessive drama about diacritics, and it is nothing more than disruptive. - filelakeshoe 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Just from the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality this user has demonstrated here it's plain that this user is going to be single minded in their persuit of diaretics issues. From having to do 24 edits for their initial response, to digging into commenter's histories to look for a reason to discredit the outside comments on the grounds of being involved, to digging into Admin's histories to find a reason to ignore the advice. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic ban Having had a look at the previous ANI that got them blocked for 48hrs, LittleBen should have considered himself lucky not to have been indef'd. Assumptions of bad faith and combatative attitude in this area justify and indefinite topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I noted, as part of LittleBen's battleground behaviour his attempt to rally an ally after this ANI was created. That comment led me to investigate his argument that SMC "attempted to intimidate Fyunck(click)". Except that SMC's only comment - strongly worded - was directed at nobody specific and was merely an expression of frustration at the tendentious nature of the argument. In short, LittleBen is inventing bad faith motivations for his opponents (also noted by his misrepresentation of DJSasso and AlexTiefling's brief interaction). LittleBenW is not so much an editor as he is a crusader, and that is far too problematic to ignore. Resolute 14:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was mentioned here let me comment. I did not find SMC's strongly-worded comment "intimidation." However, saying it was directed at no one in particular would be naive. While I have been intimidated by two other diacritic allies of his, to the point of needing administrative assistance, SMCs wording was simply the same kind of frustration I sometimes have felt being on the other side of the coin. And while Littleben is correct that the title should be at "Lech Walesa" here at this English encyclopedia, removing diacritics is not a fight I've been recently pushing... too frustrating with the same old faces on each side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban - editor refuses to listen. GiantSnowman 14:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Formal topic ban proposal

    I've just realized that we are basically !voting on "a topic ban" without really defining it. So, I'll formalize the proposal using the same verbiage from other cases: LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.

    Naturally, my support comment above stands. I will leave it to others who have already weighed in to reconfirm if this specific proposal is adequate. Resolute 15:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support this formal resolution. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support User completely in the battlefield mentality on this topic. Digging into peoples histories and mis-stating facts just to try and discredit those who disagree with him is ridiculous. I already thought he should be topic banned, but his behaviour in this discussion has only solidified that more. (moved from earlier in discussion to indicate I support the formal wording) -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have to oppose because, honestly, the user is in the right...and as I myself have found in this project from time to time, it is hard being right in the face of such abject obstinance. The article in question should be moved to Lech Walesa, even; start recognizing the en aspect of en.wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's totally irrelevant whether he is right or wrong. He is still blatantly edit warring and gaming the system with an agenda. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Asking people to either follow Wikipedia guidelines or start an RfC (to strip all English names from English Wikipedia) is not gaming the system. Insulting and intimidating users for favor the present Wikipedia guidelines on a diacritics-neutral POV is not gaming the system; baiting, bullying and blocking such users who ask that guidelines be followed, and sabotaging and shutting down civil debate on the issue is surely gaming the system. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only one doing any intimidating, bullying, baiting, and insulting at the moment is you. With the way you are lying and misrepresenting facts in this current discussion. The RfC that got shut down was far from civil, you were removing any comment by anyone that disagreed with you. You were rigging the outcome. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually Tarc, this issue has been sliced, autopsied, analyzed, examined and argued from every possible angle. As one example, take Britannica, which in the past user has claimed does not use diacritics for "Lech Walesa" - it turns out it actually does, it's just that he had the diacritics turned off on his browser somehow. Here it is: [119]. If it's standard English (the en part of the encyclopedia) on BRITAINnica, then why does it all of sudden cease to be English here? Perhaps because some of the people who think they know English usage, actually don't. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • One further comment - this has been brought up before as well - why can't we have the technology which would allow users to choose a diacrtic or non-diacritic versions in their preferences? It certainly seems feasible and if it puts an end to all this stupid bickering once and for all, it'd be money well spend by the Foundation. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not make this about solving the diacritics 'problem'. I'm happy to discuss this elsewhere. This is about LittleBen's conduct, which, frankly, stinks. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reconfirm support See my reasonong above. Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppor, the RfC was an extreme example of IDHT, and doesn't seem to be an exception for this user. Fram (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • support wording. - filelakeshoe 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this as a bear minimum. Frankly, I feel that Ben has failed to show the competence necessary to contribute. I am sick of dealing with an editor who consistently 'plays the man and not the ball', and cannot himself ever make a single, clean edit to a page. I would gladly support a longer full block than the one already issued, in addition to topic and interaction bans. If I never have to deal with this anti-diacritics nonsense again, it will be too soon - but if its proponents conduct themselves more graciously, that's my problem. When it's the sort of behaviour Ben has displayed, it's the community's problem, and I say we bar him from the topic for good. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Per Tarc. He's right  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Although Tarc is in principle correct, it appears that Ben turns both nasty and "I didn't hear that" when dealing with anything related diacritics. As such, it's best to keep Ben away from such articles and discussions until he's willing to actually a) not edit-war, b) not attack others, and c) actually listen to others. As such, this topic ban proposal has complete merit in its goal to protect the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy crap. I hardly know where to start with what's wrong about this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Tark. LB is correct and it is always tough if you're correct and you face several editors of opposing views. I also think handing out a topic ban is way out of proportion here regardless of wrong or right and wiki should be going out of its way "not" to impose these things at the drop of a hat. Editors should usually be given written warnings acknowledged by a couple "non-involved" administrators that their behavior is bordering on a topic ban and that they should reflect and change their modus-operandi lest further action be taken. Otherwise it seems like an old western small-town mob hanging where if the victim had walked into a different small town he might be regarded the hero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Even if he was right he has proven to lack the competence and collorative spirit in contributing in this subject area (see also this comment on his talkpage) The competence issue goes beyond the diacritic issue, he has repeatedly been made aware of his wrongly marking edits as minor. He obviously does not understand English and his discussion style is so bad that I was on the verge of asking the community to impose a different limitation to the one suggested here - limit his contribution to a maximum of 10 edits per discussion, but let's keep this idea in mind for another day. Agathoclea (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support mostly on the basis of the activity being disruptive and pointy. Volunteer Marek  19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per VM and others - and also because edit-warring over MOS issues is of no benefit whatsoever to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but without "participating in any discussions about the same." Tarc is right: the article should be Lech Walesa, to hell with the MOS if it says otherwise. But that discussion is over (at least for now). Tough luck for me and other people who prefer the version without diacritics. It's a re-direct, I can live with that. As per VM, this is about "disruptive and pointy" editing in articles. But: the editor should be allowed to discuss it all they like. What is their time, they can waste how they please. Just not others' time. (And people, please: spell-checker, does your browser have one? Then use it!) --Shirt58 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Extremely disruptive battleground behavior and incivility that has already consumed countless hours of editor time. Absolute refusal to listen makes it impossible for this editor to ever work contructively with others on this topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternate suggestion

    What if I or someone else volunteered to mentor User:LittleBenW through conducting a proper RFC and ensured there was no disruptive behavior. The community could dictate that to accept this suggestion, LittleBenW would be required to accept the decision of the RFC as binding. Would that work instead of a topic ban? Several folks have said he is technically correct, right? I have no opinion on the specific use of the English language (if anyone has seen me write) so I've got no particular opinion.--v/r - TP 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Sanctions are only advisable if all other possibilities have been exhausted. Why not try this? Against the current (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as an alternative. As the diacritic issue is just part of the problem, albeit the worst, I recommend mentoring to solve the underlying issues and then for the mentor to come back here when his mentoring has been successful to lift the topicban and then guide him through a diacritic related rfc. Agathoclea (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. While diacritic marks may have been the gateway for this user, I see the embers of the WP:DIACRITICS war in the verbage. The answer is not to coddle them, but to stamp out the embers as soon as possible as this has nowhere to go (including the Jimbo Appeal) but straight into a full out diacritic war. Hasteur (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: The situation has gone far beyond the point where a gentle slap on the wrist will do. I, and many others, have tried to reason with him, all to no avail. You can't reason with a true believer who's on a crusade. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rumours and unsubstantiated allegations against Rolf Harris

    There appears to be a number of blogs/tweets/etc on the internet that allege links between this news article and Rolf Harris. I've semi-protected the article for one month, but I fear that other articles that he is connected with might also get targeted.

    Real life is keeping me from WP more than I'd like, so I won't be able to keep watch on these articles that much, so I felt it important to announce it here.

    As an aside, you'd think that the law suits following the false allegations against Lord McAlpine, bloggers would be more careful. But then you realise that everyone thinks of themselves as a "champion of rights" and hope to be the next Bernstein or Woodward (sigh). Stephen! Coming... 12:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is there ever a time when beforeitsnews.com would be considered a reliable source or acceptable external link? Obviously we don't publish uncharged investigations even when properly sourced, but the potential unreliable nature of that particular site makes me wonder if we need to blacklist or filter that site. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The only possible time I can it having a legitimate use would be in a statement 'X story broke on beforeitsnews.com 4 weeks before mainstream'. Otherwise I am for it being blacklisted/filtered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or if it were to become the subject of a news item and we needed to reference something on the site relating to that topic. Stephen! Coming... 13:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific pages can be allowed as I recall. So that shouldnt be a problem given the limited amount of times its likely to come up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no deadline. Wikipedia will not grind to a halt because we lag a few weeks, or even months, behind the bloggers and the National Enquirer, because we want to satisfy the criteria behind WP:BLP properly. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I heavily support such an addition to the blacklist. Even the site's URL admits to non-notability. Against the current (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Move and supress personal .css-page

    Taken care of by Monty. LadyofShalott 21:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please move and supress redirect of User:Lavallen/monobook.css to User:Lavallen/common.css, thank you! -- Lavallen (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Should be all set now. Monty845 14:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User YogaWP

    Hi, I'm not that familiar with the procedures here (participate mainly in es.wiki), but I just reverted an edit by YogaWP and notice much more vandalism that needs to be reverted. Thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be helpful if you could show us a few diff links to the alleged vandalism. Calling people names is cheap but we need evidence to evaluate the case. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now informed YogaWP of this discussion. Next time you report an editor to one these administrative noticeboards, please leave them a message as is required by our policy. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, will do next time. The diff I left in the first message with his recent contributions reflect most of these acts of vandalism. Thank you, --Maragm (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now left them a stern warning on their talk page and have given them a last chance. Continuous edits of the previous style will result in an indef block. Others might have blocked this as a vandalism-only account but I'm not sure there's a malicious intent at all behind these edits. So let's hope they stop this now. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    CopyVio on Arizona State University

    Recently, an anonymous editor has made dozens of edits to Arizona State University. Many of these edits are direct copy/paste from various websites. (Example: This is a direct copy of This.) This editor has been warned on his talk page by two other editors. In addition, I strongly suspect NPOV violations as this editor is strategically omitting certain potions of his/her copied text that contradict his/her opinion of the article topic. I'd like to suggest that the IP be temporarily blocked (or the page goes Semi-Protect). -Nicktalk 16:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the now quote. While quotes are permissible, if overly long relative to what they are quoting from, they can still represent a copyvio, particularly when there is no reason we can't use our own language. Just slapping quotation marks and a cite on a copyvio doesn't fix things. I'm not really sure what to do about the editor though. Monty845 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP editor seems willing to discuss things on the talk page, and at least in so far as the Copyvio is concerned this seems resolved. The NPOV issue may end up back here, but I suggest further talk page discussion for now. Monty845 20:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Thanks! -Nicktalk 03:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent violation of WP:BLP and other policies by Zbrnajsem

    User:Zbrnajsem, already familiar to ANI from a previous discussion relating to our article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford ‎ (see archives: [120]) has chosen, after a long and rambling discussion over 'free speech' and why he thinks that Wikipedia articles should be sourced to whatever a contributor (i.e. himself) prefers to push a minority POV, to make a personal attack on the professional integrity of a respected academic, Professor Steven W. May (currently of Sheffield University, see [121]). Professor May is self-evidently well qualified to write on de Vere, specialising on the period as is evident from his list of publications. Zbrnajsem however, disliking May's descriptions of de Vere as the sometimes less-than-successful individual he was, has accused May of being "misleading or grossly false" and of engaging in "vile gossips". [122] This takes what would otherwise be a content dispute well into WP:BLP-violation territory as I see it, in that it is a direct attack on the professor, based on nothing but Zbrnajsem's dislike of anyone who fails to portray de Vere as the great poet, virtuous nobleman, and self-evident author of 'Shakespeare's works that Zbrnajsem wishes. I have asked Zbrnajsem to redact the personal attack, but he has declined. If he is unwilling to conform to policy in regard to resorting to personal attacks on the authors of source material, while likewise filling talk pages with what is self evidently vacuous waffle regarding his rights under the US constitution to fill Wikipedia articles with whatever he feels like (see for example [123]), I cannot see how his presence on the article talk page can be anything but a net liability. It is one thing to have a heated debate regarding content, but when unfounded personal attacks on outsiders are being made, and debates are endlessly dragged off-topic by irrelevances and a failure to understand elementary tenets of Wikipedia policy, any hope of reaching a reasonable compromise seems futile. I therefore ask that Zbrnajsem be asked to redact his personal attacks on May, and that he agrees in future to conform to talk-page policy regarding the de Vere article - staying on topic, not abusing it as a forum, and not engaging in pointless rambling posts regarding aspects of Wikipedia policy that cannot possibly be rescended on article talk pages. Should he fail to do so, I would propose that he be topic banned - at least from this article, though I suspect a broader ban regarding all articles etc touching on the 'Shakespeare authorship question' might perhaps be more appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I redact my personal attacks on Mr. May, if what I have written is qualified as personal attacks on him. OK, he is surely a great historian, and I hope this is appropriate. It is difficult and maybe futile to discuss anything on Edward de Vere if one has the sincere intention to see that historical person from all sides. What I have said and what I have done in the article - just deleting a half-sentence - was only with the sincere intention that this person gets so to say equal and just treatment as other historical persons, i.e. no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article concerned. I am frustrated, this I may say. I ask you to read the whole discussion about Edward de Vere from the last say five days. If you who read it think that AndyTheGrump was polite to me personally during the discussion, then I will believe it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Zbrnajsem, no one doubts your sincerity. But removing anything critical about a person is not giving "equal and just treatment as other historical persons". It is not the case that there should be "no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article" (compare the article on his contemporary Gabriel Spenser). It is the case that it should be fair and rounded. This half-sentence was the only "negative sounding" part of a substantial lede section. Paul B (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to remember that this isn't the place to engage in content disputes. Zbrnajsem has agreed to redact the comments regarding May, which is a start, but we still need to address the other matter I raised - Zbrnajsem's soapboxing on the article talk page, combined with an apparent inability to accept that WP:RS etc policies are non-negotiable, and that appeals to the US constitution etc regarding 'free speech' are not only off-topic, but downright disruptive. I'd like to see some evidence that Zbrnajsem accepts that the de Vere article must conform to policy, and that the talk page is no place argue otherwise. Contributors are of course free to argue that policy should be revised - but doing so on article talk pages is pointless. Instead, discussions have to take place within the necessary limits of existing policy. Unless Zbrnajsem accepts these limits on the scope of talk page discussions, the disruption is likely to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor at Talk:Global city

    Re: Jim Lopez (talk · contribs), at the talk page Talk:Global city (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    This editor is obsessed with the fact that if you look up "global" in a dictionary, that the term "Global city" (aka "World city") would then not make sense. He has had it explained by a few people that it should not be read literally, that Wikipedia does not define the language but instead only documents encyclopedic topics as they exist, etc. Still, they hammer on about it. Their argument is utter and complete nonsense, as there are more than enough reliable sources for the term, and yet they persist. Growing tired of the disruptive nonsense, I warned them against trolling, still they persist. At this point, I have no idea if the person is a true troll, or lacks basic competence at editing Wikipedia, or if they are simply not a native speaker and having trouble accepting non-literal meanings of phrases. Whatever the reason, they persist with the disruption.

    I would appreciate some others taking a look. I was tempted to collapse the discussion with a DFTT tag; but given their persistence, I am not hopeful that would end their disruptive nonsense. Remaining options are a block, but I'm involved in the discussion, so I won't do it myself. I would appreciate other comments and opinions on the issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've collapsed it - with an explanation as to why the discussion is unnecessary. I'd suggest we wait to see how Jim Lopez responds to this before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass reverts

    Probably needed for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.179.168.226

    82.132.139.248 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There are a few that look legit, so be selective. May be a shared IP. Monty845 20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, none of the edits made in the last few days was legitimate, and I've reverted them all. The edits fall into different categories. Some are material about non-notable awards. Some are unsourced material. Some are incompetent. Some are unencyclopedic. And many overlap multiple categories. I've also left a warning on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yeah, and I also added a notice about this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Define "legitimate". I think they appeared to be good faith edits, so let's not be overly BITE-y (not that I'm saying anybody was). Against the current (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The problem is if someone makes a couple of good faith bad edits, it's not so hard to undo them and talk to them. But when they make a lot of them, it's much more disruptive and much more work to undo all of them. It's also spammy. At the same time, I understand it's perhaps unfair of me to jump to a final warning except in the case of egregious vandalism. I sort of wanted to capture their attention. If I were to guess, I would suspect it's someone young, perhaps even a high school student in Maryland, but that's just a slightly educated guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, most likely. These are books aimed at an approximately preteen audience. But I understand your point regarding the magnitude of the potential disruption of that many edits. Against the current (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you made me feel a bit guilty, so I added another comment that if the IP had any questions, I'd try to answer them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Return of Namuslu?

    There was/is a recurring issue with a user at the Istanbul article. He was known as Namuslu (talk · contribs) up until May 2012, when he was indefinitely blocked and suspected of being a reincarnation of another banned user, Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs) (who has more than 50 sockpuppets). He returned in September 2012, after semi-protection on the article expired, to cause more disruption, and now I think he's back again under a new username, Forthenote (talk · contribs).

    Namuslu's M.O. is not exactly unique, and probably describes the typical edits of a beginner. So, while not conclusive as Namuslu, the circumstantial evidence suggests Forthenote is him. Basically, Namuslu would essentially blanket revert a series of changes with no explanation or with the explanation that he disagreed with a small portion of the changes that were made. For some reason, he was particularly known for swapping out several images. Again, this probably describes the approach a lot of new beginners take, but bear with me.

    What made me suspicious of Forthenote (talk · contribs) was his quick ability to understand how Wikipedia works. His second edit consisted of creating a remarkably well-put-together article (Naum Theatre), and two days in he was already creating a collage for the Istanbul article and uploading it to Commons -- something that would not be a priority for most new editors. Like Namuslu, Forthenote's edits have been exclusively centered on Turkey-related articles and, for the vast majority of time, the Istanbul article in particular. Recently, Forthenote seems to be more noticeably showing his true nature, blanket reverting (as he did here under a completely irrelevant edit summary). He has also restored content from months back in the history, some of which was reverted in by one of Namuslu's socks. For example, here he adds a caption to an image related to Türk Telekom Arena replicating this edit that puts the same image and caption into the article. That image hadn't been in the article since September, up until a few days ago. We also see him mentioning a slew of films made in Istanbul, just as he attempted to do in September and re-adding an image (of the Pera Museum) that was removed during September's FAC.

    As I said, the evidence isn't conclusive. But it's quite obvious this user is not new, and most likely is another reincarnation of Namuslu. Any thoughts on the correctness of this would be appreciated. -- tariqabjotu 22:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tariqabjotu, you started an SPI, I see, which doesn't seem to progress very much. Your suspicion may well be right. Namuslu, I thought, was a very nice disruptive editor. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    David Horsager articles

    Pages deleted per A7 and G11. Blackmane (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Concerned users:

    Pages:

    First of all, considering the similarity of the names, these might be sockpuppets. Second, they seem to have only edited the articles David Horsager and David horsager. The former has been salted after repeated deletions, and the latter appears a way of circumventing that. Additionally, the accounts have been consistently removing the CSD tag on the David horsager page. The two accounts seem to be making a persistent effort to put what seems like promotional material on Wikipedia.

    I'm putting this here, since I don't know if it should go into AIV, SPI or someplace else. — daranz [ t ] 00:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=525801311"