Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cameron11598 (talk | contribs) at 05:48, 6 April 2013 (→‎Altaic languages Warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Austrian School edit warring

    RESOLVED
    Byelf2007 (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic-banned from pages related to economics, broadly construed. MastCell Talk 16:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Not an emergency, but I'd like to get some more eyes on Austrian School. For the past couple months, there has been slow moving edit warring, adding and removing some criticisms of the group. Thus far, I've fully protected the page a couple of times and issued one block. None of this has changed things, and the edit warring continues unabated. I'm hesitant to spring for longer full protection or block people for the slow moving edit war. I'd love if some uninvolved users could offer some suggestions/or take action here. (Note that this wiki-conflict has received mainstream media attention.) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    thx, i will watch the ANI and offer help if possible. perhaps a good starting point would be to trim the articles length? the concept appears very straightforward not needing such a long article. one way might be ask the editors to create a sandbox version where only text can be removed then compare the results perhaps finding common ground. excess text could be recycled into other existing articles and new articles created as needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's great. I think I have read enough to say with some confidence that Byelf2007 (talk · contribs) is an obstructionist who is guilty of edit-warring and should be blocked if they make another Krugman-related edit to that article again. As far as I'm concerned they should be topic-banned. Now, the RfC is a bit less clear and overwhelming than I'd like it to be (for the fans: it's in the talk page archive, page 6), but it supports LK's reverts. I don't know about article length--the thing as a whole seems moderately decently balanced, but the constant bickering is amazing, and I'd block Byelf for a month (they've already been blocked three times for the same thing) if those edits had been more recent than two days ago. Does that help, Mark? Thanks for dragging me into this, pal. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    68kB is rather large, much of the bloat being trivia from critics. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly enough, it's almost the same size as Keynesian economics. Take that for what you will, I suppose. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    48kB, good point, both could use some trimming. notice the small criticism section of the Keynesian article compared to AE. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think I have read enough to say with some confidence that Byelf (talk · contribs) is an obstructionist" One, this ad hominem, and is irrelevant to the issue. Also, based on what arguments? Why am I an 'obstructionist'?
    "As far as I'm concerned they should be topic-banned." Because?
    "Now, the RfC is a bit less clear and overwhelming than I'd like it to be." The RfC included, I'm not making this up, literally "blah blah blah" in it. That's not a legitimate proposal for being voted on.
    "I'd block Byelf for a month" Why?
    "(they've already been blocked three times for the same thing)" That's not relevant to whether or not I should be again.
    I'd also like to note that you do not mention any of the actual issues involved here (arguments for/against inclusion). I'll also add that I support inclusion of the Krugman material, just not in a particular form, but rather in another, because of what I see as a neutrality issue.
    In any case, it's not relevant: other editors have repeatedly put the material in without consensus and without addressing opponents arguments. So I'm just following site policy and insisting that people who want content in address criticisms of it (prior to a consensus inclusion, which has not yet occurred).
    Apparently, we're just supposed to take your word for it that I'm doing bad things on the page, but opponents to my edits are not? Based on what? I don't see a substantive contribution here, other than "Bfelf sucks". This isn't conducive to quality on this site. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 March 2013
    • You can say "ad hominem" until the cows come home. An editor asked an admin to look into the slow edit war going on in this article, and I did. I discovered that you are the edit warrior. You keep removing information that an RfC has agreed should be included, and so whoever reverts you is not being disruptive--rather, they are restoring consensus. You were blocked before for edit warring in that same article--three times. Sorry, but how is that not relevant? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes needed, indeed

    Scientology was in better shape when it was edited by the Church of Scientology. In comparison, the "Austrian School" makes objectivism look like serious philosophy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol - I've looked at the article a couple of times and ran away screaming. Mind you, I also ran away screaming when I had to study the subject at university decades ago (where I had the opportunity to fly a paper airplane during a lecture by Ayn Rand with my tutor watching me and laughing). Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See #19. MastCell Talk 16:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug, I now officially love you. That is one of the coolest stories I've ever heard. Will you gay marry me? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal for Byelf2007

    I propose that Byelf2007 (talk · contribs) be topic banned from Austrian School. His activity there has included edit warring (continually reverting in lieu of discussion), failure to respect consensus, and general WP:IDHT behavior. I think his presence on the page prevents any improvements to the topic because he feels he has the license to revert any content he doesn't want included. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    since one cannot edit-war alone, perhaps the editors who reverted each of Byelf's reverts should be topic banned as well? i cant think of any edit or revert Byelf has made that has survived recently? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over the past few days, I see Byelf has been reverted by three different editors. I'm not sure there's enough evidence to case either of the three individuals as edit warriors. Looking back over the past couple months, Byelf seems to be the only user who is continually removing the content from the page. But if you have specific concerns about any other editors on the page, feel free to raise them here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    scroll thru the older 500 view, notice how few/none of Byelf's edits/reverts have remained. it appears he lost every edit war, and regardless if the other editor was correct, or wp:truth, the fact remains it was a war with 2 or more belligerents, right? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Yes, it takes two to tango--but it takes only one person to undo the conclusion of an RfC, which is what was happening here, and blocking the other person for restoring agreed-upon content is wholly unfair. BTW, I think that article needs a couple more RfC, on individual points, and it needs a rewrite: count how many sentences start "Economist X". Drmies (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    not so sure this will fix it, a rewrite would be a great place to start. count up the economist x, the overwhelmingly majority are critical of AS. Was refactoring the content 10+times really the best way? instead of edit warring there are other tools available and the reverting editors failed to use the appropriate method to end the disruption, possibly making the situation worse, definitely wasting many bytes and bandwidth intertubes. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Sometimes one editor's conduct in an edit war is just wrong. That appears to be the case here. Byelf's pattern of behavior on the article and their inability to get it here warrant an article ban. If someone else has the fortitude to rewrite all or part of the article, more power to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    all editors edit warring are wrong, even those attempting to help. wp has specific guidelines to follow in this type of issue, obviously the editors choose to ignore. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is a problem of labels. Let's not call the other editors' conduct edit warring but simply reverting. There's nothing necessarily wrong with reverting that doesn't rise to the level of an edit war. But even if it does, it doesn't necessarily make it blockable. I close a lot of reports at WP:ANEW, and I exercise a fair amount of discretion in when to block and whom to block. Things just aren't as black and white as you seem to think they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    good point. i doubt the block will improve the article as none of his edits are in there now, perhaps mediation would be the best way forward? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am puzzled by your statement: "there are other tools available and the reverting editors failed to use the appropriate method" Byelf could have been taken to the 3RR incident noticeboard for multiple violations prior to the RfC. For one example see here: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and here: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Instead, several editors patiently cited WP policy to Byelf and asked him to desist. Shortly thereafter, user:Lawrencekhoo initiated the RfC on December 10, 2012 [1]. So in fact LK did escalate, and in a constructive collegial manner, by initiating the RfC. Moreover on several occasions editors have asked Byelf to propose alternative text for talk page discussion or consideration in a second RfC. Instead, Byelf has recited an ever-changing litany of reasons for his opposition to the Krugman text, but he has not chosen to propose an alternative version.
    I think that other editors have shown admirable restraint and patience toward Byelf's behavior. He has engaged in tendentious editing on Austrian School for approximately two years now. Other editors have calmly recited WP policy to him but he responds with WP:ICANTHEARYOU. In this diff, he appears to WP:CANVAS user:Darkstar1st to ensure his RfC vote here: [2]. He repeatedly denies the legitimacy of the WP RfC process.
    I did not initiate the discussion in this forum, but since the matter appears to have come to a head, I will state that I favor an indefinite topic ban for user:Byelf2007 in Austrian School and related topics. Naturally he would be free to appeal the block in the future, according to WP standards and norms for such appeals. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: -- Since the last post on this topic, user:Byelf2007 has continued to edit war on Austrian School and has engaged in WP:BATTLE behavior on Liquidity Trap, (a non-Austrian economic subject) and on his talk page. On April 2, he was blocked [3] for 72 hours. It appears appropriate to consider the operational terms of a prospective topic ban for Byelf2007. Under the circumstances, I suggest that a ban be defined to cover any article related to Economics or to Libertarianism. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban from economics

    At this point, I'm comfortable that the evidence and consensus here support a topic ban from economics for Byelf2007 (talk · contribs). I'm going to implement that topic ban as follows: Byelf2007 is indefinitely banned from pages related to economics, broadly construed. The topic ban may be appealed at any point by Byelf2007 on the administrators' noticeboard, although he is advised that any appeal or request to have the topic-ban lifted is more likely to be successful after demonstrating a track record of productive editing on other topics.

    I will leave this thread open for now to allow for any additional comments, concerns, or feedback. MastCell Talk 18:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunate that things have come to this, but at this point, I think this the best solution. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bullying and ownership concerns at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and Sparrow Mass over the use of infoboxes

    I have never filed an ANI complaint previous to this in over five years and 50k edits, and I am sorry to have to do so now, regarding established editor conduct towards editors new to an article and on the broader topic of infoboxes and classical music composers and compositions.

    On March 30 I stopped by Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach after noticing some changes on my watchlist there. I have never edited content at the Bach article to my knowledge aside from possibly some vandal reversion, and have absolutely no history with any of the editors at the Bach article. While there, I contributed a !vote on an issue being discussed, the proposed addition of an infobox to the article. I voted for inclusion, but is important to note at this point that the content of the article is not why I am here.

    The reasoning behind my !vote was frank and straightforward, but hardly uncivil, in my own view. To my astonishment, User:Ceoil replied to my first-time Talk page comment with a "Fuck You" response either directed at me, or interpreting my comment that way, which either way is highly inappropriate. Ceoil has a long record of previous incivility etc. that has resulted in 11 blocks, from which he has seemingly learned nothing.

    • I suggest a substantial block for Ceoil on the basis of this f-word diff, which, especially directed to a first-time editor at an article, is extremely uncivil and unwelcoming, and obviously designed to have a chilling effect. The infobox proposal was also the subject of a directed canvassing notice - by Ceoil. This results in a slanted group of commentators.

    Looking at the current Bach Talk page, I notice a polite suggestion from User:Gerda Arendt on March 21 to be the cause of concern from about a dozen editors. As I say, I am not disputing content in this report, but the way the simple request for an infobox was dealt with... what can only be termed needless hostility, including a comment by User:Kleinzach, in which he inappropriately he questions the good faith of the proposal itself and by extension, the proposer.

    • I suggest a strong administrator warning for Kleinzach on the basis of this diff - which again, in my view, is clearly designed to have a chilling effect.

    Further reading the Bach talk page reveals at least one editor, User:GFHandel recently resigned in protest over the infobox issue and specific and arguably tendentious claims that the infoboxes are "difficult for women to edit", presumably after years of fruitless discussion with the aforementioned relatively small clique, and the resignation by GF Handel I can only take as another red flag. A few days ago I made a strong warning statement at the bottom of the Bach talk page regarding Ceoil calling editors that want userboxes "special interests" that has gone unanswered; it seems no one on the anti-infobox faction were untroubled by Ceoil and my reaction.

    Another page that has serious current infobox issues is Sparrow Mass where I notice a violation a few days ago of WP:3RR by an administrator, User:Nikkimaria, who actually removed the offending infobox via a misleading edit summary called "cleanup." This plus three additional reverts resulted in a 24 hour block, the notice of which was scrubbed twice by the admin Nikkimaria to eliminate any trace of unpleasantry. I'd call this type of edit warring by an administrator highly unacceptable, and the edit summary and removal of notices lacking in transparency, which are crucial traits in an admin; Nikkimaria was also following Gerda Arendt and deleting infoboxes.

    • I suggest that administrator Nikkimaria needs at the very least a serious warning, with possibly additional sanctions to make Wikipedia's basic policy clear and prevent further intimidation and process abuse, with any further examples cause for a desysop discussion. (As for the Sparrow Mass article, it had to be fully protected to stop the edit war, but has since been unprotected and has been quiet for the last 24 hours as of this posting.)

    Historically, infobox opponents have tried to stifle opponents. The template for the infobox itself at Template:Infobox classical composer has been the subject of multiple attempts at deletion, with the last being closed as a bad faith nomination. Clearly User:Antandrus, the recipient of the bad faith closure and awarning to stop keep trying to delete the template doesn't want an open discussion as he advises the need to keep the infobox topic off discussion boards. This is sneaky battleground mentality, as I see it, and another example of a systemic problem on the infobox topic. Strike through with apologies to Antandrus, I got this backwards, as he was not the recipient of the bad faith closure.

    To conclude, clearly there are editors and at least one admin that don't want infoboxes in classical composer articles, and said opponents are using methods that are, at best, irregular and questionable. In my view, these methods call for the admin community to investigate further. And really, all this over infoboxes! The topic of music composers, some of the finest examples of humanity, should be a pleasant place to edit, not a battleground that drives away those with opinions different from an established clique. Jusdafax 04:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • For the record, you still need to inform Nikkimaria and Kleinzach of this thread. That being said...
      1. I think Ceoil needs a NPA/AGF warning;
      2. I think Kleinzach needs to AGF a bit more (but as that edit was more than a week ago, not necessarily actionable by itself now);
      3. There is nothing currently that prevents an editor from removing any notices unless it's an active block notice - and the block had expired by the time that Nikkimaria removed it, so that edit is okay on that front. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jusdafax, you have accused people of bullying. I read your entire post, but I saw nothing about that there; the issue regarding User:Ceoil is one of WP:CIV. Accusing people of bullying is a bold accusation, and even though I already challenged you to defend it here, you have not done so, and now are repeating that claim. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Our posts crossed, and I have moved the discussion here from the Bach page, by notification. Perhaps your definition of the word "bullying" is different from mine. I look forward to other voices than anti-infobox clique found on the Bach Talk page to give their views on the tone found there, including yours. Jusdafax 05:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "My tone"? My tone was one of opposing the infobox, in posts devoid of uncivil or vulgar language. Once again: diffs, please? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, the diffs I have supplied (which I notice you do not discuss) are indicative of problems. In regards to your tone, calling an infobox "useless" is worthy of comment for starters. And one can be "devoid of uncivil or vulgar language" and still be uncivil in intent, as your repeated use of bolding in your "requests" which come off as demands. I again point out that the point of bringing this matter to ANI was to get input from the wider community, not to have the conversation dominated by intractable infobox opponents, which is how I would define your demonstrated inflexible opposition. Jusdafax 07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never thought of the word "useless" as uncivil (unless it is used to describe another editor), and I'm unaware of an euphemism for it, except for perhaps "it would serve no purpose". As for bolding, you have made bold accusations; ones which I do not take lightly. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jusdafax, please note that contrary to your assertion, Antandrus did not nominate that infobox for deletion. It was nominated by Pigsonthewing [4], and it was the second time he had attempted to get it deleted. Pigsonthewing received the "warning" about repeated attempts at deletion, and the bad faith nomination (rightly or wrongly). Antandrus !voted to keep it. I suggest you strike your accusation above. Voceditenore (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right, I managed to get it reversed, which shows if nothing else that I am unfamiliar with this entrenched infobox battleground. My apologies to Antandrus; I'll do some strikethroughs. However, I now see that it is even more complicated than I previously thought... this template was another battleground and was never seriously used, as far as I now can tell. Antandrus' comment about keeping the matter off talk boards is still telling, in my view. I have notified Pigsonthewing about this discussion. Jusdafax 06:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Telling" to you because you chose to interpret his comment as a conspiracy to keep the discussion off the notice boards. He was absolutely right in his assessment, things do turn nasty very fast. Incidentally, the issue referred to there was then discussed at the Village Pump [5]. Voceditenore (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Conspiracy" is your word, not mine. I am here to ask for wider editor comment and admin scrutiny, which you will hopefully welcome. Jusdafax 07:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also notified Antandrus of this discussion [6], which you failed to do. Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have been editing non-stop for a couple hours, and had not yet notified Antandrus. Jusdafax 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another question, Jusdafax: you claim that there issues of WP:OWN going on at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, but all I see there is a discussion among editors. Where's the breach of WP:OWN? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's make it plain to the community, Toccata quarta, that you are a staunch opponent of the infoboxes, as the Bach Talk page clearly shows. What would you call the way I was greeted with an F-word... friendly? Now, the reason I brought this to ANI is to get some other views to this discussion. Let's let others be the judge of what's going on at that Talk page, shall we? Jusdafax 06:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OWN comes into play with comments like "not usually associated with composer articles"; "has never edited the article... like X", as though there was some requirement to edit a page (now much? how often?) before expressing an opinion on its talk page; and "contra WP:COMPOSERS policy" (my emphasis) as though that opinion page had any authority, which WP:Advice pages makes clear it does not. Likewise in the HTML comment at the head of the Bach article, which read "Please do not add an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes" (again, my emphasis). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by Gerda Arendt, involved, surprised
    I suggested an infobox for Bach, knowing that Project Classical music asks to have no infoboxes for composers. It was discussed, supported by some users, not supported by several others, I moved on, suggesting a much shorter infobox for Handel.
    I installed an infobox for Sparrow Mass, knowing that there is no such restriction (or how should I call it?) for compostions. It was reverted, see history, in a pattern that can be seen also at Peter Planyavsky and Membra Jesu Nostri. In the latter case, I received a discussion about the content of the box on the talk which I found helpful, and I made changes. A good way forward: I believe that discussion is better than reverting and edit war, and I respect the involved editors, see? Happy Easter. (In Leipzig at Bach's time, they celebrated Easter for three days.)
    ps: this is the first time that I am an involved party on this page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ps II: I miss GFHandel and said so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Gerda, but again, what I am attempting to do is get some outside views of the way a new editor to a page and community, like myself, is being dealt with when they contradict orthodox editing. This is not about infoboxes, it is about the way opponents of infoboxes are acting. It has the effect of driving editors away, in my view, and in some cases investigation and correctional measures may well be needed. I am a totally uninvolved editor, so I saw bringing this to ANI as a moral duty. Your proposal was termed "bad faith" by Kleinzach, which I find unacceptable, and I seek comment and action on that here. Only one editor on the Bach Talk page, a supporter of your proposal, saw fit to speak up against this serious abuse before I did, which got my attention. It may not bother you, but what of someone new to Wikipedia? Really, what kind of editing environment exists at classical music articles? I submit there is room for improvement, based on my statement above. Jusdafax 08:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jusdafax:
    1. Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach doesn't show that I'm "a staunch opponent of the infoboxes". For a start, I'm one of the main editors of the article Magnus Carlsen, but I have never complained about the infobox there (or removed it). Like many other editors at the Bach talk page, I'm opposed to some infoboxes because of the reasons listed at WP:COMPOSERS. That's why I have no problem with geographical infoboxes, for instance.
    2. I have already commented on the F-word issue by saying that it has to do with WP:CIV.
    3. None of what you wrote has to do with WP:OWN. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're missing the point. "In other words, I discount your argument, becuase I cant, and dont want to, understand it. And f.. you anyway. is how your comment sounded to Ceoil hence his next sentence "sooner or later" is the under current most of the supporters are hinting at, nice that you are so explicit." - he's saying you were in effect saying F. you to others. Yes he deserves a WP:CIVILITY warning. But to be honest even your comment here above "As an eventualist, the comment I made stands" might be worthy of a small baby trout. Do you not see that "This one will have one too, sooner or later" is not a conciliatory or communicative reason? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Uninvolved user here. I'm generally pro-infobox, but don't understand why people get so heated over one. The comment by Ceoil is absolutely unacceptable, and should result in a heavy sanction, given their history in this area (yes, their last block was January 2012, but for such an out of proportion attack, with the user having 4 blocks for personal attacks since whatever discussion overturned the earliest ones in 2008, a block is needed, and a NPA warning is utterly pointless). The second user needs a AGF/NPA warning, but probably little more, based on the evidence here. Nikkimaria has already been dealt with for edit warring, so there's nothing for anyone to do there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is so heated because it became a personal thing which went on for years, 2005 has been mentioned. I am new to the topic, so not yet tired. How do we get to content? For example discuss the content for an infobox Bach, rather than yes or no? Bach is a vital article and deserves one, if you ask me ;) - I generally assume good faith and am speechless when I am not trusted, - thanks to those speaking for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment These discussions on infoboxes are rarely useful and can generate extraordinary responses. [7] The discussions also divert attention from the difficulty in actually producing reasonable content on classical music, which can be a slow process. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks like a forum shopping expedition to me."What I am attempting to do is get some outside views of the way a new editor to a page and community, like myself, is being dealt with when they contradict orthodox editing." This doesn't sound like the same person who wrote: "Infoboxes are standard components to most Wikipedia articles. This one will have one too, sooner or later." Infoboxes "contradict orthodox editing" yet they are standard and every article must have one. Hmm. --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't see "bullying" per the thread title; I did see one intemperate comment from Ceoil from a few days ago. I've asked him to cool his jets. It'd be great if folk could refrain from getting so heated over fairly minor issues like this one and use the normal channels of DR rather than coming here. --John (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Bach page is just one example. There's a lot of bullying and it consistently happens (Talk:Robert Stoepel is another recent case). And most of those opposed to infoboxes will consistently bring up that there's no rule for or against them, and that the guideline against them for classical music articles is just a guideline and should be taken on an individual basis....yet if someone puts in a box in good faith it'll be reverted -- here is a good example. "format per WP:Classical music" as an edit summary? Seriously? Not to mention as far as arguments in the talk pages we have this little gem. I'd give a lot more but at this point I've really stopped wanting to waste so much energy on it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • [ec]One? Perhaps you missed this: this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think this ANI is well-taken, I see bullying occurring here quite clearly. I have not been involved at all in either of these two articles, but I have noticed that the anti-infobox "consensus" of these particular wikiprojects is rather odd and in conflict with most of the uses of infobocx person and its variants across wikipedia. As there is a good-faith discussion of whether that consensus SHOULD change, personal attacks on people who weigh in with good faith opinions is not appropriate. Having looked at the diffs and associated talk, there is a clear attempt to run off people who disagree with the "old guard" or even those who attempt to tread a middle ground. The individuals who perpetuated this incivility need some appropriate cautions and warnings. I don't see it as an "off with their heads" sanction, but telling anyone to "f-off" is not the way to handle any dispute. Montanabw(talk) 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You will find that there POV is more important then there willingness to solve the problem. Many suggestions have been proposed over the years to no avail, resulting in the loss of there own project members and group isolation. Some progress has been made in the wording of there advice page, but despite the communities concerns this is still a problem. Its embarrassing and a waste of time to say the least for all of us who have to explain to people why this small corner of Wikipedia is uninviting and full of conflict.Moxy (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've commented a little previously on this infobox issue. I see it as an unfortunate attempt by a group of truly excellent editors who have otherwise my great respect and admiration, to try to maintain a standard of formatting in their special area that is different from elsewhere it WP. I agree that articles look cleaner without infoboxes. I agree that our current formatting of infoboxes overly highlights them. I hope very much the Wikidata project devises some better way of handling it. But I think there is a general consensus at WP, rightly or wrongly, that all biographical articles should have infoboxes, and I do not think any one project ought to decide otherwise unless they can get a consensus of the entire community. We are a single encyclopedia. The project's primary job should be maintaining the generally excellent quality of the articles in their field, not fighting over formatting. If they try to maintain a special format they will inevitably come into conflict with outsiders, and give the impression of a closed community. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "But I think there is a general consensus at WP,rightly or wrongly, that all biographical articles should have infoboxes." There isn't. In fact, editors have been sanctioned for trying to impose infoboxes on articles by force and bullying [8]. I hope very much the Wikipedia Data project and its associated tag team give up their efforts to own every article on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Folantin, the way your remarks are worded, it sound like you are lumping everyone who is in favour of info boxes into a "tag team". There's similar remarks from other users on the Bach talk page that imply that roving gangs of bullies are going around trying to impose their info-box-will on others. There's lots of individual people who favour info boxes that are not doing so in an attempt to own the place or doing so on behalf of the Wikipedia Data project. Divisive lumping together of people of similar opinions into hypothetical factions is never a good idea, and it's one reason the issue is being discussed on this board. -- Dianna (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Folantin, the way your remarks are worded, it sound like you are lumping everyone who is in favour of info boxes into a 'tag team'." No, I'm not and it doesn't sound that way, not if you read it properly. I'm referring to a small(ish) but highly committed group of editors who try to impose infoboxes on every article. Their reason for doing so, whether they state it or not, boils down to metadata concerns rather than any concern for things like accurate content. They appear on a wide variety of articles on subjects for which they have displayed no prior interest or knowledge. --Folantin (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not part of a group "imposing infoboxes on every article". I explained (on the Bach talk) that I think Bach deserves an infobox because it's a vital article, like Franz Kafka, for example. When I noticed that the thought was not welcome enough I moved on and recommended to archive the discussion. Please stay factual. - Everybody is welcome to add infoboxes to "my" articles, I like structured information for easy access and I don't believe that they are "trivialising" the subject. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No one said you were a part of this group. But Andy Mabbett and his Metadata crew is not a figment of my imagination, although some of its members are now either banned [9] or otherwise sanctioned. Mabbett himself has been banned twice for a year by ArbCom for aggrssive behaviour. Most of these infobox debates would benefit massively by his absence. --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion should be about the incidents mentionened, Bach and Sparrow Mass. I suggested one and inserted the other. Why mention "group" in this context? - See my talk for an 1 April operatic semiseria DYK suggestion (not by me), for a smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mabbett features in both those examples as well as in most of the others mentioned in this discussion. --Folantin (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, making reasonable comments, so? - I am on friendly terms with him, with the three editors mentioned in headings below (1, 2, 3), with several others in this thread, - and would like to talk about the facts of a future rather than unpleasant personal experiences of a past that I don't share. I am sorry to disagree with Truthkeeper (in this case), recommending to NOT look at old discussions, but to take a fresh unbiased look at the question if Bach or others should have an infobox, and what it should contain if wanted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He was permanently community-banned from contributing to Featured Article of the Day after a particular nasty infobox imposition incident only last August [10]. He's exhibited the same behaviour for years and shows no sign of stopping....But he's your friend, so OK then. --Folantin (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "shows no sign of stopping" - I don't see that, - also "on friendly terms" and "friend" don't mean the same for me. You show no sign of stopping to talk about people instead of facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a fact that Mabbett has been community-banned and ArbCom-banned over these issues.--Folantin (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've been away for over a week, not logged in once, because I'm sick of these discussions [11] and am more than disgusted at finding this here. That Gerda misses a user and adds that person to a special page [12] and ignores another who has left for the same reason shows the closed community DGG mentions above. I commented at Bach, and yes made edits when my suggestion to tidy the page were ignored,[13], [14], otherwise I've not edited there. These discussions have been raging all over the project and we *are* losing productive content editors because of it. One particularly nasty discussion occurred here, there's another here, one here, another here. Bullying? Yep, there's been bullying for sure. In my view bringing this is AN/I over a single word said by a single editor is beyond shortsighted. But carry on. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As someone who loves classical music, loves working together with other people and abhors incivility: this whole thread saddens me.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have stood back here after initiating this ANI thread and responding to initial comments, but I feel I must respond to Truthkeeper's post, as well as try to begin to wrap this up. I have attempted to make it abundantly clear that this is not about one profane word at one Talk page, but about the nature of the debate on infoboxes in composer and composition articles and the methods used by opposers. That f-word triggered thorough examination of that entire Bach Talk page and the topic as a whole, but I resent being called shortsighted by Truthkeeper (who does agree, along with a number of others, that bullying at classical music articles exists) for bringing the matter to this noticeboard. As I have commented on the Bach talk page, I gave the matter considerable thought. Above all, the fact that I was and am completely uninvolved in this debate and those debating it made me, I continue to feel, an ideal editor to initiate this ANI complaint to bring in fresh eyes to the overall topic of bullying and ownership at classical music articles. I also feel that the fact that I have never initiated a single ANI complaint of any kind previously added weight to my concerns. It may be important at this point to acknowledge that at least one advocate of infoboxes in classical music articles has issues of the his own regarding questionable editing practices. So be it. That a number of other editors have stepped forward to agree that a problem exists has been established. Let's move on from there to the next phase of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusdafax (talk • contribs) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do realise, don't you, that Truthkeeper was referring to what she perceived as bullying by pro-infobox editors? And that she pointed to what she considers to be further examples of it, not in classical musical articles, but in those on literary and historic architecture subjects? Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've arrived here late, and to be frank I'm relieved to have missed most of it. I’ve been accused (inaccurately) of saying that the infobox proposal at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach was made in ‘bad faith’, though in fact I said was that it was an open question. What I had in mind was SNOW "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted . . . ." Here’s the relevant diff [15]. (The context of my remark was the attempt to close a damaging and unproductive discussion.) I stand by what I wrote there and elsewhere in response to the proposal. Anybody who reads this ANI and still thinks that these discussions are ruled by AGF must be living in cloud cuckoo land. Given the substantial blocks suffered by the leading player in these debates, going back to 2007, good faith is clearly in short supply. Kleinzach 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I live in a "cloud cuckoo land", not after reading "these discussions", but when suggesting an infobox for Bach. Things could be so simple, Gerda writes an article, Andy adds an infobox, Gerda says thank you. (This is an example, which also actually happened, see Holzhausenschlösschen). Note that I said "adds", not "imposes" "by force". I think of infoboxes as an additional access to structured information, we can discuss their content and their design ("cloud cuckoo land"?). I don't think sanctions will help to change minds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps somebody else has thus accused you, but IIRC I said you had "questioned Gerda's good faith". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infoboxes aren't as great as many people think that they are. It is 100% ok to not use them. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The bias against infoboxes by the classical music/composer projects is a well-known fact and has been ongoing for many years now. There are good arguments on both sides. In theory, infoboxes were designed to help the reader; they were meant to confer essential information at a glance in an unobtrusive way, but that has not always been the case. The best solution is for preferences to control their placement. If you don't like them, then you should be able to use your preferences to control their display. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed sanctions for Nikkimaria, Ceoli, and Kleinzach

    It is established that there is a problem with the methods being used by some opponents to infoboxes in general and these three in particular. I have discussed each editor in the bullet points in my original complaint that started this thread. I call for editor comment on proposed sanctions for the three as a start to make it clear to opponents, and yes, supporters of infoboxes as well. One thing I notice is that none of the three has seen fit to contribute to this discussion to date, much less express contrition. This, in my view, should be a matter of of community concern and response. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jusdafax, I suggest you do your homework before asking for these sanctions. You've dropped into a single conversation, taken offense to a single word, and are apparently fully unaware of more than a year of seriously unacceptable behavior by Pigsonthewing et. al., that's had repercussions in terms of editor retention. The Bach conversation came directly on the heels of another infobox discussion and in the least the timing was bad. It was you who posted beneath my own post on Bach saying there will be an infobox regardless, basically telling me to fuck off. I'm very very tired of this and hope that other uninvolved admins do their homework, look at the many conversations - I can provide more diffs if someone posts a request on my page - and takes a good long hard look at what's really happening. Furthermore in terms of looking for contrition and responses, might be a good idea to look at editors' editing patterns to see how often and when they edit before asking for sanctions less than 24 hours after a single comment was dropped on a page. In my view you're fueling a fire that's best let alone and I strongly suggest you withdraw these proposals and let this thread be archived. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullying? Ownership concerns? The first just didn't happen – profanity and incivility are not bullying. The second is asserted but never even attempted to be shown. This whole soap opera/drama should never have reached this forum. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already explained the ownership concerns, above (Timestamp: 15:11, 2 April 2013). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed block of Ceoil

    For his profane f-word greeting to my initial greeting to my initial post at the J.S. Bach talk page, as well as other highly questionable editing behavior found on the Bach talk page, I propose a block. This block is preventative, not punitive. To date, Ceoil has received a lukewarm warning on his talkpage, with no contrition expressed or indeed response of any kind. Again, this editor has amassed 11 blocks for unacceptable editing in the past, which must be factored into my concerns. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What a pompous and pretentious statement.  Giano  21:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed strong warning or additional block for Administrator Nikkimaria

    A 24 hour block for the edit warring and tendentious editing outlined above is not enough. Administrators must exhibit the highest standards of community trust; when they edit in demonstrated bad faith, a serious problem exists. Here again, no contrition has been demonstrated, to my knowledge. This suggests an intractable admin with a pov issue that needs to be dealt with by the community, and not just by a 24 hour block that the admin can then scrub from their Talk page and go on their way. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Was the user in question warned before they made their fourth revert? Also this happened 5 days ago thus a little old. And the users who were attempting to add the content into the article managed to do so per [16] and without consensus on the talk page [17]. Typically it is the person attempting to add new content who should get consensus before it is added not the other way around. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin in question was blocked (24 hours) for that episode. The "warning" was a diff to this conversation. Unless I'm mistaken, the OP here is asking for an (additional) longer block for the offense she'd already been blocked for. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no evidence of any "admin abuse". Nikkimaria did not use her admin tools in the dispute(s). --Folantin (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    RFC is thataway. --Rschen7754 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed warning for Kleinzach

    To submit that a proposal for an infobox, made in civil language and with proper formatting and knowledge of the subject is in "bad faith," is unacceptable, and cannot be allowed to stand. At least one other editor has provided an additional complaint diff above; I suggest a strong warning on Kleinzach's Talk page to discourage this sort of attack-editing in the future. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • No sanctions. Some other admin may feel free to warn editors more sternly. Personally, I think that Ceoil's "Fuck you" came way too out of the blue, and if you agree you might feel inclined to leave some diplomatic words of your own on their talk page. But here's the thing. Some of you are some of the best editors around. There's at least a half a dozen names in the conversation above and the discussion on the article talk page--wait, maybe a dozen--of some of the finest editors I know producing some of the finest content we have. In y'all's capacity as editors, I look up to you. In y'all's capacity as human beings, you may not be as bad as I am, but you're not perfect either, that's clear as well. There's bad blood here, judging from some of the article talk page comments (there's mention of teams, of ownership, etc), but blocks are only going to make that worse. As an admin (admittedly not of the same detached and calm temperament as some others), I do not think that the (admittedly poor) behavior (of some) is blockworthy. Will you please work this out some other way? You're setting a terrible example for the kids. Sorry, I'd speechify more, but a student came in and we're talking Paradise Lost. Good luck to you all, and may you write your content cooperatively and in peace. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No sanctions, please read what I said above, look for "cloud cuckoo land": "I don't think sanctions will help to change minds." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ps: I try praise, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Concur with Gerda. Some WP contributors are more emollient than others, but I agree with Drmies, above: we must not get so prim as to drive away key contributors over minor alarums and excursions. Kleinzach is a key contributor by any standard; the areas of WP that I work in would simply not exist as they now are without him. I've had the occasional reciprocal poke in the eye from Kleinzach, but such things are as nothing compared to his contribution. Strongly opposed to any sanction. – Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Drmies in the entirety. This whole thing is getting very unseemly. I've studiously avoided being drawn in, but even if people are unable to agree, they need to agree on a way of settling the question. Otherwise it's going to land in ArbCom. I used to tell parents in custody matters that despite their differences, it was better that they decide what happens to their children than a stranger, however well-meaning and learned. I do not feel a great deal of sympathy toward content contributors from ArbCom these days. Don't go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It started unseemly and it will end with content editors walking away - off the top of my head I know of about five who already have, good editors even if not considered "quality editors". If the above is a veiled threat, then add more who will simply decide that if writing isn't valued on WP there are better ways to spend one's volunteer time. Giano got it right here. That's the only way to end it, but wasn't accepted and then moved on to Bach a day or so later and so it goes. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not mean to sound threatening and am very sorry if you mean that I did. I simply hope that you can settle this thing, in some way that ends this flareup.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "You" - singular? As in TK herself settles this? "You" plural as in "you group of editors?" Or perhaps "we" - as in the community, whatever that is. If "we" or "you" the community want only metadata then speaking for only for myself, I've spend too much money on library fines, books, etc., and way too much time creating content that's obviously meaningless and WP is the wrong place for me. If "we" the community want to impose across-the-board uniformity to the point of blocking editors who protest, then you're right, it needs to be settled. But I suspect strongly it will settled by people walking or committing wiki-suicide. And yes, the remark about the arbs vs. content editors did sound a bit threatening. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1)It does not appear that an infobox policy has been/will be adopted; 2) that leaves it to local consensus; 3) so, you are either going to have to work it out article to article (with the continuing strum and drang) or come to some solution among yourselves (perhaps in mediation); but whatever you do, first decide if any of it is worth the cost. Isn't an infobox (as nice as they are) a small thing, compared to the article itself? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Class of 1700 students fill Wikipedia with plagiarism. Response from prof is accusation of illegal behaviour by editors

    WMF is involved and handling this perverse, bizarre situaion. Colin commended for bringing it here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Big problems with neuroscience articles and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#U of T courses in Psychology.

    A 1st-year Introduction to Psychology class of 1700 students has been given an assignment that, we analysed, has an 85% plagiarism rate, in addition to the generally poor quality of edits.

    This professor started under the education programme in 2011. Following a study of edits made by the 2011 class here with commentary here, the professor was asked to stop and work with Wikipedia to fix the assignment. Instead he went underground and choose, in his words, to "fly under the radar". In Spring this year hundreds (possibly as many as 800) of his students hit our psychology and neuroscience articles. Hammering them with extremely low quality edits that have caused one of our best expert psychology editors to go on Wikibreak. Now that we've reviewed the edits here we see a plagiarism rate of over 85%. We have asked the professor to stop.

    Instead, the professor has made here lots of accusations, including stating that editors are "cyber-stalking" his students, that this is "borderline (or not) illegal", and he's a victim of a "witch hunting" from "villagers with a torch and pitchfork". I'm not prepared to have those who damage Wikipedia accuse me and others of behaving illegally. Per Wikipedia:No legal threats this is at step too far.

    I think Wikipedia should be asking the University of Toronto where we send the bill for cleaning up the plagiarised mess he's caused. There is no way this class should be allowed to edit on Wikipedia again, it is already abundantly clear they cause harm. In my opinion, the prof's purpose of using Wikipedia is to set assignments for his megaclass that don't require teaching assistants to mark. The precedent for this is the "peerScholar" website he developed that lets students mark each other. Wikipedia is simply being used as a free resource, with horrendous consequences for the quality of our science articles.

    If admins here think there is merit to his claims wrt cyberstalking (which is a serious crime), then block my account now and I'm gone.

    Colin°Talk 19:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I understand the issue, Colin is totally in the right. Several editors and ed program staff have tried to reason with the instructor, to no avail. The edits are coming from too wide a range for blocking, but it was suggested that hard-blocking the entire branch campus where he teaches might be the only way to proceed. I'd support it if there were no other way: personally, I consider it should be dealt with as deliberate vandalism. There seem no other sanctions we can use--the students are not to blame. I think the only recourse will be to find a colleague who does understand WP and can explain it to him. We can't just ignore it and fix the articles, because it's clear he intends to repeat this every academic term. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is the level where we should go to the head of the department and see if they can put a stop to the program. I'll also note that I would accept blocking the entire campus as a last resort. Ryan Vesey 19:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blocking the campus wouldn't work, even if we were to accept the enormous collateral damage; many of the students apparently edit from off-campus. See this SPI for more background. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although I'm looking forward with interest to the results of communicating with the department head, mentioned below, I want to disagree with the statement that a hard block would not work. It would have to extend beyond the campus to residential areas nearby, and even though there would still be some unblocked student IPs, it would have the effect of rendering the class assignment ineffective. (You can't maintain a class assignment if most of the class is blocked.) These issues are being discussed in more detail at the Education Noticeboard. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Btw, our lack of policy to deal with huge assignments going wrong led me to consider proposing a new policy, of which a very early draft is: Wikipedia:Assignments. They can't normally be solved at the editor level, especially when the editor account has a lifetime of minutes. Colin°Talk 19:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yet another reason why registering an account should be necessary to edit, if you ask me. At German Wikipedia (and perhaps other Wikipedias as well), no edits by IPs or editors with few edits are shown before they have been accepted by an established user. Is there a reason English Wikipedia couldn't follow the German Wikipedia example?Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. And it's far too large a discussion, spanning years, to include here. So let's not divert and derail this with such side-issues. This incident is specific behaviour of specific people at a specific university. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as legal threats, I find the comment to be borderline, in that he's not making a specific threat but is clearly trying to chill others out of cleaning up after his students. However, whether that comment is a threat or not, we have a serious problem in the editor himself, and in the classes he's sending to edit. We've been trying for some time on the Education Noticeboard to come up with a solution to the problem of a professor who doesn't, himself, edit, but only tasks his students with editing: blocking the professor won't stop the disruption from the students, blocking the students can be overly bitey when they're not the ones refusing to listen and anyway will only work temporarily, and blocking the IP range would (apparently, according to CUs) be of only limited use in stopping the disruption. So how, exactly, do we stop a professor who firmly believes it is his right to send his students here unprepared and unsupervised? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrt legal issue, cyberstalking is a serious criminal offence, which together with the "illegal" word used, is a most threatening and chilling allegation against any editor. How can two editors remain on Wikipedia when one openly accuses another of a crime. It must be retracted or firmly rejected by the community, or one of the editors should leave. Colin°Talk 20:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not disputing the uncollegiality or unsuitability of what he said, Colin, but WP:NLT is intended to address cases where legal action is being taken or threatened to be taken, not so much accusations of crime (which actually fall more under our oversight policy than anything, since accusing someone of a crime can be construed as libel). The reason I say Woodsnake's comment is borderline on the NLT issue is that while it is intended to produce a chilling effect by referencing illegality, it's not actually a threat to take legal action against you, or even a "chilling" hint that he plans to. Again, that's not to say he's right to say what he said, or that it's not related to NLT, but NLT doesn't cover it as squarely as it might seem at first glance. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In response to your last question, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a hard block of the campus and its surroundings may be the only tool we have. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm somewhat alarmed to find myself leaning that way, as well (well, as far as blocking the campus, not necessarily the surrounding area) - at a certain point, if the university cannot stop its users from abusing Wikipedia, the university loses its privilege to edit Wikipedia until it can deal with those users. It's hard to tell, though, if people like you and me think the idea makes sense because it's truly (among) the most sensible, or because we've gone slightly insane from staring at the issue and beating our heads against the wall for so long... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • How would a block of the campus or surrounding area affect established users who might happen to live in the area (I'm not aware of any, but there probably are a few). When that type of block is made, does the blocker get to see a list of accounts whom that would affect and then grant an IP block exempt to those uninvolved? Go Phightins! 20:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Such a move might put pressure on the university to deal with the professor's actions. Only a CU could determine what accounts that would affect. --Rschen7754 20:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm replying here to multiple replies to me. Yes, it is kind of a new way of thinking about blocking policy to think about such a block, but in my opinion we are in a new circumstance where a new approach is going to be needed, and that includes going beyond the campus to nearby residential areas. I would want the block to be configured such that any registered user would retain access to their own user talk page, which would provide a mechanism for "collateral" victims to request an individual unblock. (I'm not an admin, so please bear with me if I don't understand all the technical aspects of blocking.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Someone who knows more than I can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe in the event of a campuswide block (and maybe a little further) we would be blocking the IP address, anybody editing from that IP address, and blocking account creation from the address. EEstablished editors would need to request for an IP-block exemption and would remain blocked for lack of an alternative until they requested the exemption. New accounts would need to be created through the account creation process. Does that sound about right? Ryan Vesey 20:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everyone else comes here unprepared and unsupervised. I know that I did. Why should students be an exception? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have emailed the department head of the psychology department notifying him of what's been going on per Ryan's suggestion. Go Phightins! 19:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will post any response I get as soon as I get it. I blind-copied Ryan on the email since it was his suggestion, but I would be willing to send a copy to anyone who wants it...basically it just notified him of the discussion going on and that our attempts to rectify the problem with the professor were unsuccessful. Go Phightins! 20:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • CU comment: I only looked at a handful of the accounts when I was checking the sockpuppet case, but from what I remember, we would probably have to rangeblock a huge chunk of the Toronto area to stop even a fraction of them from editing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth: Reading the whole of WoodSnake's edit above, rather than relying solely upon the excerpted hyperbole, it is clear that xe is trying to make the assertion that the plagiarism level of xyr students is no greater than the general level of plagiarism amongst Wikipedia editors overall, and challenging people to crunch the numbers to test this assertion. Of course, that is missing the point that the University of Toronto officially frowns upon plagiarism, and not dealing with students when they do it on Wikipedia as part of a course is not really living up to one's faculty responsibilities (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am most disturbed that this faculty member has admitted to "going underground" to avoid scrutiny by the members of the community on which he has unleashed his students. On the face of it, this seems to be highly unethical. If this were a U.S. institution, I would contact the institution's IRB. I know this isn't the typical project over which IRBs have jurisdiction but this certainly involves human subjects and they are well placed to protect this community of people from unnecessary disruption caused by university faculty and students. Is there a similar body in Canadian institutions that deals with research ethics? ElKevbo (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Procedural question

    Forgive me for asking what might be an obvious question, but shouldn't the foundation be involved at this point? I mean you've got a professor WP:GAMEing wikipedia, getting paid for it, enlisting students to break the law (copyright law) on Wikipedia servers. Isn't that the kind of stuff the paid folks at the foundation are paid for? There's a reason they have a general counsel. Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another procedural question, do we wait for response from the professor and/or dept. head before bringing their general counsel into this? I have is email address and can send a message explaining the predicament if necessary, but I want some sort of quick consensus before doing that. Alternatively, we can hold off until tomorrow (as I doubt we'll here back at this point considering it is after 5 PM in Toronto (I believe they're in the eastern time zone) and have Geoff communicate with their GC. I'm fine either way. Go Phightins! 21:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What about article protection or an edit filter?

    It seems to me that if we protect or Semi protect the affected pages that might minimize some fo the problem and would be better than a block. There were 1700 students but a lot of the articles were the same. If this is a Psychology class, then it seems like we should be able to identify what's coming in. Additionally, we have several bots that look at plagiarism and copyright stuff. Can't they be tweaked to scrutinize the edits coming from that IP series where the university is? Just a possible alternative suggestion to a massive block. We could also set up an edit filter for that IP series that says to watch the edits from that area. Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • It seems to be a commuter school, which means the students likely often work from home. I suspect a fairly wide area.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Protection won't work. We don't know in advance which pages it will be, and once the students make two edits each, they are gone. We are talking about hundreds of pages, maybe more. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, alternatively, everyone could stop looking for a technical solution to a social problem. I suggest to everyone that Go Phightins! is on the right track by contacting the university. Other people at the university need to be made aware of the situation, with reference to the university's own requirements about plagiarism, both on students and faculty. If the professor continues to tacitly accept plagiarism amongst xyr students without any demonstrable move to tackle it, then other non-technical and imaginative approaches present themselves, such as (to pick something out of thin air) revoking the privileges of WoodSnake and replacing xyr user and user talk pages with a notice that Steve Joordens has had xyr Wikipedia editing privileges revoked for tacitly encouraging plagiarism amongst university students alongside a warning to xyr students that directs them to both our and the University of Toronto's policies on plagiarism. Of course, you editors from the education noticeboard would have to make a solid case, and fully explore all avenues of contacting the university first, to have it do something about the errant professor, before such a prominent naming and shaming. Remember that the goal is to get the professor to finally do the right thing, per xyr own university's requirements, not to be vindictive or punitive. Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just so you know, the faculty member has already, repeatedly, rejected constructive responses from editors here. Also, he really does not make any edits in article space, so blocking him would not have an effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hence, we have contacted his real life superior. As for when and/or if we will get a response, I do not know, but if we do, I will be sure to consult the community and/or direct him to someone from WMF before I do anything that may have even a hint of controversy. Go Phightins! 21:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said: You need to make a solid case to that effect. You've presented one diff, which turns out upon reading to be an assertion that the plagiarism level is no greater than amongst the population at large, and a challenge to show otherwise with solid numbers, so far. And you also need to follow through on what Go Phightins! is doing, first, as well. Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tryptofish -- although a block would have no effect on WoodSnakes' account because he doesn't really use it, it would have, I believe, a significant effect on his students. Would you take part in an assignment on Wikipedia knowing the prof asking you to do it had been blocked for instigating such an assignment? Are students still somewhat militant, or have they gone soft since I was one? Colin°Talk 21:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since you ask, my experience with students is that they care about the grade the professor is going to give them, not what some people at Wikipedia think. But, amid all the edit flurries here, I'm in favor of what the WMF is trying, as a first step before we go down the road of any kinds of blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. We'd like to solve a problem. We are not here to give some professor we don't know a lesson the effects of which we can't judge by trying to manipulate the psychology of students we'll never meet.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • And on another note, blocks are to be preventative, not punitive. Is there any evidence that the course is going to have additional assignments? If not, then we really cannot, under the blocking policy, issue a punitive block unless they are planning to do it again. Go Phightins! 21:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's unclear whether the course is over or not. Once it's over, that's true, until the next semester. There's a track record of this happening for this instructor year after year. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot Based Remedy

    I think that asking large group of new editors to leave Wikipedia is missing the point and we should consider that they may not have a choice in the matter. I also do not believe the statistics above since we are unable to track them all. We need to find a way to deal with this type of group. Someone like User:Pgallert who has been managing larger groups of student (a whole department's worth) in Namibia might have some solutions on how he manages his students. My opinion is that if we set up a bot that handles scores for teachers they will make their students register with it and we can then deal with their work on individual basis but in a more automated manner. So by providing better incentives we can turn this tide of editors into a positive influence. BO | Talk 20:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Close this now?

    Ok all. I'm very, very tempted to close this out at this point, though I'll hold off a little bit. IMHO all talk of technical solutions is very premature. And as for non-technical solutions, the foundation is now involved, so we really should back off and let them handle it until/unless they are unable to reach a solution and kick it back to the community. Am I missing some reason for us to keep this discussion going at this point? - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I sincerely doubt that the WMF is going to do anything. They are historically very elusive when it comes to making decisions that affect editors or editing. What you typically see is the WMF kicking the problem back to the community to deal with. Kumioko (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I haven't got an individual section heading for my part of the discussion, yet. Do we all get one each? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I fully agree that nothing has been solved. I'm mostly questioning whether or not we *can* solve anything while WMF is actively working on the issue. We don't want to get in their way, I would think. And until WMF exhausts any efforts that it is willing to put into this, I'm not sure what else we can accomplish here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's give it maybe three more hours to make sure there are no new developments (off chance we get a response tonight), and then we can close it; it can always be opened again if necessary. Go Phightins! 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pleased the foundation is investigating. I hope Joordens doesn't sweet-talk them into inaction. I'm still concerned that there has been no community response to the allegation of criminal behaviour (which not only concerns my activities but those performing the sock-puppet investigations). While I may be mistaken wrt the wikilaw about what constitutes a legal threat, it most certainly is a very serious personal attack. I would like some admin to let him know such allegations aren't ever acceptable and to ask him to retract it. Colin°Talk 21:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, student activity seemed to die around the 23rd March and they may be on holiday this week? I don't know when the next student assignment is planned-for. And what does the community think should be done about the plagiarism that has been added? Colin°Talk 21:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the community can do other than begin the arduous task of cleaning up the mess either by removing the plagiarism or paraphrasing it better. Go Phightins! 21:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know either, but I'll point out that, with about 1700 students, this cleanup is "collateral damage" in its own right. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Media attention

    This ANI thread has now been linked on Hacker News[18]. I think it is in everyone (course staff and Wikipedia editors) interest to avoid media attention here and handle this through discussion by the involved parties. GabrielF (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • While I agree that it is in everyone's interests to avoid media attention, I would hardly call a blog entitled "Hacker News" media...Go Phightins! 21:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hacker News is widely read in the tech industry. Hacker in this case refers more to the building cool things in a startup environment sense of the term than the illegal activity sense of the term. My concern is that the story will be picked up by more mainstream publications. GabrielF (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Come to think of it, if the media got involved and gave the university some bad press, wouldn't they bend over backwards to fix the problem? Not saying that's the ideal way to solve the problem, but wouldn't we get the desired result: the professor cleaning up his act? Go Phightins! 21:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd call it a "medium". But that's grammar for you. And we cannot have grammar here, in a group of encyclopaedia writers. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "WIKIPEDIA THREATENS TO BLOCK TORONTO" Which most people will interpret to mean, block from viewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but we are not threatening, at least we should not be threatening, to block unless there's hard evidence that this professor has more planned (ec prior to this post). Go Phightins! 21:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being on Hacker News basically means it will be picked up by main stream media tomorrow or Thursday. It is read by some of the most influential readers/writers in the tech industry. The discussion there is somewhat mixed. Alex Chamberlain (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I would agree with your characterization of the discussion. Hopefully they'll contact Philippe or someone for comment before writing a story, but if not, we may have a secondary problem on our hands. Go Phightins! 21:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block of User:WoodSnake

    We need to strongly protect our editors from those who are disruptive and make threatening legal remarks against them as done here [19]. Stating that it is 1) cyber-stalking and 2) borderline (or not) illegal to review his students edits is bizarre and shows a lack of competence. I propose and indefinite ban until the WMF, the community and he come to an appropriate agreement on if and how he is allowed to continue editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support block Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a solution - The user's editing hasn't been problematic, generally. His real-world guidance has been causing issues, and a block doesn't help in any way about that. Preventing him from editing serves absolutely no purpose, and runs the risk of alienating him and/or complicating discussions. We're trying to engage in dialogue but propose to block him from editing? I'm pretty sure there has been some preliminary agreement earlier in the discussion that the specific post referenced here wasn't exactly a violation of WP:NLT, and even if it was eventually considered as such, a warning and suggestion to reword would be a highly preferable course of action. I am not endorsing anything specific he has said or done, but a block doesn't solve anything and is potential for more trouble. Of course, that's open to change if further things are said that cleanly cross a line. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what a block would accomplish here. He's not using the WoodSnake account for much of anything and he already knows that the community is displeased. I think its more important at this point that the lines of communication are open so that the issue can be resolved civilly. GabrielF (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose:I'm sure there is a problem with the editor's understanding and use of Wikipedia. However blocking is not the solution. I've worked with outreach programmes, I'm sure with a little tact and patience, this professor would be an asset to Wikipedia. The local chapter ought to take a lead in the matter. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Was he made aware of wp:NLT? His suggestion of control group seems pretty scientific. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Wikipedia is a website. We do not use our policies, which are not graven in stone, to affect how people act in the real world. This should be left to the office. As should the pedophile matter elsewhere on this page, IMO. In his statement, what he said, at least on the surface, seems reasonable btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Blocking could jeopardize working this out via lines of communication and since he has not proceeded with any legal action, nor threatened to pursue it (just that he thinks possibly someone might have (or might not have) broken a law which we obviously know did not happen), he himself hasn't vandalized or plagiarized anything, and he hasn't indicated that he will in the future. Blocks are to be preventative, not punitive, so I fail to see how one would help in this case. Go Phightins! 10:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This will create more problems than it solves. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure so simply letting him continue editing will give the impression that the community does not have an serious issue with his class editing in the style they are and "under the radar". A partial analysis of his classes edits has been done and the amount of plagiarism is significant. This further analysis he proposes is not need as we already have two years of data.
    He in fact agreed to stop editing which is why we did not pursue things a year ago. With respect to comparing his students to another group of new editors I have dealt with lots of new edits and not seen rates of plagiarism this great. He students sort of stand out as they frequently add refs to behind the U of T's firewall. It is hard not to notice a pattern. Unsure what "problems" people see blocking him as making? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Time out Our objective should be to make sure that this doesn't happen again, and to do so with the minimum of drama. There are currently actions being taken by the WMF and the Education board. Can't we give them a chance to solve the problem? I propose that we give this a couple of weeks and then reactivate the matter if it hasn't been solved. We could name a group of editors who are responsible for doing that -- I'm willing to be one of them. (I'm the one who first brought up the new problems on the Education Noticeboard.) Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears per here that the education program has warned the prof in the past.[20] I guess it is reasonable to give the WMF some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointless A user who almost never edits Wikipedia causes some problems for Wikipedia in real life, and we suggest to block him? It's not that I'm opposed to a block, I just don't see what difference it would make. If someone created WP:DONQUIXOTE, it would apply here.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - Philippe has (or had at some point today) a Skype meeting with Joordens, so why don't we all keep our pants on until then? Go Phightins! 19:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also there are hundreds of more edits that need looking at and the group of us working on it would love more help. Feel free to jump on in here [21] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Trigger happy twinkle an uncommunicative patroller

    SergeantHippyZombie (talk · contribs) is very happy for reverting vandalism with Twinkle - a little too happy judging from the many unanswered requests to explain reversions of non-vandalism edits on his talkpage. When asked he doesn't seem interested in communicating that he understands our policies or in acting collegially. In fact when he does communicate it is often biting or riducling such as here[22]. I don't think s/he needs access to automated tools untill s/he shows he understand policies and collegiality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why would we do that? You shouldn't have to have the rollback right to automatically CSD tag an article. I wouldn't oppose an approval process, though. TCN7JM 03:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on it. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've perused a bunch of their edits and left them a warning. I don't care one way or the either how we do it, but Twinkle is waaaay too easy for such editors and invites snark and damage. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twinkle generally has less destructive potential than, say, AWB, however it has always confused me that it basically hands out freely access to an option Wikipedia has an approval process for. I'm generally against adding bureaucracy and I definitely don't think it needs to be tied to the Rollback right as it performs much, much more, but I believe it should replace the Rollback right and use the same approval process as AWB. I was a rollbacker, and once I discovered Twinkle, I didn't use the Rollback right once. Only Twinkle. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps this is overcomplicating matters but what about joining the twinkle revert functions up with the rollback right while leaving things like CSD tagging, PRODing, etc as general use? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SHZ needs a heads up about their sig too. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The easiest solution would be to create a blacklist, where users who have misused Twinkle can be listed. Then, Twinkle can check that blacklist to see if the current user is on it, and if so, disable itself. This would basically mean that all users are given access to Twinkle by default (i.e. the same situation as today), except we'd add a measure of control for problematic users. No additional bureaucracy required. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) A quick search of the WT:TWINKLE archives led to an AN duscussion that had some background information. It appears, if I read it correctly, when Twinkle was rewritten in 2011 the blacklisting was not included in the new process. The AN discussion concluded it was too easy to circumvent the blacklisting at the time and just more busy work and creep, but hey, WP:CCC. Rgrds. --64.85.214.111 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hang on! If we are to have blacklisting for Twinkle, then shouldn't we also have it for all those other tools that implement rollback in JavaScript? E.g. AVT, and its derivatives. Let's be clear what's happened here, historically. Once upon a time only admins had MediaWiki rollback rights, and lots of anti-vandal tools were written to make non-admins productive anti-vandalisers. Then rollback was granted more widely, for performance reasons, and some tools (e.g. Huggle) then required it, but not all. Now we have some people demanding control over who uses what tools. I don't think this is the way to go, not least because it might discourage tool development. Any user of a tool is held responsible for what he does with it, and the blame attaches to the user, not the fact that the user was using the tool. Either the user deserves a series of warnings leading to a block, or he doesn't. Controlling access to a tool (as opposed to a MediaWiki facility) is not the way to go. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Maduro IP 98.252.50.93 gone ballistic

    98.252.50.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone ballistic leaving 3RR warnings and threats on multiple userpages, including mine, and ranting on Maduro's talkpage. Samples:

    What is going on here is a criminal strangle hold on his page, forcing him smiling...

    and

    Look at this crazy bastard...

    and accusing other editors of being bullies etc. He got a week-long block before. Perhaps it is time for another. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh. That's why me, as well as other Venezuelans editing this website, avoid such articles. — ΛΧΣ21 05:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully understand you. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Or when Maduro offered 20 million to a candidate openly, yesterday. Or when he shut down the airport to prevent a candidate from landing to campaign. (Stop me when I'm not right, wait I read UT / La Patilla and watch VZ TV half my day.) You have done nothing but reverts over 4 days. You have not participated in talk. If you think that talking to birds on national television doesn't define what crazy is, deal with it. Now stop wasting admin time, but while an admin is here, address the non-participation of this user in the Maduro talk.98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I've no involvement with this matter whatsoever, but I did notice (and revert) a rather trollish message on Bbb23's talk page by the aforementioned ip. If I weren't going to bed, I'd file an SPI. The master shouldn't be too hard to find. If no one else does it by the time I wake (or the ip is likely blocked) ill handle it then.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          06:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are confusing editors I am the ;offending' IP - the guy who wrote me up Dr.K is not participating in talk, only reverting others and he did hit 3rr - thus it was done. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahc21, you know as well as I that the homophobia and rampant crime are being redacted and censored here. Capriles was attacked viciously using homophobic slurs as part of the general campaign!
    I am getting legitimate edits like the devaluation and the crime rate peak this February, using La Patilla and UT links, and they called them 'blogs'
    This guy needs to A. stop undoing edits, and instead participate in talk. and b. stop deleting legitimate warnings on his talk page. Ballistic is saying 'crazy bastard' when referencing a guy talking to bird-men on national TV on the talk page. You don't like it, go quote me a byline against profanity in talk.
    Here I have a link for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material
    And to the admin Green Rosette, you are actually claiming - "I would ask you to the talk page. The users are very unhappy about you and your colleague's repeated redactions to the controversy section."
    Is "Trolling"? Noticing they have made 5 undo's over 72 hours and given them an edit warning? That's far reaching to say the least. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not commenting on this, but I fixed the indenting as LGR and the IP's posts were mixed together. Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @98.252.50.93: The issue, 98.252.50.93, is that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to make political campaigns in favour or against a political line of view. Whatever my thoughts are on Venezuelan politics are irrelevant to my work on Wikipedia, and thus I refrain myself from talking about it, or even expressing such views on my edits, because that would be a breach of the neutral point of view policy. All content on this site must be neutral, and that includes pages about Venezuelan politicians such as Maduro or Capriles. — ΛΧΣ21 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    YouTube videos and the most famous three newspapers aren't "conspiracies" - Go check the links before you yourself use offensive commentary on my contributions to talk. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material before you remove half a talk page. As you can see there is nothing about me using my own syntax while describing someone who talks to birds as reincarnated people.

    To the editor who's views are close to the gay community, if you are to specifically not post content that relates to views you hold, I would ask you to cite that as a wiki pillar or wiki guidance, as the article you posed is not what your personal views are, but what the syntax of the edit is. That is a clear delineation that you must make. Also you might want to cite the actual by-lines when in effect labeling another editor's contributions entirely POV (if this was not the intent I stand corrected). I will not have 1/2 the talk page removed which also yet again included more editors than myself and held over 25 useful editorial links and dialogue. If you have comments you disagree with me on, or that you can cite a wiki pillar via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material I will remove it. You do not do a service to Wiki by deleting half a talk page. You can check out the JFK assassination if you are curious about what a Conspiracy Theory. Let me spoil it for you, it doesn't include 17 YouTube videos of the grassy knoll shooter talking about magical Parakeets. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd appreciate if you keep my views on sexuality away from this discussion. That's another topic I have zero desire to talk, write, or discuss about. That said, it is evident that you have a very clear point of view. You are trying to deceive one of the two candidates by adding claims that although true, are not encyclopedic content and only serve, by the way that you write them, to make the person look bad, and this even goes against another core policy: the biography of living persons policy. Look, I don't care if Maduro talks with birds or not. The point is that such things are not worthy of a mention unless they are truly important and valuable. Wikipedia is not a place for trivia, promotion, deception, personal opinions, or a newspaper. Those are things that should be kept for the people to discuss on the streets or at their jobs, and not to be included on an encyclopedia, unless Maduro becomes, seriously, known for talking to birds. — ΛΧΣ21 04:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In March I blocked the IP for one week for edit-warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks related to the Maduro page. Unfortunately, I stupidly became WP:INVOLVED later by removing attack content from the article inserted by registered accounts (not by the IP, who incites on the talk page), including User:Yeah 93, who is a WP:SPA, and User:Periergeia, who has only 530 edits (mostly Venezuelan subjects) and was egged on by indefinitely blocked User:LifeEditorLatinAmerica. Content-wise, I'm at a handicap because of my lack of knowledge of Spanish and Spanish sources, but there's way too much crap going on at this article and at its talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you believe to be "attack edit" is what anyone else will understand as justified criticism and your edits is what other people will understand as vandalism.

    Here it is: I added an important accussation carried out by an elected deputy against Nicolás Maduro, an accusation published in three well-known Venezuelan newspapers. Whether the accusations are of your liking or not does not matter at all. They are real and you cannot just delete them at your pleasure. --Periergeia (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Please, stop vandalizing.[reply]

      • I used Google translate to read the sources and the allegations against Maduro are vague and also not carried by all three sources. One of the three sources, "El Universal", does not mention Maduro at all which indicates that Maduro is not the focus of the controversy. "Ultimas Noticias" says: Alleged acts alleged by Deputy Palacios occurred while Nicolas Maduro was the president of the National Assembly , so the leader responsible directly to the current Vice President for these irregularities. which does not implicate Maduro directly, other than in his role as leader who should have known better. "TalCual Digital" mentions: Another who was involved in alleged corruption is vice president Nicolás Maduro. [...] The Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz said that evaluates request merit impeachment against National Assembly deputies Richard Mardo and Gustavo Marcano for alleged corruption, then the president of the commission of the Comptroller of Parliament Pedro Carreño, appropriated the video of the press conference where both political leaders admit the allegations. So we have a lone deputy who has made some corruption allegations that do not clearly and directly involve Maduro but rather National Assembly deputies Richard Mardo and Gustavo Marcano and Maduro is mentioned almost in passing. These allegations are so vague and isolated from the wider political scene of Venezuela that their inclusion is WP:UNDUE at the present time. If they spread to a wider political circle and become more Maduro-specific perhaps they could be included, but not before then. Finally, I know Periergeia is a relative newbie but they should understand that calling other good-faith editors' actions "vandalism" is a form of a personal attack and they should stop doing it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mine wasn't atteck content. It was what I genuinely thought a valid point and relevant enough to be included in the article. I want the article to reflect a neutral point of view but I did not know it violated one rule of BLP. If there was an incident with this I apologize, because I truly didn't do anything to bash or attack the article or someone else. --Yeah 93 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is back
    • Lol. So am I. Thanks for that Bbb23. :) Meanwhile I am starting on the the write-up of out joint speech. I'll send you a copy as soon as I finish, so you can add your own points and practice on your delivery at the Maduro talkpage. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gone ballistic Part 2
    • Now he is spamming Latin-America-related articles, including the Portal accusing two editors and canvassing for help from other editors: [23]. We are having some serious problems with a couple editors who are restricting [Nicolas Maduro] when the information posted is negative, even when the information does have well cited sources and is without POV language. It's very frightening because when I saw them plug in a rare, and photoshopped photo of Maduro, smiling, without going to talk first, I knew that something was very wrong. Please, editors, assist us, don't let the page become a shrine to their regime like the Hugo Chavez page became, even Jimbo Whales said he was depressed by that result. Really bizarre behaviour. I think he is asking for a cool-down block. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SpyMagician behavior towards me

    I'd like to report an incident. It started at the article Ages of consent in Asia. The age of consent in India has recently changed to 18. In order to update the article I added this new information, with a source (see the talk page of Ages of consent in Asia, there are plenty of sources listed there). I was reverted THREE times, without any explanation AND received hostile messages on my talk page. User:SpyMagician called my edits "combative & dismissive ". Now I may have not been perfect in this dispute, but is it normal and acceptable to be repeatedly reverted when you add sourced information and be attacked on talk page for trying to improve an article? Do people simply go around reverting new edits without even reading them? (I agree that I may have acted angrily, but is it justifiable to revert without properly reading and to attack an editor on their talk page for doing nothing else than trying to update an article with sourced information?)188.25.27.35 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I have added a notification on the user's talk page. Mediran (t • c) 13:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Your edit was reverted three times, by User:SpyMagician, User:Solarra and User:Josve05a. -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I reverted it the second time as I thought it was an attempt at possible factual inaccuracies. After further research I found ample sources to support the proposed revision, but as it was obviously contested proposed it be discussed on the article's talk page and posted a link for the IP user to be able to source his contribution there as well as seek guidance as to how to properly include it into the article. Hope this helps :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀
    Correction: the edit wasn't so much contested as apparently blindly reverted. Recent changes patroller sees IP editor making an edit that removes material, boom, it's Twinkled right back, warning and all. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typical. IP makes an edit, references and all, and a brief edit summary, and is immediately reverted without explanation "because it didn't appear constructive to me", by a Recent changes patroller who all of a sudden racks up over 2000 semi-automated edits per month. IP reverts, is reverted again, reverts, is reverted again, and is justifiably pissed. The last reverter has the gall to say "His edits are combative & dismissive", which is complete nonsense: reverting without a proper explanation, that's what is combative and dismissive. Fortunately Solarra made an attempt to make up for it--really, though what Solarra should have done after looking at the sources is reinstate the IPs edits. Trouts to Josve05a (talk · contribs) and to SpyMagician (talk · contribs), both of whom reverted blindly and (in the case of SpyMagician) tried to make up for it by insulting the IP editor some more. And another one to Mediran (talk · contribs), who had the nerve to pile it on here with accusations of incivility and personal attacks--no, Mediran, your "warning" was incivil and a borderline personal attack. IP, thank you for the report, and thank you for your contribution. Solarra, thank you for your realizing that this wasn't exactly right. Case closed with the warning that Recent changes patrollers should be much, much more careful judging IP edits--no, they should try to judge them in the first place. You're scaring off possible new editors. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      At least part of the problem is that patrolling has become something of a race; no time for investigating or thinking, gotta rack up those edits and get there before anyone else. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, there seems to be a rather easy solution for that: do NPP the old way, not semiautomated. And at least try to assume good faith, even (or especially from) IP editors, until you are proven wrong. Lectonar (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      A user comes along. Makes an edit. Does so with little to no explanation. Can only respond in badly formatted text & odd sentences. Can't even sign their name to comments. Feigns being a newbie, but somehow knows how to post to an administrator's noticeboard & is aware of the 3 revert rule? I claim that this IP user is not a new user, will not be scared off & is fully conscious of what they have done. And in this case I am the last of a total of 3 other editors who have acted against this IP editor. But somehow I am bearing the brunt of what exactly? --SpyMagician (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      For this edit. Only vandalism and trolling should be just reverted without at minimum an edit summary and preferably a talk page edit. NE Ent 02:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You are simply the third, last, and most irritated-sounding reverter of an edit. You may have had an excellent reason for reverting the edit (and even for reverting it in the way that you did), but no reason is immediately apparent to the IP or various others (e.g. myself). Did you have a reason, or did you simply goof? (Most of us goof from time to time - certainly I do.) If you goofed, say that you goofed. If you didn't goof, please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not goof. I explained why I reverted their edit above. And I stand by my assertion that the IP editor is far from a new user. Their edits were without regard towards references that existed previously. So is this a discussion of my edits, the concept of vandalism patrol, or a trial that is specifically dumping on me because one IP user had a fit? The invocation of the 3 revert rule falls more on the IP user who has complained than any of the 3 users let alone me. That evidence exists more than anything else. --SpyMagician (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture here but I personally don't see anything wrong with the IP's edit. Although the India Times is not a law journal by any means, his edits were clearly made in good faith and were an attempt to update outdated information. His/her rationale for editing is irrelevant, it's assume that what he did was in the interest of keeping Wikipedia updated, assuming otherwise without evidence is a clear and distinct example of a violation of WP:AGF. I guess he specifically mentioned you as you labelled his good faith edits as "dismissive" and "combative" even though a reliable source was provided and no one provided him/her with a reason for why they reverted his edits. I sympathise with the IP and can fully understand why he is frustrated particularly after being labelled as an unconstructive editor while attempting to improve Wikipedia. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      IP editors are often not new users, SpyMagician. There was a four-day period recently when, through a combination of travel and closed proxies, I edited from at least six different IPs in four different states. Of course, I'm logged in, so you can track my edits from one IP to the next, but if I were logged out, I would appear to be this random guy who knows an immense amount of Wikipedia policy straight from his "first" edit. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "IP editors are often not new users, SpyMagician." Did you read what I wrote where I contend that this user is not a new editor based on the fact while they feign knowledge about doing basic things on Wikipedia—such as signing their posts—yet they somehow know where the administrator's noticeboard is & understand what the 3 revert rule is? I don't believe this user is some magical stray puppy that needs to be protected from their own bad editing habits. I was one of 3 editors who saw the edit, saw the IP user's erratic method of communication & deduced this was an edit that warranted reversion. I contend what I did at the moment was correct & I stand by any future edits that might have even reverted that. If one editor is on vandalism patrol & they notice an issue that wreaks of vandalism, then they have the right to act on that. If another later editor comes in & sees something else that adds substance despite the user's erratic behavior, they too have the right to act on that. Simple as that. Now can someone explain how the user Drmies behavior now towards me is in any way civil, with me basically being berated, “Your summary bears no relationship to reality.” on my talk page? [24] Because I say this with no contention but my original assertion: The IP editor's behavior warranted the response I gave. I genuinely see no issue in in. And being berated or having passive-aggresive posts on my talk page do not change my opinion on this. Please move on & get over it. --SpyMagician (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "from their own bad editing habits"--the IP did not have a bad editing habit. Stop digging. The edit didn't even reek ("wreak") of vandalism, as should be obvious to anyone who can read English--provided of course they took the time to read the actual edit. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    SpyMagician, you say "I did not goof." You did goof. You reverted the addition of adequately sourced material (A) that disagreed with other material already cited (B). It disagreed because (A) is newer than (B) and the world, and the facts about it, changed from the time reflected in (B) to the time reflected in (A). This has been pointed out above.

    I've done things that are just as stupid. But when they're brought to my attention, I acknowledge them, and even apologize for them. You don't. Why not?

    If you really still don't understand your goof, then you are slow on the uptake. I first tend to attribute slowness of uptake to exhaustion from too many edits (the "bad editing habits" that you rather freely attribute to others). But I may be wrong. Is there some other problem? -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Boing! said Zebedee

    irajeevwiki was blocked and then unblocked. Zebedee doesn't want an apology. Much water under bridge. Time to move on. --regentspark (comment) 22:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This admin Boing! said Zebedee giving me block threats and accusing me that I'm doing political campaigning. I respect all wikipedians here, got nothing to do with any political parties, the block warning sounds like admin wants to stop me from my attempts to fix an article's issue with its neutrality.

    Supplied book which clearly shows the distinction of castes but admin brings up irrelevant sections from book to the talk page and trying to make the decent talk to a mess. I strongly suggest for a topic ban on this admin. I would like to request some senior admins attention here, apparently there is some sort of "admin gang up" in progress in the talk page.

    I strongly request to take off admin privelages from above mentioned admin, because he has been misusing it, yesterday he blocked another user from talk page and within minutes reverted after realising he was wrong, irajeevwiki talk 19:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    See Talk:Ezhava - all of it - and consider WP:BOOMERANG. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment)This looks like just another run-of-the-mill content dispute. I don't have the time to look at it now, but this doesn't seem to be something to desysop Boing! said Zebedee over. Also, as Sitush said, this may well end in a WP:BOOMERANG. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 19:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who is interested might also want to consider the recent request for imposition of WP:GS/Caste made here. Patience has generally run out now: there is WP:IDHT in spades, and not a little WP:CIR involved also. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just have a read of Talk:Ezhava, if you can face it - I don't really think I need to say anything more than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen that article talk page before, thanks. OK, I don't like swinging the boomerang around, but here it is: I'm blocking this account for three days to prevent further disruption. In my opinion, this retaliatory ANI thread, which comes on the heels of a justifiably issued warning which invoked WP:GS/Caste, is a disruption and is blockable: the General sanctions allow for sanctions for edits that fail to adhere to "expected standards of behavior". User has a long history of disruption in caste-related articles, and enough is enough. PS: will someone log this for me, please? I got a kid to pick up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment:It is unfortunate that Drmies has blocked Rajeev, Martijn has blocked Rajeev, (the block log says it is Martijn, but the notice is put by Drmies) the fellow is new and is trying to learn the ropes. The problem with the Ezhava page is that it is patrolled by a few admins and editors, that makes this allegation of "tagging" possible. I had appealed at the "India notice board" requesting editors to step in at Ezhava, to explain to these newcomers that they do not comprehend Wikipedia policy adequately as manifest from their edits on the talk page and else where. For the present I appeal that Rajeev be unblocked, perhaps Zebedee himself could unblock Rajeev as a good faith gesture. I don't understand the description "long history of disruption" for someone whose first edit was on 12 January 2013. I am not claiming that the sanctions have been wrongly applied, I appeal for leniency, in the interests of the project. Rajeev has a demonstrated commitment for the processes that run Wikipedia as manifest in his sitting out of a discussion until he could purchase a book that he thought supported his argument, and then coming back to the discussion (that is why he says above, "Supplied book which clearly shows the distinction of castes..."). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, I could scrap "long". But I stand by "disruption"--a disruptive escalation. BTW, Martijn's block was last month; this one is mine. I am rarely opposed to leniency. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also consider that Rajeev has made only 2 article edits in the 400 odd edits he has made. 0.5%.[25] This fellow is trying to discuss. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yogesh, how many times do newcomers need to repeat their disruptive WP:IDHT behaviour before we are allowed it is appropriate to take some action? "Discuss" is great, but "attack", "berate", "battle" are not, and it is plain to anyone reading Talk:Ezhava which of those is actually happening. Our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia (and the purpose of admins is to assist and support those engaged in that task), not to act as social support for people who possess neither the temperament nor the competence to take part in this collaborative project. Attracting new editors is a big part of what we do, but so is weeding out those who refuse to listen, refuse to follow community policy and consensus, and approach everything with a battleground mentality. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (modified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
          • I accept what you have stated, it is for admins to exercise their privileges as they understand the situation best. I for that matter have appealed for leniency. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. If we saw some commitment to drop the battleground approach, I would also support leniency and would support an early unblock - and I would, indeed, be prepared to do the unblock myself (with the blocking admin's consent). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThis is clearly an attempt at gagging criticism, and the block was made by making a false claim ("long"). Rajeev has been blocked for criticizing an admin. If admins are infallible and cannot be criticized, just declare it in some policy. I have seen several incidents in which admins make false claims and begin threatening/blocking Indian eds on the basis of those false claims. WP admins are clearly engaging in racist behavior here and such admins should be banned from WP.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not the case, OrangesRyellow: Consider that you may be less than accurate in this case, please check the Ezhava talk page, could you provide an example supported by a diff, to substantiate your allegation please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    OrangesRyellow

    I would like to request action against User:OrangesRyellow for that accusation of racism against me - here's the diff, for the record. Racism is disgusting, and unfounded accusations of racism are also disgusting. I consider it a very serious personal attack, and if I saw such an accusation made against another editor I would reach straight for a block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a mighty "vague" accusation. Maybe a warning on their talk page? Preventative, not punitive. Doc talk 07:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "WP admins are clearly engaging in racist behavior" doesn't sound at all vague to me, and as this section is targeted at me and I am one of the few admins engaged in this subject area, I think I am justified in taking it personally. As for "preventative", yes, something to prevent further accusations is what I am requesting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict):::Strafing would escalate and not de-escalate matters. An unqualified apology from Oranges ought to put things to rest. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would consider that acceptable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Justified? Perhaps. But that's not really want what we're here for, is it? Ignoring such ridiculous accusations is better for the project -- they show confidence in one's actions and deescalate the situation better than a block talk-talk-talk-apologize eventual unblock scenario would. NE Ent 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But when it comes from an editor with a history of low-level disruption and personal attacks (and always chipping into things he hasn't been involved in, if he can use them as an excuse to attack the people he doesn't like), it amounts to a drain on the goodwill of editors working in a very tricky subject area. And stopping such tactics is very much one of the things we (admins, at least) are here for. But see next comment... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, ignoring accusations of racism is a very very bad idea. These accusations only serve to poison the well. Very serious but evidently false accusations should result in blocks for disruption and not be tolerated. In general, the editor should specifically retract the accusation or substantiate it. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the response to his talk page warning is not exactly a retraction - User talk:OrangesRyellow#Warning -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ched has left a warning on the user's talk page; I say let's let that suffice unless the editor repeats the behavior. NE Ent 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm happy to leave it at a warning - providing it proves to be effective. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't retract what he said when he replied: [26]. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As childish as it sounds, I really want him to either apologise or substantiate the claim. As admins, we are generally subjected to a fair bit of abuse, which generally easily slides off - up to and including death threats. Being called, or watching my fellow admins being called racist though does really sting - and I have the feeling he actually believes it, though that's my perception. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, I suspect that you will not get one except under sufferance. They have been contributing today and so far have not apologised or retracted despite a couple of notes suggesting that they do so (one from me). Of course, they may just have been paying a flying visit today but Boing's summary of character above ring pretty true to me & so the likelihood of them returning to this thread appears to be low. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Folks, I appreciate your thoughts, but it isn't worth wasting any time over. As I've gone about my business this week I've lost a pair of spectacles and I've trodden in dog shit. But I have plenty of spare specs and my shoes clean easily - and I'm happy to treat accusations from the likes of OrangesRyellow with the same disdain. His words speak only of himself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    After consulting Drmies, I've accepted irajeevwiki's unblock request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Zebedee. Let us hope that by this wonderful gesture, he is encouraged to contribute constructively to the project. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting review of speedy delete

    Can someone take a look at User_talk:Visionat#Problems? I deleted GNU C-Graph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) following this help desk post, explained to the editor why I did and now I have been accused of "preserving racism" and being a "pro-apartheid Wikipedian". The article wasn't entirely promotional, but I felt confident that most admins would also have deleted it on sight. SmartSE (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't see deleted content, but the reaction and claims about discrimination (apartheid? what?) are excessive at best and indicative of larger issues than just having had an article deleted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See User:Visionat/C-Graph.--Auric talk 23:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned the user that they'll be blocked for a good long time if the very nasty personal attacks continue. Maybe I should have blocked straight off, but what can I say, I'm a milquetoast admin. I'm also going to bed now; I hope somebody else will in fact block for a good long time if the nonsense continues. Nobody should have to put up with that crap. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    OK, thanks for that. So just a heads up, there's this. Might want to take it into consideration when dealing with her. Apparently her fiancee was murdered by an international racism conspiracy, allegedly tied to the University of Aberdeen, to prevent development of a GNU graphing package. There's also a website, which I shall not link to, that documents a bunch of other stuff, including accusations about other international conspiracies involving MIT academics. I believe care should be exercised when dealing with this person. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there was anything wrong with the speedy deletion. Vision can request review in the normal channels if she doesn't like it. But her reactions point her out as someone who may be fundamentally incapable of collaborative editing. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on how this evolves. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is part promotion, part allegation/soapboxing about alleged criminal activities ("As may be inferred from the University's non-disclosure in breach of its obligations under the DPA,[44] the conclusive evidence adduced is not amenable to challenge. The continuing cover-up relies on...") and very little actual third-party, RS coverage about the nominal subject of the article. Whether or not DRV would overturn a speedy nomination, I'd likely !vote delete at an AFD. Resolute 00:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look. If I did make the right call though, User:Visionat/C-Graph should also be deleted as it is exactly the same as what I deleted. I'd prefer that someone else took care of it, but if someone doesn't soon I'll delete it. I'm not happy with us hosting material with essentially unsourced accusations of theft, racism and forgery. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is no more acceptable in userspace. Wikipedia will not host attack pages anywhere. I've deleted it. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks. SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen just reminded me about this forum. Had you taken the time to read the impugned article - and the sources - you would have been able to verify that the allegations are reliably sourced. The live page was deleted as I was adding such further sources. As I indicated on my talk page deletion of the article evidently serves only the interests of the eminent criminal enterprise and the continuing cover-up. That being the case, I am not surprised regarding the deletion of the page in my userspace, which included even further citations of verifiable evidence.
    Anyone can become a Wikipedia editor or administrator. So Wikipedia has a few problems? [User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] claims my GNU C-Graph is an attack page. Who is/are the article attacking? Are the secondary sources which include international and public agencies and officials themselves presenting reliable facts on theft, racial discrimination and apartheid that are self-attacking? The user page you deleted included additional citations to such reliable secondary sources providing further verification to the facts cited in the article. Who benefits by covering up the information elucidated by these sources?
    Perhaps you need to articulate the issues that you claim justify the deletion to help those who are viewing this conversation (I am sending messages) better understand why an historic case on apartheid in universities - moreover one subject to a blanket cover-up by national and international law enforcement authorities - should be excluded from an article in Wikipedia with verifiable secondary sources. What are Wikipedia's policies concerning racial discrimination - and censorship of articles on racial discrimination and their authors? Visionat (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluntly, notability is an issue beyond the fact that the article existed for the dual purpose of promoting this software and attacking the alleged theft (unproven) and coverup (unproven). Of the 47 inline references (not all of which are citations), 24 go back to Thompson herself. Several have absolutely nothing at all to do with either Thompson or this software (notably the two articles complaining about the ICC and several about mathematical formulas), and the rest are pretty much letters and responses to allegations. There is, as far as I can tell, not a single reliable, third party, neutral, non-trivial source about the nominal subject of that article, the "GNU C-Graph". The response I posted above after my first glance was far too charitable to your position. This article was little more than a soapbox to continue your campaign against the University. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs, and unless significant third-party, independent, reliable coverage can be shown, this is definitely an obvious speedy delete. Resolute 23:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the obvious bias, it would be a waste of my time to continue discussions here. I have software to develop and further criminal complaints to draft. I am now completing the citations in the article and will resolve the issue through more appropriate channels at Wikipedia. All the citations are concerned with the software as the theft of the associated rights is crime underlying the commission of apartheid. The software and it's underlying dissertation are at the heart of the issue. Obviously, an encyclopedia cannot of itself "right great wrongs", but it can assist in the perpetration of such wrongs by concealing encyclopedic facts from the public. I am obviously accustomed to pedestrian reactions to any mention of "racial discrimination". "Biased" is far too charitable a description for your actions. As I said, I don't have the time to waste here. Visionat (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok you seem to miss the general point everyone is trying to raise; if you feel there should be an article about something it must be covered by reliable third party sources to meet notability requirements. There isn't a "more appropriate channel" if you can't meet that basic requirement for an article to exist. If notability can be established legal action could be mentioned, again if covered by RS, then it has to be neutral. The extent you could say that currently there are legal proceedings from party x against party y for z. It wouldn't accuse someone of theft or try to write anything as fact - once a ruling is provided that can be added but even then if the ruling is not in favor it would still need to be reported. Reiterating your borderline (and in cases overboard) attacks isn't going to help you get people to adopt your point of view because all you are doing is setting up a toxic atmosphere. If it is truly something you want to see covered you would need at least a couple of RS to start and then mark it as a stub for someone to work on if they ever decide to, or yourself if you have time. Waving your hands wildly without providing materials to ensure that people can say it meets the basic requirements for an article and then trying to demean everyone that shows you why the article doesn't meet these things isn't helping. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what the truth of your allegations are, but I do know that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and if secondary sources aren't available, then this is not encyclopedic material as Wikipedia defines it. You can accuse me of bias and throw out boogeyman claims like "apartheid" if you like, but you asked for someone to articulate why this artcile merited deletion and I obliged. Throwing down meritless accusations (both overt and implied) of nefarious intent on my part while refusing to respond to the substance of my comments does not serve as a reasonable defence of your position. The simple truth is that we cannot write a neutral article if the only sources available flow through you. Resolute 22:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Taskin the Great

    Taskin the Great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to match a pattern of low-quality stub creation about historical subjects "sourced" to Wikipedia. I believe this was a thing a couple of months ago but I'm not sure if this is someone evading a block or something like that. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tidied the articles as best I can.--Auric talk 00:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be a Polllilur sock. I've notified Peridon to have a look. - MrX 04:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Only two edits, but for my money that's Polllilur. I'll add this to the SPI. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They'd only just closed the last one, too. Not blocked yet - I've asked for CU but mightn't get it. For me, there's a quack. Peridon (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruption by User:Qworty in articles on gender studies academics

    This user has persistently been behaving disruptively in articles on gender studies academics (perhaps for some political reason), and engages in wikihounding of me, a form of harrassment (Wikipedia:Harrassment). His disruption includes edit-warring to delete whole sections (the customary list of books written by the article subject), frivolously claiming such lists are "unsourced" (a bibliography is obviously sourced by itself) and "spam"(!). (see eg. [27],[28]), and spamming articles on obviously notable people which are translated from the German Wikipedia which has a very high notability treshold (eg.[29])) with no less than 6(!) frivolous tags[30], a clear case of spamming. As he is constantly following me around to attack new articles I write or articles I edit in the way described, he is clearly doing this specifically to inhibit my work and behave disruptively in articles I am editing per Wikipedia:Harrassment#Wikihounding and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Octet sole (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Octet sole is a maintenance-tag vandal, as seen here [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. Not all of the maintenance tags were placed by me, but are the work of multiple editors. Octet sole has been warned many times about vandalizing the tags, with the warnings coming mostly in edit summaries, but continues to remove the tags without explanation, and without discussing issues on talk pages, as consistently advised. I warned the user on her own talk page [36] but she blanked even that [37], again without explanation. Qworty (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a third-party, I have reverted your latest removal of the maintenance tags at Ursula Apitzsch; I feel the issues have not sufficiently been addressed. I recommend discussion of some sort (did you even attempt to do this before coming to ANI?) rather than blind accusations of vandalism against Qworty or any other editors. Given your edit summary here, I would also recommend a reading of WP:OWN. --Kinu t/c 18:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I have added more references and added the ISBNs for the publications (thereby referencing them). Both of you need to dial back your use of the term "vandalism" - removing a section as unreferenced and adding multiple tags, although not the most constructive of edits, are not valdalism, and neither is removing tags being a vandal. I suggest further improving the article building on what I've done so that the rest of the tags can be removed. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree it's not generally vandalism, so I didn't use the term in this report. But the sum of his behaviour, which included following me from article to article to bombard them with half a dozen tags (even notability tags for articles with versions in other Wikipedia editions) and blank whole sections of bibliographies and remove other uncontroversial information, and on top of that edit-warring and calling me a vandal, was extremely disruptive at the very least. I want him to stop following me from article to article to inhibit my work per Wikipedia:Harrassment#Wikihounding. Octet sole (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that Qworty continues his disruptive activity, eg. by blanking the entire Örebro University article[38], leaving just a single sentence. While the article could need some improvement and more sources, it only contains uncontroversial information found in a dozen other language editions and lead sections are not normally heavily referenced. Note that I'm a third party in this question, as I didn't write the article, and despite this, Qworty uses a false edit summary implying I am introducing changes to the article, when he is the one drastically altering the stable version of it, and without any discussio. Octet sole (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite a display of atrocious behavior by established editors who should know better. A new editor (whether new to wikipedia or new to en-wiki isn't clear) and creates a series of perfectly appropriate articles on subjects relating to academia. Good work. The referencing is imperfect, but looks like it meets the standards for the other-language wikipedias from which information was drawn. A helping hand to the new user, and a few carefully-placed citation-needed tags on particular statements would have been an appropriate way to approach this. Instead, a few loud-mouth bullyboys dropped in, plastered the articles with absurdly overbroad tagging and insultingly hectoring the new editor. Just about the paradigm for WP:BITE violations, and not the way to improve an encyclopedia. Judging by the behavior here, one Octet sole is more valuable to our project than one hundred Qwortys, and some of the responses here, especially administrative, are really disappointing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wondering55

    Wondering55 has made some genuine inquiries over the last few hours and I'm inclined to give him another chance, so boldly closing this down for now. --Rschen7754 19:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • A month ago, Wondering55 was sent to ANI for methodically removing all citations to one newspaper, specifically one newspaper reporter's articles: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive788#Editor_with_an_apparent_grudge_against_a_reporter. He was warned not to keep doing so.
    • Today he did another such removal: [39]; on top of that, he is changing the citation to refer to a WP:SPS, and thus threatening the GA status of that article.
    • As such, I think Wondering55 should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE as his only purpose here is to eliminate citations to a newspaper reporter's articles that he apparently has a grudge against. He continued the behavior after being warned. I would do this myself, but I'm put in a bit of an awkward position as most of the removals are from U.S. Roads articles; due to my prominent position in that WikiProject, I'm referring the matter to someone else, though I don't think I'm biased here. --Rschen7754 08:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that Dennis Brown proposed mentoring in the previous ANI thread. What was the result of that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis tried to talk him down, and it apparently didn't work. User talk:Wondering55#Dear friend... It seems that the account is only here for one purpose, and mentoring someone who is bent on one purpose is not a good use of resources, in my opinion. --Rschen7754 09:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    From my perspective, it look more like WP:COMPETENCE than WP:NOTHERE, though his penchant for explaining himself in great and tedious detail does him no favours. Dennis is, as usual, bang on point and I agree with his insights. I think before we wield the banhammer, we make it unambiguously and abundantly clear what he's doing wrong and draw a line in the sand, making it incredibly clear that a block might happen if he crosses it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We already did that last time - why do we need another round? --Rschen7754 09:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look through his contributions and he has started using talk pages, which (at least according to Seb) he wasn't before the ANI thread, so I think he is trying to contribute, even if he does so in a boorish manner. For a WP:NOTHERE claim to stick, in my view, I would expect to see multiple warning templates on the talk page, including a few "this is your last warning" ones at the bottom. I also note that no invitation to the teahouse has been posted on his talk page - as a new user, that may be worth considering. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but most of his talk page ramblings are basically "why did you undo my changes?" and repeated WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 09:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have dropped a note on Wondering55's talk page - we'll see what comes out of that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm torn here. My first instinct is to offer one final piece of rope, one more chance than they likely have not earned. However, the logical side of me says that it won't matter and that we will end up here again if we do, causing more collateral damage along the way. Some people simply do not do well in a collaborative environment; they are simply not wired for it. My estimation is that this is what we have here, and that no amount of mentoring is going to make a difference. I don't draw this conclusion flippantly, nor do I enjoy having to do express it, but to say otherwise would simply be dishonest of me. I did try to approach them on their talk page, which was responded to politely but with excuses rather than a desire to learn what the expectations are. We are pretty independent around here, and that is part of the charm that is Wikipedia, but it still requires a degree of conformity in how we deal with disputes or the whole system breaks down. I'm not convinced this person can do this, or truly understands this. I will leave it to others to determine a proper course of action, as I really have no idea what would be best in this situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'd consider his latest edit here, adding a substantial amount of unreferenced content, and moving an existing reference around, to be problematic, though I'll leave it up to the people who understand the topic to comment on that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be no problem with my latest Pulaski Skyway edit here since every single one of my significant edits includes a cited source or was addressed in Talk:Pulaski Skyway#Elevation of Eastern Terminus of Pulaski Skyway for the accepted statement that I added in other sections in order to maintain consistency in the article. In addition, I moved an existing reference around since the same source referred to an existing statement and multiple consecutive statements that I added next to it. Rather than insert the source after each consecutive sentence, I included the original source once in a summary statement at the beginning of the paragraph that referred to all existing and new referenced consecutive sentences that immediately followed in that paragraph. All of my edits added significant value and clarification to the entire Pulaski Skyway article when reviewed in its full context.Wondering55 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to add a constructive perspective to the issues that have been raised on this Talk page since some of the information that has been presented is inaccurate, biased, or does not represent the complete picture. Since my original kerfuffle as a novice Wikipedia editor, the record clearly shows that I have been diligent and focused in adding significant value, updates, and corrections to multiple articles without removing Record articles.

    In addition, I have followed the advice of Seb and opened up some Talk pages to raise issues and asked for substantiated feedback on whether some of the cited Record articles should be replaced with more reliable sources since the reported info in a cited Record article either had absolutely NO details in regards to the referenced article statements or had information that was in contradiction to the referenced statements or facts. I have NOT continued to make any widespread effort to remove Record articles without some type of resolution.

    In fact, my updates for Route 24 New Jersey, which seems to have started this new kerfuffle, were based on adding value, updates, and corrections for multiple items, along with providing an alternate source for the cited Record article that I raised and thought was agreed to in Talk:New Jersey Route 24#Reinsertion of Irrelevant Source Citation. On April 2, I thought that the Record source replacement could be made after I did not hear back from Dough4872 for 5 days after addressing his concerns and providing justification for the suggested changes on the Talk page on March 28.

    So lets recap the positive aspects of my contributions. I provide multiple value added updates to Route 24 New Jersey. I followed Seb's advice to raise issues that I have about making a proposed change. I addressed the feedback provided to me on Talk:New Jersey Route 24#Reinsertion of Irrelevant Source Citation, and made changes on April 2 based on what I thought had been properly resolved after waiting an appropriate time.

    Now let's address the unsubstantiated and biased charges against me:

    • Rschen7754 uses inflammatory biased language, which Wikipedia recommends not be used, when Rschen7754 falsely accuses me of having a "grudge" against a reporter, which is simply not substantiated by any facts. Since the original ANI notice, I have made dozens of updates, clarifications, and corrections to multiple articles that have not involved removing source material from the cited reporter.
    • Rschen7754 continues his biased accusations against me without any supporting evidence that "his only purpose here is to eliminate citations to a newspaper reporter's articles". The evidence clearly contradicts this statement since my contributions for a variety of articles clearly show I have made dozens of updates, clarifications, and corrections to multiple articles that have not involved removing source material from the cited reporter.
    • Rschen7754 seemed to be wrong when stating "he is changing the citation to refer to a WP:SPS, and thus threatening the GA status of that article." The reliability of nycroads (by Steve Anderson) and alpsroads (by Steve Alpert) as reliable sources based on WP:SPS was raised, resolved, and accepted by Wikipedia users in Talk:New Jersey Route 24#GA Review that I referenced for that article prior to adding what I thought was a reliable source from nycroads, which is currently in 100's of Wikipedia articles, and the author Steve Anderson is mentioned as an authoritative source in Robert Moses.
    • Rschen7754 has no clear evidence to support the contention that "Wondering55 should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE". In fact, in the dozens of contributions I have made I have tried to demonstrate positive contributions that oppose every one of the self-interest and bad behavior traits identified in WP:NOTHERE. I try to treat everyone with respect when they treat me with respect and they provide substantiated facts without biased accusations.
    • Rschen7754 is simply wrong when falsely accusing me that "He continued the behavior after being warned." The facts clearly show I have NOT continued this behavior. My focus has been on making dozens of positive contributions. If I have had a question about a specific cited article I have raised it in a Talk page as I was asked to do and waited for what I thought was final resolution to allow me to make a specific change based on the facts and feedback.
    • Rschen7754 continues to demonstrate a bias and lack of respect in violation of Wikipedia policies when referring to my Talk page communications as "ramblings" instead of acknowledging my Talk page communications as an effort to address legitimate issues in good faith while presenting facts and reasons for my proposals.
    • Rschen7754 distorts the legitimacy of issues that I have raised by falsely dismissing "most of his talk page ramblings are basically "why did you undo my changes?". Most of my talk pages are NOT focused on why my changes were undone, but are instead focused on resolving any differences of opinion and trying to understand the other person's point of view when there is a contentious issue regarding changes made to a very few of the dozens of changes that I have made. In many cases, I have accepted the other person's feedback and allowed the change to be made or I have convinced the other party to accept my changes based on additional info that I have provided them, or we have made even better changes than each of our original revisions based on mutually agreed additional suggestions by both of us.

    I believe I have been working in a very collaborative manner and have worked to not make contentious contributions and have not gone against previous advice, while also soliciting user feedback.

    I have to say with full honesty that I definitely did heed the advice of Dennis Brown "for a desire to learn what the expectations are". I make no excuses and I have regularly checked out Wikipedia policies referenced by others in a variety of Talk pages that I have seen. I have worked to make sure that my integrity, behavior, and efforts for collaboration and resolution on a variety of issues have met Wikipedia policies and respect for others.

    I hope this response has given everyone pause to reconsider my status and my dozens of positive contributions, which also includes collaborating with others.Wondering55 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So your new tactic is to attack the person who reported you to ANI, just as you did to Alansohn? Secondly, GA standards have gone up a lot since 2008; those SPS sources are no longer acceptable. Finally, all of your rambling comments above are a red herring - you have not addressed the fact that you are continuing the behavior (specifically removing links to reliable sources) that got you in trouble in the first place. --Rschen7754 19:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my word. Wondering55, all administrators are going to think when reading your above rant is "tl;dr" You've got to be straight and to the point, otherwise you're not going to get anything done. If you really think Rschen's being disruptive, show us some diffs of it so we can judge for ourselves. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm somewhat invested here and would like to think I'm patient and thorough, but even I just skimmed this. I applaud your reading of policy, but it seems you have yet to understand the nuances in the spirit behind the policies, which is more important than the actual words. You are still giving external reason for your shortcomings, which makes others less likely to consider your point of view, quite frankly. This is why I suggested you pull back, perhaps be a bit deferential in your dealings with others, and maybe remember that you are the new one here, others are more familiar with the community norms. Again, I don't doubt your sincerity, but I do question your ability to get along, and your compulsion to generate walls of text only make matters worse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In order to make it as succinct as possible, dozens of my contributions, which anyone can check, have been focused on providing constructive value, updates, or corrections and have NOT been focused on removing sources from one reporter or removing reliable sources.

    I should also not be cited for making a source replacement based on referencing Talk:New Jersey Route 24#GA Review that allowed the cited source and my replacement on April 2 based on what I thought was resolution from my March 28 comment for Talk:New Jersey Route 24#Reinsertion of Irrelevant Source Citation.

    Rschen7754 has been disruptive in NOT first addressing this issue with me prior to bringing it to this administrative board and in making personally denigrating comments and false claims without supporting facts. All of this is against Wikipedia policies.

    The only one, who is personally attacking anyone is Rschen7754 with denigrating comments, along with even more extraneous issues and false claims that simply have nothing to do with the facts of this case. The only one guilty of a red herring is Rschen7754 due to a refusal to acknowledge that I have clearly addressed all of the facts that show I am NOT continuing the behavior that is claimed against me. I responded to each of the many, many, original false claims by Rschen7754 by presenting the facts and substantiated reasons that disputed these claims that were without merit.

    It would not seem right that I could not provide a brief response with substantiated reasons and facts to dispute each of the 7 original false claims made by Rschen7754. It would not seem right that someone can also cite multiple Wikipedia policies against me and I can not respond to show I have not violated the policies based on the facts.

    If Rschen7754 has any issue with including nycroads or alpsroads as being reliable sources, Rschen7754 should raise it on my Talk page or on his Talk page with me and provide more definitive sources to support that contention. I would be more than happy to listen since it does not need to take up the time of the administrators on this page.

    I don't find the need to put up a wall of text if someone does not put up a wall of false claims and denigrating comments against me and my activities and then continues to repeat and add more false claims and denigrating comments in total disregard of the facts and substantiated reasons for my actions.

    I have a great ability to get along with those who respect me, even if they may disagree with me.Wondering55 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    But you have still not stopped your problematic behavior of removing all citations to a particular reporter. Furthermore, Imzadi1979 and Dough4872 have also agreed with me that the nycroads and alpsroads sources are problematic. --Rschen7754 22:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating something over and over does not make it any more true. The claim remains just as false as when it was originally made based on the facts that I have presented. I am also not clear why Rschen is wasting the time of the administrators and other on this Talk page regarding comments about nycroads and alpsroads sources since this issue has just been addressed and resolved to my satisfaction in Talk:New Jersey Route 24#Reinsertion of Irrelevant Source Citation in which Rschen7754 directly participated. I hope that Rshchen7754 is still not trying to make me look bad, while still NOT working with me. As the old saying goes, "You can try and lead a horse to water, you just can't make him work with you."Wondering55 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wondering, what I am seeing is that frequently you make a change to a page, then go to the talk page, get extremely defensive, long winded, and if I do say so, rather abrasive in your tone. You're doing better than before, but you have a ways to go. We aren't here to debate articles, we discuss them. None of us know it all, we need each other. Often, I think I'm correct, but instead of pounding the other person, I try to calmly discuss and let them get around to figuring it out themselves. Sometimes I will simply defer to other's opinions, even if I think they are mistaken, and go research it quietly, then discuss with them at a later date. This is more productive than trying to battle out every little edit, and it makes others want to actually work with you, instead of feeling like every time you walk into the room, there is going to be a battle. When I say you might try a little deference to others, this includes when you think you are right. Slow down, research a bit, learn the system, and instead of barking in frustration, try "Hey, I was reading the policy on $x, it says $y, wouldn't that apply here?" In other words, genuinely ask. You might actually be right, and your tone dictates whether others are receptive to your ideas. Or, you might be wrong, and they will gladly explain why if you are not so brazen in the asking. I'm afraid that if you don't pull back, and I mean pull back hard, you will be blocked for WP:TE and/or WP:DE before long. Go slow, learn. You learn by doing, not just by reading, and that means taking advice from others when it comes to editing even if you don't fully understand at the time. You have to trust your fellow editors a bit and rely on their experience. If you want to be here, you must stop making excuses, blaming others, and find a way to cooperate with them. I've said enough. At this point, what happens next is solely in your hands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis, I'm not sure why you have been grossly misrepresenting my actions and my intentions in a such a negative fashion. You could have looked at all of my communications and edits and indicated that based on the facts Wondering55 makes constructive value added edits and frequently resolves issues amicably without any long winded responses. Anything can be taken out of context to try and prove a point. If people make denigrating comments, misrepresent my actions or revisions, or are abrasive to me, I direct myself to those issues. I am also not sure why you now piling on Wikipedia policies that are not relevant, unless you can verify those accusations. I certainly have NOT disrupted progress towards improving articles or building the encyclopedia or made partisan, biased or skewed edits. I have made dozens of constructive, neutral, value added edits and occasionally go to the Talk page to try and clarify an issue. I also defer to others, even when I disagree with them. If others respond in a dismissive or challenging manner or make unsubstantiated comments, I try to redirect them back to the facts. I also do not allow others to insult me without clearly telling them they are wrong. I came to Wikipedia to make good faith efforts to work with people and improve articles in a neutral constructive manner based on the facts and Wikipedia policies. Can you work with me on that basis and recognize the positive in my contributions?Wondering55 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically "Wondering55 is always right and everyone else is wrong"? --Rschen7754 05:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm honest, I would read Dennis' comments carefully yourself and consider how they might apply equally to your own behaviour as well as Wondering55 - a good recent example of which being your aggressive conduct at WP:DRN ([40] [41]) and subsequent attempt to take the project to WP:MFD ([42] [43]). In retrospect, don't you think ignoring all that and taking a short break would have been better? Anyhow, it's all been dealt with so it's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. I apologise if I've got come across in an increasingly blunt and hot-headed manner about this recently, but you need to stop overreacting to criticism - nobody is "always right" and if you think you are - don't! In an attempt to close this thread down, I'm going to politely ask Wondering55 to drop this issue now, and for Rschen to consider being a little more tactful and empathic when dealing with new editors in future. Be cool, people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:BobiSwiftie

    BLOCKED
    NE Ent 20:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    BobiSwiftie (talk · contribs) appears to be here almost solely to promote Taylor Swift. Their talk page is full of warnings about violating BLP policy by adding unsourced content to articles/making unsourced changes, they had a block for this last November as well.

    A lot of their changes centre around bumping up chart positions/sales figures in Swift's albums (often very specific numbers):

    They've also, at times, removed a huge amount of content from articles without leaving any explanation:

    Other promotional fluff (some sourced, some unsourced):

    • [51]
    • [52] - which is actually a copyvio, as it's lifted STRAIGHT from the source
    • [53]

    At best, here we have a WP:SPA that has little idea how Wikipedia works (yes, they have edited a handful of articles that aren't directly Taylor Swift, but most of those edits are about artists whom have either worked with her, or whom Swift has written songs about (e.g., Tim McGraw). At worst, we have a fangirl/fanboy whom has no interest in following guidelines - and given that this has been ongoing since November last year, I suspect it may be the latter. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The second set of diffs may just be disruptive incompetence, and the first and third set may just be someone unfamiliar with policy and using their own OR or not citing their sources. I would think it's just a fan. Has anyone tried to explain the issues using non-automated posts to her/his talkpage? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes they cite sources, sometimes they don't. As far as I can see, there is only one non-auto comment, about the reliability of Twitter. That said, I haven't seen an edit to any talk page by this user. Interesting to see they were warned for vandalism not long after my ANI notice went on their page. The creation of a page named "Ahhhh" in the past raises eyebrows as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I see BobiSwiftie has never engaged with another editor. In fact the only talk page edit I could find was this blanking of their user talk page: [54], IRWolfie- (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Like the above thread, I'd personally call this as a WP:COMPETENCE issue more than anything else. A message along the lines of "use edit summaries and sources or we'll block you until you understand what we mean" might get the message through, though it's still a bit of a blunt instrument. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't make myself clear - I meant block AND message. Usually gets someone's attention! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Lukeno94 has given him what appears to be a final warning, and he has not edited since (though it's been less than an hour). I reiterated the warning with angry bold text and suggested that he come here. If the next edit is also unsourced, block away - but if this were at AIV I'd decline for lack of edits after the final warning. Let's keep an eye on this one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just tried a new approach on this user's talk page. It will be interesting to see if I get a response. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I saw their addition of what appears to be copyvio quotes from reviews sourced to Taylor Swift's website before I saw your comment, and Blocked for 72 hours. No reservations about the block, but I apologize for not checking the talk page first. Hopefully, they discuss the issues before rushing into a longer block. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. Nothing like not being able to edit articles to free up time for talk page discussion... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    DPL Bot

    Check this [57] on my TP- is the bot functioning correctly? I haven't edited Willem Jeths, so am unlikely to have created any Disam Links. In fact no-one has in the last few days. What gives? Basket Feudalist 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally, unless you think it's urgent, you should report bot problems on the bot's talk page or on the owner's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not urgent. Got me to read an article I would never hhave otherwise known existed Basket Feudalist 17:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disambigged the three terms that the bot reported. One of them was easy. The other two I either did it right or we don't have an article on the term. Take a look and see what you think if you feel like it. (Drmies, if you see this, you should look at it.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) In looking at a few of the bot's edits to other user's talk pages near the edit to your talk page, it looks like a good sampling of the users haven't edited their assigned article in 3-5 days. May be a queuing problem or something. It seems to have stopped for the day, so try the 'bot board. Rgrds. --64.85.214.111 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It might well be something to do with the job queue. It's pretty badly backed up at the moment. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Little green rosetta

    In what is highly reminiscent of Belchfire's previous disruptive reverts and hounding of Roscelese before he was blocked for persistent sockpuppetry, Little green rosetta (talk · contribs) has now taken up where Belchfire left off and has begun following me around to articles he has never edited before to revert my edits and has generally been uncivil and combative.[58][59][60][61][62] This behavior consists of deliberate hounding, blanket reverts, and ignoring requests for sources on Talk:Michael & Me#Sources and notability. Little green rosetta was politely asked to stop hounding me and he was invited to use the article talk page to discuss his concerns.[63] His response was to tell me to "Go away and don't come back"[64] and to tell me to "fuck off".[65] Further, he did not add sources as requested[66] and he quite blatantly continued to follow me to pages he has never edited before, simply to revert me.[67] He was given a second warning,[68] which he promptly ignored while continuing to revert me.[69][70] After multiple requests on his talk page, Little green rosetta has refused to stop hounding and reverting me, and he has refused to respond directly to the discussion on the talk page. Finally, he has falsely accused me of "vandalism" because I used his talk page to ask him to stop this behavior once again.[71][72] Therefore, I have no choice but to ask for administrative intervention. The user has been asked twice to stop following me around and has refused. The user has been asked twice to stop reverting me and has refused. Finally, the user has refused to engage directly on the talk page and to provide the requested sources supporting his reverts. This is not a content dispute but a documented case of disruptive editing. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This user told you to stay off their talk page, you ignored it, so that bit IS vandalism. What about diffs that show they weren't reverting dodgy edits, but reverting good ones? From what I've seen, the hounding may be the other way around... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid you are mistaken. Per dispute resolution protocol, I am required to communicate with the user. There has been no vandalism of any kind. As for the hounding, the diffs clearly show that Little green rosetta followed me to two different articles (Michael & Me and Larry Elder) and reverted me twice. How could this possibly be the other way around? Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to remind people that vandalism is the deliberate defacement of Wikipedia in bad faith. Ignoring a request to stay off a talk page, though possibly disruptive, is not vandalism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "disruptive" or "hounding" to ask someone to stop hounding. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    the 1st dif you provided was of you deleting an entire article about a documentary? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not deleting, redirecting to the parent topic, Larry_Elder#DVD, which is sourced to the author himself. The film article has been unsourced since 2007 and LGR can't bring himself to add any sources, just revert. As I have already shown on the film talk page, there are no reliable film sources to support this encyclopedia article. Feel free to take your queries there. This incident report isn't about the content, it's about LGR's behavior which consists of following me around and reverting me and then telling me to fuck off when I ask him to stop. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Viriditas, the two articles are related as are the content edits. You want to redirect an article, and lgr disagrees. Each time you revert each other, the redirect target has to be changed as well. So, we really only have one issue. lgr's use of FO was ill-advised but not really that big a deal; at least they didn't spell it out. I know of no "dispute resolution protocol" that requires you to communicate with lgr on their talk page. If they tell you to go away, go away. Finally, the reference to Belchfire is a bit coatracky and unsupported, don't you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Bbb23 in that we're really talking about one issue here, and that I don't see the direct relevance of Belchfire to this situation. That said, given the fairly substantial personal hostility evident in lgr's posts/edit summaries, I am somewhat curious whether he's willing to indicate whether he came to the Michael & Me article by way of Viriditas' contribution history. MastCell Talk 20:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has LGR really "picked up where Belchfire left off?" As I recall, you and LGR have a lot of overlap in areas of editing especially on conservative politics. I think it's likely that you've been able to devote more attention to LGR now that Belchfire is gone. So associating LGR with Belchfire is just an attempt at guilt by association. I see no reason to have sock puppetry and LGR's name so close together in your OP. Might be worth considering striking or removing that part altogether and focus on just your complaints about LGR.--v/r - TP 20:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, they have close to zero overlap in areas of editing. See my analysis at the bottom of this thread. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to hear from lgr as well, but, at the same time, I don't follow how this started. Viriditas begins with the claim of hounding, but, generally, for hounding, there has to be something that precedes it, that sets up the supposed retaliation. According to Viriditas, why do they believe lgr went after them in the first instance?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't tell you what started it. From my own experience, Viriditas is a smart guy who is very often correct in his arguments, but he's hardly the most pleasant fellow. Maybe LGR got put off at some point? Hard for me to speculate on anything other than my own experiences and I generally try to ignore the political cross-bashing wherever possible.--v/r - TP 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I can tell you is that this has been going on for a long time. Just last week, LGR was hounding me. He was monitoring my talk page and when Deskana contacted me and left a comment, he then contacted Deskana about that comment. He's been closely following me for a while, and this is just the latest bad behavior. As for the comparison to Belchfire, I don't see why the analogy is disputed. The both of them did/do the same thing: follow editors around and revert them. This is particularly true with reverting editors involved in the LGBT topic area, which I do not edit, so for me, the analogy holds. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My experience with both puts them in dramatically different categories. I don't know what you've experienced that puts them in the same category and from my perspective, it seems your trying to use some of the negative emotions around Belchfire to stick to LGR as well. If you can't address LGR on his own merits, then you shouldn't have opened a thread here.--v/r - TP 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Wrong approach here, but it's your call. As for Deskana, apparently lgr didn't like this. I'm now beginning to understand why there's so much bad blood between you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I was about to say the same as Bbb23. A look at the same results with LGR and me shows much of the same data. I'm sure he's not houding me (I'd hope). Need more context here.--v/r - TP 21:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just intersection. In 90% of cases, Viriditas first edited the page, and in 100% of those cases lgr reverted Viriditas.--В и к и T 21:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My analysis: An interaction check[73] shows 14 examples of Viriditas making a first edit to a page and Little green rosetta showing up and reverting him/her as his/her first edit to the page, [74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87] two examples of Little green rosetta reverting Viriditas a second time on the same page,[88][89] 1 example of the opposite happening,[90] and 1 example where it looks like the two just happened to edit different parts of the same page.[91] My conclusion: this is a clear case of WP:HOUNDING by Little green rosetta.See comment by Kyohyi below --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing the same analysis with TParis and Little green rosetta[92] shows 6 interactions (3 of which were over a year apart) and 0 reverts of TParis by Little green rosetta,[93][94][95][96][97][98] which means that the claim "A look at the same results with LGR and me shows much of the same data" is factually inaccurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "... is factually inaccurate" Apparently you and Wikiwind share a common ailment in that you really have no sense of context. Wikiwind gave a link to a editor interaction analyzer. I said, paraphrasing, "So what, mine and LGR's look like that too, need more context" to which Wikiwind replied "It's not just intersection. In 90% of cases, Viriditas first edited the page, and in 100% of those cases lgr reverted Viriditas." (Thank you, Wikiwind, having given context I can see what you were getting at.) At the time of my comment, it was factually accurate given the lack of context. Your analysis enjoyed a bit more context than mine did, so before you call me factually inaccurate, examine the extra bit of information you were given. Thanks.--v/r - TP 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for my choice of wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    From reviewing the diff's of LGR's and Viriditas interaction, on December 28th of last year, Viriditas inserted quotations around the term ex-gay in 12 of those diffs. LGR reverted citing MOS. Of the remaining 3 articles, 2 are the subject of this ANI, and 1 is unrelated. If Veriditas was violating MOS in his edits on the 28th, I'm fairly certain this is not WP:HOUNDING.--Kyohyi (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I am going to assume that this one[99] was a simple error. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wether or not it was an error on someone else, I missed that when I was looking through the diff's earlier. Thanks for pointing it out. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That diff is not an error, but a great illustration of the blanket reversions made by LGR after stalking my contributions. He never followed up to remove the scare quotes,[100] he just reverted my edit without ever looking at it. Finally, the MOS does not proscribe scare quotes, it just discourages them because they can be misused. And since there is no such thing as "ex-gay", I believe they were used correctly. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In Viriditas' favor, I would have liked it a lot better if Little green rosetta had consistently removed quotation marks and consistently added [[ and ]] to create a wikilink. Although I struck my "clearly" comments above, it does look like Little green rosetta just reverted whatever changes Viriditas made. Is that hounding? I could argue either way.
    As for the question of whether there is no such thing as an ex-gay and thus the quotation marks were correct, that's a content dispute, and the administrators' noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. It certainly was OK to mention it in passing while arguing that the reverted behavior was correct, but I would really like to see the content dispute dealt with in the appropriate venue rather than through reverting. Perhaps one of you might want to open a case at WP:DRN on the topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing anything seriously problematic here, I think warnings are all that's needed. I'd strongly suggest LGR avoid tracking Viriditas' edits in the future. (And I'd advise Viriditas not to watch LGR very carefully.) Even if it is not technically WP:HOUNDING, it is likely to lead to further conflict and be generally unproductive. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree; this diff, taken in context, suggests that LGR is tracking Viriditas' contributions and reverting them as sort of a knee-jerk reflex. Whether or not we choose to call that "hounding", it's really not a good idea and should be discouraged. MastCell Talk 23:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with this outcome. I think both editors need to be more careful with each other and distance themselves from whatever past problems they've had. That said, lgr has not made any edits to Wikipedia since this discussion began. As MastCell mentioned earlier, it would be helpful to hear from lgr before closing this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I think that if this happens again, we'll all be a lot more likely to take action. Hopefully that realization will cause people to be more careful in their interactions. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is anyone concerned that Viriditas effectively deleted an article without going through Afd? NE Ent 23:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Redirects are not deletion. If the change to a redirect is objeted to, any editor, even an IP, can return the article to an article with a maximum of three clicks; deletion is, well, deletion and removes the history, too. For simply changing to a redirect, though, WP:BOLD applies (and, by extension, WP:BRD) - I've seen far too many AfD discussions where boldly redirecting in the first place would have been the better move, they should be encouraged, not discouraged. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record there was a discussion going on here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Michael .26 Me and, as near as I can tell there a consensus had not been reached regarding deletion or a redirect. MarnetteD | Talk 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly concerned, yes. "Redirect-deletion" should really only be done in uncontroversial cases, after you're reverted once you should go to Afd instead of reverting to a redirect again as happened in this situation. Again, not block-worthy but far from "best practice". Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I must strongly disagree. Redirecting non-notable topics that lack sources indicating their notability is standard best practice. I even said I would restore the article myself if the notability criteria was met (two reliable reviews) and I repeated this good faith offer in two different discussions. Further, LGR was given the opportunity to add these putative sources on two occasions and failed. He was also asked to do so on the talk page and ignored the requests, preferring to edit war and revert to an unsourced article. He has repeatedly claimed that sources indicating notability exist, but he refuses to provide them. That is certainly not best practice. The burden is always on the editor adding or restoring content to show us their sources. LGR has refused. Further, I have not been able to find two reliable reviews of the film nor have I been able to find anything other than passing mention, in other words, insignificant coverage. Meanwhile, LGR hounded me here, refused to show sources supporting his reverts, and is disrupting multiple articles. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say your self-righteousness and repetitiveness are offputting. Worse, you're wrong. You redirected and were reverted. At that point, the burden was on you to gain a consensus for the redirect. Reverting back to the redirect was inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit that made the article a redirect (diff) is not a problem at all because the edit summary ("Redirect unsourced and non-notable film to author") is extremely accurate. Best practice would require a good-faith attempt to determine whether suitable references are available (not two dead links to foxnews.com, neither of which appear to even claim notability in the WP:N sense), and it is very likely that such an attempt was made (see Talk:Michael & Me#Sources and notability). It is ok to revert such a redirect, but best practice for the reverter would involve more than finding mentions in Google. Assuming the accuracy of numbers mentioned above (Viriditas makes first edit in 90% of the interactions and LGR reverts in 100% of the cases), it is clear that LGR needs to be told to drop the pursuit. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of repeating myself, that's nonsense. Discussions about notability do not occur in edit summaries. This is an article that has existed since 2007. That doesn't necessarily mean it's worth keeping, but it most likely means it shouldn't be redirected without discussion. I don't object to the bold redirect by Viriditas, but once an objection was registered, either a discussion must occur on the talk page or at AfD - not just, "I'm right."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion occurred on the talk page and LGR failed the burden. It's very simple. Three times, LGR claimed "sources exist" and three times he has refused to provide them. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Thanks for the explanations -- I had falsely inferred that since Afds may result in redirect as outcome, a redirect shouldn't occur without an Afd. Reviewing the policy WP:ATD-R it does state "an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." As the only participants in the discussion appear to have been lgr & Viriditas, this second insertion of the redirect seems inconsistent with the policy. NE Ent 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not correct. I was stalked by LGR and my edits were reverted with the justification "sources exist". I had already justified the redirect on the project page when this act of hounding occurred, noting the dearth of sources. I did not automatically revert in return. What I did was I started a duplicate discussion on the article talk page and invited LGR to participate, also warning him not to stalk me. In both the article discussion and in the user talk pages, I requested sources justifying the revert. None were ever provided and LGR ignored the request for sources in both discussions. After this refusal to justify his blanket reverts, I restored the redirect. LGR then reverted again. Returning to the discussion, LGR then ignored the request for sources for a third time, once again failing the burden. Now, what action of mine was "inappropriate" or inconsistent with policy? None. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So what are you looking for, Viriditas? Are you looking for a block or intervention? Do you want a formal interaction ban or would voluntary "stay the heck away" be workable for now? Would you like LGR to be reminded to explain and support his reverts better especially when challenged?--v/r - TP 13:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for the late reply, but IRL fun was to to be had last night. A few points to address some issues en masse, not necessiarly in order of importance

    • Per WP:VANDTYPES. Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism.. Since the talk page in question was "my" talk page, who is best suited to decide if Viriditas is unwelcome on this page?
    • Per WP:HOUND The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.. Viriditas re-insertion of scare quotes, which IMO is a violation of the MOS is also (IMO) an overriding reason.
    • As anyone who has used Stiki/Huggle or recent changes can attest to, one should not be surprised to see prolific editors contributions appear in such views. Curiosity often wins out and I'll examine the article in question. What happened in this situation is similar, though slightly different. Due to the recently caught socks of banned editors Acoma Magic (talk · contribs) and Benjiboi (talk · contribs) I've been interested in writing a sock-bot that monitor's contributions to pages favored by a sockmaster. I belive TParis can testify that I asked him about the API's weeks ago for this purpose. In the process of evaluating various technologies I was programatically (http scrape) reading recent changes and my job encountered an out-of-memory exception. Examining the output I saw three things that caught my eye. 1) A familiar username 2) an article title that seemed familiar -- Roger & Me stood out (correctly it seems) 3) A large numberof bytes removed. By the comments made here, it seems that several editors feel my revert was reasonable. Though in essence this is a content dispute. The wholesale redirect of the article was unwarranted IMO. Viriditas asks for sources, but fails to mention which specifc content needed citation. No one is seriously questioning that sources exist. But this conversation doesn't belong here but rather on the article's talk page.
    • Is this a WP:BOOMERANG? As as others have pointed out (here and elsewhere) Viriditas may be the one doing the hounding and making personal attacks, being combative etc. I'm not going to bother submitting the diffs here, as I've been advised by a few admins (both on and off wiki), that discussion might be better held at WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas3. WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas and WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas2 already appear to be occupied and contain other complaints of harrassment.
      little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          14:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been following this and I haven't seen anyone suggest Viriditas was hounding. Luke made an early comment completely unsupported and someone else said that Viriditas shouldn't track you but it wasn't hounding. You should strike that.--v/r - TP 15:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Making this report is not boomerang worthy as there does appear to be legitimate underlying issue here, although it is rather hard to conclude anything with the information given. You appear to acknowledge you follow the editor in one paragraph but you say it's not in a problematic way, and then imply you didn't in another paragraph. You mention scare quotes, but here, where you reverted [101] they aren't in quotes, but italics, and they are present in your version as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @TP, Clearly I'm not asking for anything to be done here as I've already stated what my suggested remedy would be, so there is nothing to strike. I've been contacted by a few editors who have asked "what's the deal between you and Virididtas" already and they have made the harassmenent allegation. Obviously I'm annoyed with Viriditas. Being called a homphobe for jesus is kind of offensive after all. Him chiming in on talk page/noticeboard issues I was in discussions with was "in your face" belligerence. Once again I'm not asking for anything here, so I'm not bothering to provide diffs. @IRWolfie --- I'm certainly not "getting up in his grill" as it were. He's got a certain POV in some topic areas -- and shows it. Fine, no big deal, but obviously we overlap on some subjects, so I should be able to comment in those areas of common interest. Either people here are going to AGF and believe me when I found this edit by random chance (bully for them), or they aren't (shame on them). As for the Larry Elder article, I just reverted the removal of the wiki-link. I didn't notice the scare quotes.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          16:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, LGR, let me give you some advice. We get along well so I hope you take it. And if Viriditas is offended by what I say, well so what. Anyway, my take on people is that I try to see their value. If they have none, then I dont bother with them. Viriditas is not the friendliest guy here. I've bumped heads with him several times, he's recently called me a troll, ect ect. He's not someone I'd go drink beers with. But, he's incredibly smart and usually has insight into particular issues that I don't. The way he articulates himself is clear and understandable. If I were on a debate team, I'd want someone like Viriditas with me. My point is this: find a way to get along. It doesn't have to mean agreeing, sometimes it means ignoring, but find a way to get along. You may have use of Viriditas some day, you might find yourself on the same side of an issue, and he can be a resource. Start by not reverting his edits. If you have a problem with scare quotes, seek a wider consensus at MOS to remove them. And be clearer in your edit summaries why they are scare quotes. If challenged, try to get a 3rd opinion instead of reverting. Clearly, coming here isn't a very happy experience for either of you.

    I just don't see this thread progressing toward an administrative action, so it might be time to close it unless Viriditas has any other comments.--v/r - TP 17:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He may be smart & articulate, though IMO he commits too many logical fallacies that I'd caution you for your debate draft. The scare quotes issue has been hashed out many times; I'm fairly certain consensus is they are not acceptable (quotes are for attriubtion, not emphasis or disaproval in Wikipedia's voice). I could be wrong, but this is besides the point. Viriditas has bloodlust and has been trying to satisfy it via sanctions. Filing a 3RR report on an article he has never edited? Soliciting a (sockpuppet of a banned editor) for more of the same? The filing of this report reminds of a book that Judge Judy wrote called Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining. Your advice is of course sage, and I'll try to heed it in the future, especially the ignore part. I make no promises (short of an IB being placed), but will try. Hopefully we are both adult enough that is not necessary.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          18:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with filing a 3RR report on an article you have never edited. In this case the report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive208#User:Little green rosetta reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Warned) and the result was that little green rosetta was warned about edit-warring and Viriditas was told that his rhetoric was over the top and was asked to tone it down in the future.
    As has been explained several times, whether or not the quotes are acceptable is a content dispute, and the administrators' noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. I suggest a WP:RFC so that there is no doubt about what the consensus is on this particular content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As to pointing out the 3RR report and the solicitation to file an ANI report should be obvious; Who's stalking who? As to your other points, yes content disputes are best handled elsewhere.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          19:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is stalking who? Well, clearly this report shows you stalking me. Exactly which articles are you editing right now where I'm showing up to revert you? None? You dishonestly claimed there were loads of sources supporting the article you reverted but failed to offer those sources. Perhaps you should attempt to meet the burden outlined here. I don't buy your "I make no promises" claim. You either promise to stop hounding and reverting me for no reason (that's right you've offered no sources to support your justification for reversion) or this needs to escalate further. You do not get to continue this behavior. You should also think about using your account for constructive purposes, such as creating new articles and contributing actual content, not for hounding and reverts. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    This is going on way too long. Now that we've heard from lgr, I'm still in favor of an outcome along the lines of what Mark and MastCell proposed. I don't see either editor coming off as a saint, either outside of ANI or in this topic. I propose formal warnings to both editors that they need to behave and stay clear of each other more, sort of a mini-IB, or there will be sanctions. I'm open to someone else crafting the warning. If that's not acceptable, then we should just close this and hope that both editors get the hint.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mywikieditbh

    This user (Mywikieditbh) has been making unsourced content changes to the article on North India. This includes replacing a map built on solid references with a map they've made themselves that reflects his/her POV. He has spurned repeated attempts to get him to engage in any form of discussion, which I have been completely willing to do. I posted to his/her talk page and noticed it was full of other complaints like mine from multiple other users. It's the same refrain: PoV edits, with poor or no sourcing, deletion of good material, zero explanations or willingness to engage in any conversation. I am notifying the editor on their talk page about this report over here so maybe he/she will at least try to explain whatever it is they're after over here. Updated: I also looked at Bhojpuri language:Revision history and I see he's edit warred extensively there too (192.151.243.xxx and Mywikieditbh are clearly the same user seen across multiple articles), resulting in the editors of that page having to protect it. Same m.o. - big, unreferenced and factually incorrect changes with zero discussion. --Hunnjazal (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating a new user with a possibly offensive name directly after having the old user by that name renamed.

    When you get a name change, the old account still exists, it isn't actually recreated. We don't notify when the change is complete so, so what happened here isn't that unusual and isn't socking since there is no intent to avoid scrutiny or deceive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC) This happens occasionally when a user is renamed but is still logged in under the old name and has unified their account with other projects. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After having made a string of questionable edits on articles relating to India and/or Pakistan, such as deleting properly sourced text without discussing it on the talk page (the diffs show my reversals of his edits, with edit summaries), adding claims that where not supported by the refs also added (that is trying to sneak in claims hoping that no-one would check the refs) and adding POV-tag to an article without specifying what the issues were (that is behaving in a purely disruptive way), User:Theoccupiedkashmir was informed on his talk page that another user intended to report his user name as offensive, based on a combination of the user name and his edit history. Which made "Theoccupiedkashmir" request a name change, possibly to avoid having his edits discussed. The name change, to User:Maxx786, was promptly granted, and his old pages, including his edit history, was moved to that name on 1 April, 2013. The old name, Theoccupiedkashmir, was however registered again the next day, 2 April 2013, apparently by the same user (because it's a definite duck judging by the edit history), and is now "in operation" again. And since he is now no longer burdened by his old troublesome edit history the user has started a fresh new life here, under the same possibly offensive username that he previously used. In addition to that "Theoccupiedkashmir's" user and user talk pages are redirected to the new user, "Maxx786", meaning that "Theoccupiedkashmir" in effect doesn't have any user and user talk pages of his own, which could possibly cause problems if or when someone is going to issue warnings to him. So my question is simply if doing a thing like this is OK. Thomas.W (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As I recall from transitioning from Gerardw (talk · contribs) to Nobody Ent (talk · contribs), if an editor logs back in under the old account name the old account is automatically recreated. Additionally it's often recommended the old name be recreated to prevent another editor from doing so. (Which is why Nobody Ent (talk · contribs) exists with zero edits.) As there are total of three edits under the old name it's way premature to be assigning any maliciousness or disruption to the situation. NE Ent 22:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't that be sockpuppetry? The user page redirects are relics of the page move and should probably remain so any earlier edits by User:Maxx786 that might still be signed "Theoccupiedkashmir" can be attributed to the correct user. Huon (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not sockpuppetry -- there's no attempt to hide the linkage between the accounts. NE Ent 22:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed your previous response. Anyway, if the old account was automatically recreated, who would be editing from it? If it's the old editor, that seems to defeat the purpose of the name change. Huon (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (That's because I posted after you did but, very strangely, rather than an edit conflict it topposted my response. Weird. Not important.) Agreed; the point is a simple query (do you realize your logged in under the old account name?) rather than an accusatory ANI thread would be the better response. NE Ent 23:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't get a new notification about my username change ... Now, I have logged in using the new username ... Thanks

    --Maxx786 (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The account was recreated because, presumably, the editor was still logged in with the old name after the rename was done. The username still exists on several other projects. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Uninvolved admin needed to close a discussion please

    Two days isn't long enough for a discussion to run unless it's WP:SNOW time, which this isn't. Standard timing is to run for a week (at least). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Needed here. Please review the survey responses, state your finding of whether there is consensus to include the word "anti-immigration" (or any weaselly derivation thereof) in the "Agenda" section of the article mainspace, and make the edit in the article mainspace if appropriate. Thank you. (The article is under 1RR probation or I'd do it myself.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    it might be better to start with an RfC at the moment we have a straw poll initiated by P&W which does not have full engagement by all active editors on the page. Oh and an ArmCom review in progress ----Snowded TALK 22:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, the survey is 6-4 opposed to use of that word, or any weaselly derivation thereof. Obtaining consensus in favor of using that word would require future "votes" to include at least five or six "supports" with zero "opposes." That just doesn't seem possible. And seriously, which active editors on the page haven't fully engaged in the survey yet? What you're doing is starting to resemble tendentious editing at this point. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, voting doesn't determine consensus, strength of arguments does. 6 opposes and 1 support is meaningless if the opposes don't have strong, policy-rooted reasoning. Your comment on needing more votes for consensus is just blatantly wrong, as it's definitely possible (and happens in AfDs all the time) where a lopsided !vote (not-vote) turns out the opposite of the vote count. Just saying. gwickwiretalkediting 22:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the discussion has only been open for 2 days. It would probably be appropriate to leave it open for a longer period of time, to make sure all interested parties have a chance to contribute to it. And, to echo gwickwire, consensus is not determined by counting votes, so a 6-4 vote doesn't automatically mean that the opposers "win". ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 22:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Just an FYI, I don't think that Phoenix and Winslow was happy with this discussion, and is now forum shopping.04:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please look at comments and edits by User:Herzen re article and talk page for Pope Francis

    I have never brought an issue to ANI, but there is an issue that just will never be resolved without help "from above," regarding comments made by Herzen regarding a quote about Pope Francis in the article by that name. here is the discussion I would ask an administrator to look at, which centers around what I think (and other editors who have expressed their opinion on the talk page think) is a positive statement about Francis and his relationship with the Jewish community based on his experience in Buenos Aires. Here is the quote, taken from an editorial in The Jerusalem Post: "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." My understanding of that quote, as well as the understanding of other editors involved in the discussion, is that John Paul II, the pope who had the closest relationship with the Jewish community in the past, could only have that relationship as a young man because the Jewish community in Poland was not strong after the Holocaust; on the other hand, Francis had a life-long relationship with a strong Jewish community in Argentina, as the first non-European pope -- and so he will be the pope with the best understanding and closest ties to the Jewish community of any pope in history. Herzen has repeatedly deleted the quote and continues to make comments on the discussion page that I think has crossed the line of appropriateness, focusing on these three major points:

    • mentioning the Holocaust is "contentious" in and of itself, especially in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs
    • using a quote that mentions John Paul II and Francis, without mentioning Benedict XVI, implies that Benedict XVI was a Nazi
    • using a quote from an Israeli "secular newspaper" like the Jerusalem Post is inappropriate because Israel is an apartheid state.

    Of course, please look at my comments as well, and let me know if I have crossed any lines in terms of appropriateness -- although I hope I have not. I have tried to discuss this issue with Herzen on the talk page, and also on his user talk page, here. I notified him that I might take this issue to this page -- ANI, and will now notify him that I have done so. I admit that I first was a little "mystified" (the word I used in my discussions) with some of his statements, but now I think they have crossed a line into the realm of inappropriateness and unreasonableness. I would appreciate an administrator with fresh eyes taking a look to see what might be done to prevent further reverts and further inappropriate statements (that is, if the administrator also deems any of his statements to be inappropriate). Thank you. NearTheZoo (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Article section was changed to Talk:Pope_Francis#Relation_to_Jewish_community_in_Brazil_Argentina. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears, at this point, to be a purely content-based dispute, which administrators do not resolve. If you post about this issue on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, you will get a lot more help. Bobby Tables (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll bring this to dispute resolution, but I think the comments on the discussion page I've linked are worrisome...and now Herzen deleted the phrase based on the claim that the "contentiousness" of alleged attacks on Benedict XVI (that NOT mentioning him is a claim he is a Nazi -- Herzen's wods) or mentioning the word Holocaust (in and of itself "contentiousness" because of the views of "Muslims and Arabs") allows him to make the deletion regardless of talk page discussion. Other editors who have taken part in the discussion agree there is no contentiousness except in Herzen's mind. I have never been in a discussion where the other person made claims that were (at least to me) just...a little off-balance and weird.... Again, I'll look at dispute resolution, but if you could take one more careful look at the discussion, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again, NearTheZoo (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking at the linked section, I don't see anything particularly uncivil about what Herzen has said, but I do see unnecessary hostility from NearTheZoo. I think the interpretation by NearTheZoo of what Herzen has said shows a lack of assuming good faith. For example, Herzen did not say that "mentioning the Holocaust is 'contentious' in and of itself, especially in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs". This seems written to imply he is a holocaust denier, what he actually said was "Anytime the Holocaust is brought up when it is not directly relevant, contention will likely arise", which appears self-evidently true. I think the post here has made a mountain out of a molehill by not having assumed good faith, and by the appeals to ridicule in the posts. As an aside, NearTheZoo, who primarily appears to edit Israel related articles, insisting on trying to insert an editorial from the Jerusalem Post, which mentions the holocaust (for no apparently relevant reason) in the Pope Francis article seems decidedly like POV pushing, particularly considering the edit warring: [102][103][104]. WP:BOOMERANG should be considered IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Maker Studios

    Persistent edit warring, most recently removal of talk page comments by 76 account [105], and continued editing on article after receiving 3rr warning [106] (waited for just over 24 hours to do so); this could just as well go to edit warring or page protection boards, but this is a longterm issue involving an experienced single purpose user with an apparent conflict of interest and a strong sense of article ownership. It seems clear that these two accounts are related, if not puppets. Disclosure: I've been involved at this page as two 99 IPs in the last few weeks, and opened a thread at BLP noticeboard last month [107]. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IP attempted to remove this section, reverted and warned. gwickwiretalkediting 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pks1142

    This has been going on for a long time now, and after innumerable tries to deal with calmly, User:Pks1142 has crossed all limits. It all began with the editing of Priyanka Chopra's page, an article that failed a recent FAC due to huge amount of fancruft that has been added by this particular user. When I tried to bring a semblance of sanity to the lead. this is how he responded: [[108]] and [[109]]. Also have a look at Talk:Priyanka Chopra (all the sections) and the way this user has been creating problems with everyone who is trying to help. Other editors trying to sort the issue on his talk page also did not help, as he started attacking other users too (see User talk:Smarojit#Chopra FAC too). --smarojit (buzz me) 05:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, You have a nice thought of interpreting things and come up with a different story. I was behaving in that way because you are showing bias in the biographical page of chopra. No one asked him to improve it, See his first edit on the talk page of Chopra Talk:Priyanka Chopra and his concern was over a line which says "She was noted for her versatility...."He reflected that we were turning the article as articles bouquet not thorns. Then, he himself came with a new lead completely opposite of the original. Then I told him not to change, because I added that stuff after long discussion with My co-editor Bollyjeff and Dwaipayan (who said he liked my new version). Suddenly, Smarojit changed the lead and started reverting my edit. I told him that he doesn't own the article and he said "I will revert your every edit". Meanwhile, the other editor (with whom I maintained a distance, as they want their credit in the article, which I never denied) were started adding fuel to the heated argument, you can see here User talk:Smarojit#Chopra FAC. I reflected him not to do that (I also suspect of Gleeks having another account), as it will only stretch the discussion. I have contributed much to the article. The article failed its first fac, not because of fancruft, but of fragmentry style see here, The candidate failed because of fragmentry style not for fancruftry But, the user has interpreted it differently to tell a new story. I'm sorry for my anger, but the user wants me to leave the article for him. I requested him to reflect on first fac, but he didn't and now he is telling a new story. He is a bias as well, he considers an actress a "female hero" and praises her to sky but here he goes saying "sex symbol". This shows his biasness. He used the word sex symbol after one source but, another source said she acts like a hero, did he included no. Playing favorites might be the reason. Please, I request you to tell him not to kill my mind. I have injured myself and will not interfere with his any edit.Prashant talk 05:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Adminstrators: Well he has requested many of his friend to support him and I don't have any support in my favour. I'm not here to make any friends and take benefit of that. I'm here to edit and I had contributed to many articles and will always. I gave my blood and sweat to the article, but now, no one will see my hard work because of the above user. I'm feeling beaten, scolded and punished by doing good job to the article. I'm killing my self as why i came here to edit. Well, I have nothing to say nor have any support but, i have truth and my hard work to support me, but will anyone notice that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pks1142 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 April 2013
    A small piece at the end of the above comment was removed by the WMF after a report, the rest of the comment was left so as to allow continued discussion Jalexander--WMF 06:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The reported user (Pks1142) has many good contributions to his credit; however, in this particular instance, was not agreeing to the good faith changes that Smarojit brought to the article in question, despite multiple explanations, requests, and telling that the article is in a manufacturing phase, and has not attained a stable phase yet. Discussions were on way in the talk page of the article, but frequently disrupted by rather childish behavior of Pks. I understand Pks also acted on his good faith, but his repetitive reverts on the article and inflammatory comments in the talk page were creating hindrance. I hoped with time things will calm down, but it did not. We definitely did not want to bring this to ANI, but could not find any other way. I feel what would be beneficial for the article and the editors is if Pks refrains from editing in the article and its talk page for a few days. Let the article develop, and then he is welcome to comment for further improvement. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have cleared everything and I think it's all well. Also, I tried to pass the olive branch but, he is not keen to accept it. However, co-editors on the article have helped us solving our differences. I'm ok with that user and he should also remember and accept it. It was just because of the stretched discussion and I'm apologetic to everyone.Prashant talk 00:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Unforgettableid

    I've asked User:Unforgettableid twice not to post on my talk page, but he refuses to comply, continuing to harass me for "proof" that it's considered ill form to continue to do so after being so requested. Someone enlighten him, he's lacking in plain WP:COMMONSENSE. Of course, he's removed both requests from his talk page before his last post on mine. Guess he imagines admins won't look at the history. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unforgettableid notified of WP:HUSH. Yworo, please stay off his talk page as well. Poking at him after telling him not to poke at you is not collegial or reasonable.
    Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandbox defamatory vandalism

    SuperAppletart&ViralVideoify (talk · contribs) has been adding YouTube links to the sandbox with the summary 'kaylee is a loser'. Someone please block him/her.--Launchballer 06:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone ahead and blocked... this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu t/c 06:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Keithstanton, once again

    BLOCKED
    Keithstanton has been indefinitely blocked by TParis per ARBMAC. Chamal T•C 16:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Keithstanton is back again, and is out on the same disruptive POV-crusade as before. Given this user's history, which consist of nothing but edit-warring and vandalism in areas covered by WP:ARBMAC, I'm surprised no action has yet been taken. I'd like to point out that many of his most obvious vandalism-edits have been to articles since deleted, so they don't show up in the edit history. Given that this user (whom many on ANI have suggest is a sock) is well aware of 1RR and openly abuses it and even taunts other users that they cannot deal with him because they are on 1RR [110], [111], [112]. I don't know about others, but I find a user who deliberately edit wars [113], [114] to report those who disagree for 1RR [115] and then even taunts them about it to be abusing the system. In short:

    • Keithstanton is on Wikipedia with the only purpose of pushing a particular POV in articles related to the Balkans.
    • He does so without even trying to get any consensus.
    • He edit wars, and vandalizes articles.
    • He openly taunts people that he can edit war while they cannot since they are at 1RR.
    • Based on the above, the least I think should be done is to put Keithstanton on 1RR as well, though a topic ban on everything related to the Balkans would be a more proper solution as this is an obvious case of user who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.Jeppiz (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should add that Keithstanton has already been blocked twice for his disruptive editing. Two blocks in less than 100 edits is rather revealing. He has been warned repeatedly by several admins both over his incivility and his disruptions.Jeppiz (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1RR and/or an indefinite ARBMAC topic ban. He skirts the line on edit warring but basically has a trigger finger ready for anyone who is already on 1RR. Not to mention he has a habit of grave dancing [116], [117], even going so far as to (incompetently) deny an unblock request [118], taunting[119], personal attacks [120] which I find highly distasteful. Blackmane (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor either cannot understand, or deliberately fails to understand, how we work here, and why he cannot edit in the disruptive manner he does. Previous blocks have not worked, and I honestly doubt a topic ban would have any effect either. I would therefore propose an indefinite block. GiantSnowman 11:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    the egregious nature of his edits tends to make me lean in that direction, but I didn' t want to be seen to be leading the charge. No doubt, indef is appropriate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Yeoberry

    User: Yeoberry has been engaged in a long-term edit war stretching back to August 2012 over the inclusion of the views of John B. Carpenter across a wide swath of articles. Discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy#Iconoclasm_and_related_articles back in August, and just recently WP:RSN[124] and WP:COIN[125] reached community consensus that (i) this is a matter of self-promotion by an editor across numerous Wikipedia articles and (ii) Carpenter is not a reliable source for the purposes proposed in those articles. Nevertheless, Yeoberry has persistently re-inserted the deleted material, even after such consensus was reached. He has been warned numerous times[126][127][128][129][130][131], and has been the subject of a prior discussion of the same material at and has deleted the warnings without discussion or response. After those warnings, he has persisted in re-inserting the material.[132][133][134][135][136][137] (He's actually at 3RR right now at Iconoclasm) He has previously been blocked for edit warring over an unrelated topic area.[138] This persistent, and defiant disruption and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude needs to be curbed. In the short term, a lengthy block is in order. In the longer, term a topic ban prohibiting Yeoberry from inserting material from Mr. Carpenter across Wikipedia articles is probably in order as well, as this appears to be a problem that will not go away absent sanctions of this kind. Fladrif (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The article I (yeoberry) reported on is an academic article, in a peer-reviewed journal (edited by notable scholars), and certainly relevant to pages on "iconoclasm", icons, etc. While the paragraph may could profit from some editing, Fladrif has deleted the paragraph without discussion and ignored comments in the talk page.
    Fladrif suggestion that wikipedia ban scholars from commenting on their area of specialization is absurd.174.53.88.54 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is not. Your paper has no academic or theological value. As we explained in detail to you multiple times, and in multiple fora, Google Scholar does not even detect the paper. It is useless. In addition you refuse to understand that you have a WP:COI and you are edit-warring to add your non-notable work across many articles. Now you are using the IP to avoid scrutiny and continue the longterm edit-warring of your main account across multiple articles. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see also relevant discussions at

    Where the consensus is clear that this is a COI case of an editor adding his non-notable paper across many articles using longterm edit-warring and personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't read the article but everything suggests that it is an apologia for a Protestant iconoclastic position and does not represent a position held across the field. I note for instance references to the Synod of Elvira, whose canons have been a subject of debate since the Reformation. Carpenter's paper could be presented, I suppose, as an exemplar of a certain position, but his conclusions do not enjoy, shall we say, catholic acceptance. It is also freshly published and thus certainly subject to criticism as an untested contribution to scholarship. Yeoberry's rock-headed resistance to anything except reception of the paper as an indisputable authority has wasted a great deal of time for all involved. I have to think that, if nothing else, he could find other Protestant apologists with more of a track record to express the same positions, again noting that it a position and not the consensus of the field. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the fact that Yeoberry (editing now as an IP for some reason) has ignored RSN, edit-warring to keep material in where the editor has a clear COI is unacceptable. That Yeoberry has a major COI in regard to Carpenter is IMHO indisputable - he hasn't denied it and the evidence at COIN makes it explicit. Despite discussions at COIN, RNS, article and project talk pages he continues to do as he has done since he created a new deleted article on Carpenter in 2007, push Carpenter's ideas wherever he can (a list is at COIN). Given his insistence that he is right some sort of sanction, preferably something like a ban on using material based on Carpenter's work, seems required. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict × 2) And the response of Yeoberry on their talk, includes the following appraisal of Wikipedia:

    I'm fine with discussing the issue informally with you but I'm a little frustrated that it appears what goes into wikipedia is sometimes determined by a "idiocracy".

    with edit summary: 174.53.88.54 Epiphanius Letter 51 discussed in a footnote; wikipedia is an "idiocracy". An example of the uncooperative mentality of this editor. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeoberry is a long-time POV-pushing editor with a serious COI concerning Dr. John B. Carpenter and the local church he is the pastor of. Articles he created on those topics have been deleted at AfD over Yeoberry's vociferous objections. Discussion at RSN determined that the source Yeoberry is inserting is not reliable, not' peer-reviewed, and not notable, yet Yeoberry continues in his campaign to insert the POV he favors into these articles using this unreliable source. History indicates that Yeoberry will continue to actively press this campaign, despite the reasonable policy-based objections raised by multiple editors in multiple places, and will not stop until he is blocked. A topic ban seems quite reasonable, considering the ongoing behavior and clear agenda of this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Yeoberry is so determined to impose his personal views across a wide set of articles I believe he has passed all the reasonable thresholds for taking admin action. I recommend an indefinite block, to be followed if necessary by an unblock discussion in which he will hopefully agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He has also developed a penchant of attacking other editors through use of edit-summaries. Here he accuses Doug Weller of stalking both in the edit-summary and the text: Revision as of 19:26, 4 April 2013 Yeoberry with edit summary: (answer to false accusations of "edit warring" and Doug Weller's stalking). He takes Doug's sage advice and guidance as "stalking". This is unacceptable. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest an immediate topic ban for Yeoberry on the work of John Carpenter and Eastern Orthodoxy with a stong warning that continuing this sort of behavior anywhere on WP will result in an indefinite block. LadyofShalott 19:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Has the editor ever edited constructively anywhere else? It looks like the account is trying to POV push elsewhere, like this edit warring at Southern Poverty Law Center last month (as highlighted by the initial post): [139][140][141][142][143][144]. A limited topic ban won't prevent that disruption, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he understands what he is doing. On top of the personal attacks he said (please see above): answer to false accusations of "edit warring" . That's the only thing he has been doing even as an IP, yet he does not accept doing it. This is unbelievable. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeoberry is neither stupid nor uneducated, and he understands exactly what he is doing and is doing it deliberately. The short answer to IRWolfie's question is, "No." Looking at his edit history (I have had no involvement personally with the editor until a RSN question was posed a couple of days ago) it appears that Yeoberry has never edited at any article at Wikipedia where he has not (i) used Wikipedia to push his POV and (ii) if questioned about his edits, has done anything other than edit-war, engage in personal attacks, and adamantly refuse to work collaboratively with other editors. Fladrif (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This morning at COIN, I stated that the editor was very clearly NOTHERE and was blatantly engaged in self-promotion and POV pushing across multiple articles, and that a more diplomatic editor than myself should try to explain to him the nature of the project and what is, and is not, allowed here. St. Anselm was kind enough to oblige. However, I was dismayed that the editor simply deleted St. Anselm's overtures without comment, and continued to edit-war, still insisting against consensus that his source was reliable, and accusing those opposed to his additions of being part of and "idiocracy". It is indeed probable that the editor genuinely does not understand the nature of the project and of his transgression.
    However, because of his IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, his combativeness, his disregard or even disdain for consensus and policies, and his continued edit-warring and self-promotion, it is highly unlikely that anything other than an indefinite ban will get through to him. If he can convince an adminitrator that he understands the nature of the project, and promises that he will no longer engage in self-promotion, POV pushing or using WP as an extension of his pastor's pulpit, he can be unblocked, preferably with a requirement that he be mentored. Without such reassurances, however, the editor is a detriment to the project.
    If there were any other way of obtaining such assurances without an indefinite block, I would be all for it, but in light of his behavior today, I cannot say that I am at all optimistic. He hasn't provided any indication that he intends to use WP for anything but promotion of himself, his intimates, and his own religious beliefs. That's a shame, because he probably does have a high level of familiarity with religious scholarship, which could be useful to the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The pattern seems be that he tries to shape articles to his preferred POV, argues against consensus, edit wars against consensus and violates WP:NPA. The COI is also a concern, suggesting that he is probably NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. I would be opposed to a the limited topic bans that have been proposed, and would favor something broader and more likely to have a lasting effect. - MrX 21:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In his pattern of personal attacks it is also clear that he tries to subdue the spirit of his perceived opponents. He checked my userboxes and other information which I have on my userpages, gave me a spurious tit-for-tat 3RR warning, and told me: Given your images and symbols here, there may be a COI on your part.. In other words, due solely to my userpage identifiers he divined that I have an automatic COI. This is an unfair personal attack which is based only on my pictures and userboxes. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he is harassing LoveMonkey based on his religion
    Now I Understand So, you're Eastern Orthodox and are using your position as a wikipedia editor to suppress historical evidence that may make your religious institution look bad. It makes sense now. Now, that's a real "COI". In the future, just be upfront about that.User talk:Yeoberry 04:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

    Proposal: Topic Ban

    Per LoS and StAnselm, I propose an immediate topic ban on anything related to John B. Carpenter, broadly construed with a 1RR provision in articles he has established himself. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC) WIthdrawn in favor of indef. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "Broadly construed", I assume? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic ban should have a provision of 1RR in any article given that he has established himself as a longterm and prolific edit-warrior across many articles who uses also an IP to evade scrutiny. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given these f*ck you posts today from Yeoberry at WP:COIN[146] and another editor's talkpage [147], it is clear that Yeoberry is far too intelligent, erudite and educated to be forced to muck around in the ignorance and stupidity of mere mortal Wikipedia editors. It would be a service to both him and us to sever the link permanantly. A topic ban will not suffice. An indefinite block, after which, if he deigns to grace us with reasons why his erudition should be shared with we peons, and he might then be allowed to soil his shoes walking among the unwashed heathens of Wikipedia, is the only reasonable solution. Fladrif (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Scratch that. I'd go back to indef. This person is WP:NOTHERE to cooperate with other editors. See his harassment of LoveMonkey for which I added a report just above. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Indefinite Block

    This user is NOTHERE to collaborate on building an encyclopedia, so blocking him until he can convince the community that he understands the purpose and goals of the project, and can work harmoniously with others, would be in everyone's best interest.

    User:GermanDude100

    User:GermanDude100 (Talk-Contributions) keeps on edit warring, adding some unsourced stuff about the alternative versions of several Kidz Bop compilations, see Kidz Bop 4 and Kidz Bop (album). He was asked several times to provide a source for these additions by me and by User:The Banner, AGF he has been made ​​aware of how Wikipedia works and he was even warned about his conduct, but his final reply to the related discussion was " If you keep changing the page I just gonna keep changing it. I'm right and most of the Wiki pages don't have references. GO BOTHER ANOTHER PAGE!" [148]. I'm concerned if he is just a troll or just a newbie that refuse to take the point, but surely his behaviour is becoming disruptive. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    1, 2 (WP:BROTHER), 3, 4 (WP:HARASS). I'm sure there's more. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked 3 days for edit warring and left GermanDude100 a note about about referencing and civility. His very first discussion with Materialscientist didn't look good, to begin with, so let's see if this temporary block works. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For those with OTRS access, please note 2013040510010984. Mike V • Talk 03:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anti-sock

    BLOCKED
    User in question blocked by User:Reaper Eternal as a sock. Go Phightins! 20:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Anti-sock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a brand new account and has only made two edits, both of which were to accuse User:Ministar Nesigurnosti of being a sock of banned user User:Iaaasi. No SPI launched. The name of Anti-sock makes me suspicious and I'm not really inclined to AGF and am tempted to revert the edits and tell Minstar Nesigurnosti to ignore it. And to block Anti-sock as a disruption only account. Thoughts? NtheP (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RHaworth's block of The Banner

    The Banner already has an unblock request on his page. At this point, it should be handled through the normal unblock procedures, which means one or more admin will automatically review the block. ANI should only be used if the normal procedures fail in some way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm not sure if I should post this on AN or AN/I. I'm requesting a review of RHaworth's block of The Banner. Banner had been in a dispute with Stavros1.

    RHaworth made no effort to communicate to Banner why he was blocked, let alone mention any possible policy that could be applied. I am requesting a review of this block. If the block is overturned, I also request someone leave a word of caution to RHaworth to avoid making these kind of unexplained blocks in the future. 132.3.33.79 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    All three editors have been notified. 132.3.33.80 (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    DJ8946

    It looks like Toddst1 initiated a discussion on the article's talk page. The fact that both of you reverted so many times without any penalties is staggering. Start a dialogue, request outside opinions, take it to AFD; there are several options to explore. Perhaps this is even a good time to re-examine what constitutes "notability" for a stand-alone article in the Professional Wrestling project. 68.200.150.22 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow

    Despite being blocked for such behavior in the past and warned multiple times, User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert edits into BLP articles without reliable sources. He has inserted that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen without any reliable sources stating so, going as so far as to rudely challenging me on my talk page when I reverted his edit. This user has since re-inserted the edit, again without a reliable source. This is nothing new and has been part of a troubling pattern. This user was blocked before for multiple violations of WP:BLP after multiple warnings so it's not like this is new. In fact, this user has just finished serving a 3 month ban for an unrelated violation and already has multiple warnings for violations of WP:BLP on his talk page unrelated to the Gegard Mousasi edit. In the past, administrators had floated the idea of a topic ban from WP:BLP articles but refrained with the assumption that he would review the policy and learn from his mistakes. Based on the continuation of this, I don't think this has occurred. Although, TheShadowCrow has shown some productivity in his edits, I believe the damage far outweighs the good at this point, and if you can't learn to abide by Wikipedia's policies after 6 blocks in a 1 year period, it's time some type of permanent sanction is imposed. A topic ban may now be appropriate. BearMan998 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I showed a link where the person in question calls an Iranian "my country man" so the debate was over and solved. Bear man has a serious problem of always pointing out my block log multiple times whenever we are on the same page. Most of the time he is practicly insulting and taunting me. He seems to think that he is in a position of power and that he is some how superior to me. In fact, he forgot all about the BLP in question and just started typing paragraphs about my block log. I think he is the one who needs discipline now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were blocked for three months for socking, one month for ARBAA2 infractions, one month for socking, two weeks for ARBAA2 infractions, 72 hours for BLP violations, 24 hours for personal attacks. They've been unblocked for a couple of weeks now and what I see is personal attacks, a battleground mentality, and BLP violations. I don't see much of a reason to not block for really, really long, but I'd like to hear what, for instance, Giant Snowman thinks--they've had a set of run-ins with them. [Also: edit conflict. ShadowCrow, I think you should try and keep quiet, since you're arguing for the opposition. Your BLP evidence is lousy and unacceptable.] Drmies (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the math behind me being banned for being banned in the past. I was not trying to start a conflict. Bear man is being very hostile to me and I think this is being very overlooked. And my edits with GiantSnowman have actually been peaceful and constructive. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I see three twitter links, not reliable sources, just saying. Not going to comment on blocks or anything, but just fyi, sourcing the person for claims is almost always not appropriate. I can go start the twitter account "carieunderwood" with name "Carrie Underwood" and claim to be her saying whatever I want. But that doesn't make it reliable. BearMan looks right to have removed it as unsourced. Also, now that Drmies has said everything I was thinking, pending Giant Snowman changing my mind, Support an indef block until this user tells us honestly they will refrain from editing BLP articles, and a 3 (at least) month topic ban from BLPs to start if and/or when the block is lifted. gwickwiretalkediting 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • User now seems to be a bit remorseful, there wasn't any major WP:DDMP type problems, so.. WP:ROPE applies here imo, with the knowledge that next time, it will result in a significant ban/block. gwickwiretalkediting 01:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is definitly the real twitter account of Gegard Mousasi. He uploads amateur photos of himself and has talked to the UFC President and had contact with many other MMA noteworthies on twitter with that account. I have seen twitter be used as a source before and don't see why it shouldn't be now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the specific source being challenged? If sanctions is what ye seek, ANI is thataway.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer              00:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, as stated above, I have had recent run-ins with this editor, who I feel has numerous problems. They fail to understand - or if they understand them, accept - WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V - and there is a recent (still live) thread at BLPN which might be of interest. Other than their failure to understand BLP, RS and V, they also exhibit other concerning traits, such as (admitted!) WikiHounding - check who the previous editor was on each of these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4) - as well as disruptive and POINTy editing (AKA removal of masses of content with no rationale provided, while trying to prove some pro-English bias that simply does not exist) at 1, 2, 3, 4. They also seem to display OWNership issues, especially on anything related to Armenia. So in summary, TheShadowCrow has a slight attitude problem, and also displays a troublesome lack of competency in, or respect for, key Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Given this recent behaviour, as well as the historical issues, I would propose a topic ban related to Armenian topics and/or BLPs (both broadly construed) - recent discussion with this editor leads me to think there is some small glimmer of hope, and I would not want to indef them when there is potential to turn this around. I am just about to go to be (1am UK time) but saw this and thought I'd leave a quick message, and I'll pick up the thread again tomorrow morning. GiantSnowman 01:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is paying attention to Bearman's hostility or that our edit conflict (a natural, unavoidable part of life on Wikipedia) was solved when I provided a source for what Bear wanted. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd do well to heed the advice that you stop replying here. You just proved you have a lack of competency in understanding our reliable sources policy. A twitter post (even 3) is not a reliable source for any statement, much less one like nationality. Your edit conflict (term not used right btw) was not ever resolved, because you never provided a reliable source. To GS, based on this post, would you support an indef (indefinite =/= infinite) until this user tells us they will re-read and adhere to all policies, and then a 3 month topic ban from BLPs and Armenia related articles broadly construed? gwickwiretalkediting 01:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I don't reply I'm going to be blocked! The reliable source page says, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It also says "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;", which there always is with Twitter. How can you prove that he made those statements? You can't. It also says "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;", exceptional claim is basically a big claim. You're claiming this user is of a certain nationality, based on something that looks like they *may* have said it themselves, even then it's almost a bit synthesisey. More quotes, since you seem to need them: "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." " This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Basically, twitter is never a reliable source, because you can't verify its authenticity. gwickwiretalkediting 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • How was I supposed to think all that through? The rules say there can be an exception to twitter, and you say there is no exception to twitter. I honestly thought I was adhering to the rules of Wikipedia. I didn't want to cause any trouble and I'm really sorry that I did. I'm just trying my hardest to contribute like everyone else. Since my sources are faulty, I'm putting Bear's version back and won't be changing it without a proper source. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It should be added that you made the edit without any sources and didn't come back with the Twitter reference (which doesn't really prove that he is indeed a citizen) until after the fact. And this is not the first time either. BearMan998 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would also like to add that while I appreciate the apology, we have seen this before here and here only for you to revert back to your old ways shortly there after. In fact, after your second apology, you immediately took pot shots at other editors and an admin as seen here. As GiantSnowman mentioned, I too am support of a topic ban of Armenian related topics but would add BLPs as well as nearly all the issues are limited to these two categories. BearMan998 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

            • Is the twitter account in question "verified" by twitter or a RS? If not, this is a non starter and the account can't be use for pretty much any purpose here.  little green rosetta(talk)
              central scrutinizer                              02:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's when they have the light blue star, right? No, it doesn't have that. However, a source has recognized this as his official account (HMTTT is a thing where they post tweets of fighters on their website to show whats new in the twitter world. Mousasi's account is in the edition I linked). Although I think the source is credible because it's one of the most famous and popular MMA news websites, I'm not going to take the risk and say it is.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm sorry--what are we trying to find out? Whether some tweet has a fucking blue star? This is an encyclopedia, where we should be writing articles that we wouldn't be embarrassed to publish in print. There isn't a damn thing on Twitter that we could accept as a reliable source, and I don't give a fuck whether someone acknowledges something as their official Twitter or not. RS is the name of the game, not what someone typed in on their cell phone. Also, will someone point this user to the MMA restrictions, with all this stuff about disruption and consequent blocks? Drmies (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Also, Bloody Elbow is not a reliable source. Bobby Tables (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I'm reading "User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert in the Gegard Mousasi MMA article that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen under the claim that a twitter post supported this, therefore he should be topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics and all BLPs (both broadly construed) for a period of 3 months." This discussion has stalled becauase the remedy requests do not match the provided evidence, which also lacks sufficient diffs directed towards supporting both evidence and remedy. BearMan998, if you want TheShadowCrow warned/topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics or from all BLP articles, you should focus on what you want and provided evidence with diffs to support that request. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a problem. Here is the first revert without any reliable sourcing. Here is a second revert using Twitter posts as a basis. Now this wouldn't be egregious if it wasn't for the fact that this is a continuing pattern with this user who was blocked before for multiple BLP violations, so ignorance of policy shouldn't be an excuse now. GiantSnowman has had several run-ins with this user concerning BLP articles and you can see his evidence in his fist post in this thread, and the evidence that GiantSnowman should present a clear picture. It's this recent behavior fresh off a block plus historical issues which leads credence to such a move at this point. BearMan998 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also note that TheShadowCrow was given a clear and explicit warning for persistent violations of BLP articles on June 2012 here and here. Specifically, this was for adding content with no source or poorly sourced material and edit warring to retain such content in the article to such an extent that WP:BLPSE was considered at the time. Based on the edits I mentioned above and the edits that GiantSnowman brought up, I think these violations of adding content with no or poor sources and edit warring in an attempt to retain them have continued despite multiple warnings. This is why I think formal topic ban is needed as warnings have little effect. BearMan998 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would ask right now, if the user will submit to following the WP:COI guidelines, as the user apparently has an interest in inserting the information into these articles. Also, The user should understand that Twitter may not be considered a reliable source unless the information can be backed up by another RS. Finally, the user should consider that the WP:Consensus is against adding this information from this source. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Per recent developments, no longer reasonable. gwickwiretalkediting 01:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Proposal: WP:ROPE

    This is dropped with a stern warning that the next BLP violation, or anything that looks remotely like one will earn them a stern and long block with little chance of an unblock. Basically WP:ROPE, we can hash out the length/etc. in the discussion below. gwickwiretalkediting 22:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: topic ban

    I propose that TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) is topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics and all BLPs (both broadly construed) for a period of, say, 3 months.


    Unfortunately, I have to bring this back up again as it appears that this discussion had failed to put the editor on notice that further BLP violations would result in some form of sanction. TheShadowCrow has inserted content in the Karo Parisyan article that is not supported by reliable sources and is again edit warring in an attempt to keep it in the article. This was the first edit which lacked a reliable source, specifically, the second part which states "and nearly submitted him in a kimura twice" A kimura for those of you who do not know is a joint lock which can break an opponent's arm. I removed this part as it was unsourced and a very subjective statement. TheShadowCrow inserted again here but this time with a source. However, upon reading the source, the source clearly states that Parisyan only attempted two kimuras with none of them threatening his opponent and both were never locked in so it's not even worth mentioning. I directed TheShadowCrow to review WP:STICKTOSOURCE as this is an obvious and blatant violation of this. However, instead of doing so, TheShadowCrow has since reverted it again here and also left me a message here stating his intent keep this material despite lacking a source. This is making it very obvious that the user will not adhere to policy in regards to BLP articles and is making clear the WP:COI connection that Sephiroth storm brought up above as there appears to be an obvious attempt to insert content in order to slant towards a certain view point. BearMan998 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The content is supported by a reliable sources but Bear doesn't like it. There really isn't much more to say, just see for yourself.
    I think this proves that he has lots of personal feelings, no good faith, and a superiority complex. Hopfully the Admins will see this and actually research the situation this time. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS: Is anyone claiming Sherdog.com isn't a relible source?
    WP:BLP: Unspecified
    WP:STYLE: What grammer mistake did I make?
    WP:BATTLEGROUND: Bearman is the true violator of this rule. He is constantly hostile with all of my edits, has no good faith or civilly, is harassful, and is eager to bring every single edit I make here, even though they are too minor.
    If my edit cannot be proven unconstructive, there is no reason for any type of punishment. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shadowcrow:
    1. We have been over twitter already. RS gives an acception for tweets if it is made by the topic article.
    2-3. There are plenty of comments. Be specific.
    4. Bearman is extremely hostile and uncivil towards me and you and the other Admins turn a blind eye to this. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:Cue In regards to twitter being a reliable source see WP:UGC I myself prefer (and I think most wikipedians do too) WP:UGC's view on twitter "whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." compared to WP:RS but I do agree that the policies/guidelines are somewhat confusing in regards to twitter as a reliable source
    • In reference to number four your accusations makes it seem at though you are not Assuming Good Faith
    --Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Altaic languages Warring

    I encountered the Altaic languages article yesterday, and saw that it was written to present, as settled fact, what is in reality a controversial minority opinion in comparative linguistics today -- that Korean and Japanese are part of the Altaic family.

    I rewrote the intro to give a neutral treatment of the subject -- with references -- and am now in an edit war with several of the editors responsible for the previous distorted content: User:Kwamikagami, User:CodeCat, User:Taivo.

    Here are some standard, widely referenced, highly respected works which do not include Korean and Japanese in Altaic:

    Ironically, the biased article uses Ethnologue as its source for one fact (the number of Altaic languages). But then when I point out to Kwamikagami and CodeCat that Ethnologue does not include Korean and Japanese in Altaic, they say it's not a "reliable source".

    I've repeatedly asked for what their reliable sources are — something that shows the current general opinion in the field of comparative linguistics, not just a particular scholar advancing his own theory. They refuse to answer this question (in Talk, or in their increasingly strange "undo" comments), and just keep stating that I can't alter the previous "consensus" on the article. They say the previous article doesn't need to be defended with references. I need to defend my changes. But my standard sources aren't good enough for them. And their "consensus" didn't even exist — we find an earlier visitor to the Talk page writing:

    "I agree. In the academic world, Korean and Japonic are generally NOT included in this language family. The article is misleading. --Lysozym (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)"


    Here is our discussion in on the article Talk page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Altaic_languages#Correcting_Article_to_Reflect_Leading_View_of_Korean_and_Japanese_as_Only_Hypothetically_Part_of_Altaic

    Here is the History-version of the biased state of the article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altaic_languages&oldid=548931872

    And what I'm trying to change it to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altaic_languages&oldid=548943722


    You will find my older Talk comments and edits not-signed-in, as IP 98.180.5.232 and IP 98.180.31.49. I have now created an account as User:AltaicNPOV.

    I've messaged User:Kwamikagami, User:CodeCat, and User:Taivo with "subst:ANI-notice".

    This is such an egregious example of editors using an article to promote a personal agenda, that I have to suggest that it would be in the interest of Wikipedia to block their accounts (and investigate all of their past edits).

    Thank you for your help with this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltaicNPOV (talk • contribs) 05:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=548948980"