Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Widescreen (talk | contribs) at 11:57, 18 April 2013 (→‎Topic ban proposal: corr). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Silk Road (marketplace) is an online black market which is only reachable by TOR. Editors are currently trying to do an RFC to place back the URL to access it. This website is unquestionably illegal and Wikipedia should not assist in allowing readers to access it. Previously at ANI, the decision to blacklist the url was achieved. [1] Revdel of the links is also done. Another case of it came up here.[2] Here is evidence of the revdel from that thread. [3] I'm bringing this matter here to ANI, it should probably go to the WMF as well because it may be in violation of the TOS, per this section.[4] Also... the link seems to be used as a source on the page with a dead link template, ref 18. I would think the RFC be stopped, the link removed and REVDEL as previously and a warning be made about its insertion since being blacklisted is not enough to stop its insertion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could you spell out what pare of the TOS you feel this violates? Hobit (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that us knowingly publishing links to websites that exist solely to violate the laws in virtually every country is a bad idea. We do the same for copyright infringing sites, we cover the material but deny links to material we know is illegal. If there was some encyclopedic value in publishing the link, I might be more prone to accept it, but there isn't. Also, the site is accessible via TOR only, making it a burden to verify, so the potential for phishing abuse is much higher than for other types of URLs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflicted/edited) And aside from that, the fact that WP:ELNEVER is against insertion of blacklisted sites, that the link is Revdel by an oversighter and concensus is already against in previous discussion? If the fact it is a black market and illegal by its very nature, then how about WP:IAR to allow for common sense? If WMF remains silent about the matter, that is. Though a second argument is that Wikipedia's previous hosting of the material has resulted in known cases of phishing which hit the blogs, reddit and such. By the nature of the garbled url, even if it was somehow valid and of use, it has proven to be a target. By all accounts there is nothing justified about having it for encyclopedic purposes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know an RFC can't override other policy considerations, but I'm not sure how to explain that at this RFC any more than I already have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've linked back to this discussion at that RFC. Perhaps we would be better to create a proposal somewhere outside of that RFC to settle the issue of our liability and TOS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Once this is dealt with, or if someone could, I think a heavy revdel is required as the url has numerous reinsertion and deletions including links to websites that host the url. Not sure where those are concerned... including [5] and this one containing it in the URL field (being removed by Dragon Booster) [6]. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've RevDel'ed everything that had the *onion address, per the previous ANI discussion. I didn't with the "how to" video, and it wasn't needed. Of course, we aren't a how-to website, so reverting it out was proper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I have a feeling it won't be the last time it appears, but it is appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made it clear I will block anyone that adds it, based on the previous ANI discussion, unless a consensus forms that overturns that previous decision. I'm not a big fan of preemptively threatening a block, but this is one of those times when I felt it might be best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you opined in the RFC, did you not, Dennis? It would be better if somebody else wielded the big cudgel... I'm sure there are dozens of volunteers, this enforced Revision Deletion seems an easy call, essentially commercial promotion of a black market site which is anyways inaccessible as an ordinary link... Carrite (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not involved with that article as an editor, so WP:INVOLVED isn't at play. My comment in that RFC was the same as here and my participation is one of an outsider. I did see someone added back a link to an unreliable site that explains how to connect to that website, which fails WP:EL and WP:RS, but I will allow someone else to fight that battle. The larger issue isn't the single edit, it is the policy ramifications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, NOW I see why that editor seeks adding that gwern link back into the article, he owns that site (per his name and comments on the talk page) so he has a COI and keeps adding back his own domain to the external links. I'm not going to revert it back out since he thinks it was retaliation, but would ask someone else to look at it and determine if it meets WP:EL as a reliable source. Obviously, I would argue that it does not and is spam in this context. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As this person who filed the RfC, I wouldn't find it unreasonable if someone closed it, since it seems any consensus there has been deemed irrelevant due to policy considerations. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, there is enough dispute over that, that we need a stronger consensus to firmly establish that fact. To me, it is crystal clear that you don't add in links to websites that we have created filters explicitly to bar, but there is a shortage of participation there, particularly by experienced admin. I've considered raising the issue for formal discussion at WP:AN, but not sure if that is the proper venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC should not be closed, while I have upped my stakes by responding to the issues with additional information about legality of the site and its inability to be seized, the more it becomes clear that the website poses a risk to Wikipedia. I do not think this matter needs to go to the WMF, and given the nature of it, we seem capable of using existing policy for this and good discussion rather then opt for the 'thermonuclear option'. If it goes there, it goes there, but a response is not even a sure thing. It is best the community decide this as it typically does. And... the link is still visible in many of the pages in its history including the phishing links. Not sure if they should be Revdel out before the RFC closes or after it closes, not sure how the policy cuts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are multiple problems, each of which should exclude the link, in my eyes. I would image that WMF wants to look at it, and I wouldn't be surprised if Alison drops a note. This is fine, I think the legal consideration is valid and by all means, the WMF has an interest (and a gaggle of lawyers) in this, as technically we work for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, technically, we don't work for them, as the WMF insulates itself from the potentially legally culpable contributions of its volunteer editors by defining itself as the provider of infrastructure and the promulgator of basic policies, and not the "employer" of those editors. Our edits are not "work for hire" - we each own the copyright on our own contributions, although we automatically license them for use when we upload them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is forum-shopping. Discuss it there, not here. Bovlb (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is not forum shopping. There is an ongoing RFC and there are broader policy considerations that merit discussion. An RFC on an article talk page can't override existing policy, for example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an RFC or other discussion raises broader policy considerations, then it is appropriate to post a neutrally-worded notice elsewhere encouraging people to participate. The original posting here is definitely not neutrally-worded and, if anything, discourages participation in the RFC. That seems to me like a clear-cut violation of our forum-shopping policy and should therefore be discouraged. If you feel that the RFC seeks to override existing policy, then you should make that argument in the RFC. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Bovlb, you're wrong. This discussion here will need to continue based on the policy issues. Stop insisting otherwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out a flaw in my argument would be more likely to convince me than bald claims and autocratic commands. Bovlb (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The flaw is that the link being sought to be included at the RFC points to a site engaged in illegal activities (certainly under Florida law, which is where Wikipedia's servers are located). The fact that it would even be discussed as a potentially includeable link boggles the mind. The only need that I can see for an RfC would be to consider a policy that all links to sites hidden behind proxies should be excluded. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    KahnJohn27

    The user above name KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been committed a series a behavioral issues during a clash of reliable sources over box-office gross references as seen on this section on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as well as this part on WP:FILM. He has been doing disruptive editing on several film articles and replace sources from Box Office Mojo with a less reputable source name Boxoffice.com on what he believes that he doesn't consider BOM (Box Office Mojo) reliable. The sole reason for this is that in some cases Box Office Mojo has not included the foreign grosses in its summary total on various films such as Red Dawn, which the foreign gross only shows n/a as well as some other films recently, including The Call, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, Side Effects, The Man with the Iron Fists, 21 & Over and Snitch. While it seems to be good faith edit, his behavioral edits at some of our talk pages over the issue isn't really polite and friendly-community at anyway. This part of my talk page is one those examples, as well as the talk pages of MarnetteD on this part and Betty Logan as well as the two noticeboard sections above. According to many on RS/N on this issue, BOM is said to be the most reliable sources for box-office gross as seen here and get news references on Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. We don't even know if boxoffice.com gets any outside news reference in anyway. Sure, there is conflicting reports on BOM and boxoffice.com on production budget costs and box-office gross numbers on various movies, but it said that BOM is one of our most realible sources at this time. This issue was already discuss in the archeives section here. KahnJohn27 continues to stick to his opinions and rashly berates us on our talk pages and the noticeboards at us for contradicting accuracy on worldwide box-office gross and accusing most of us of such violations, not to mention he's a high-school student as well and his English grammar isn't really the best as well. We tried to be reasonable and polite with him, but he just won't stop being disruptive.

    All I asking is to do something with him before this dispute with him gets any worse. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified user, which you should have done. Blackmane (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already told that they Red Dawn, Incredible Burt Wonderstone etc are not the only examples of BOM's unreliabilty. There are several other movies where this problem occurs. However I have never said that BOM should be completely discounted. Not only that I also proved that even where this so-called "n/a" problem is present, I have also proved that the total foreign box office gross is incorrect in case of many movies like Dredd and Man With the Iron Fists. And no I am not letting it go and the status of it being reliable or unreliable will be decided by the discussion. Because these users seem to be making up the same reason of BOM not updating their figures. How are we to believe what they are saying. I think until now except including some times I have been mostly civil. I've only passed one insult to you and I.already had apologised for that. If my behavior seems to be combative to you just because I do not mince words then that is a problem with your attitude not mine. I never personally attacked you and only reverted your edits at The Call and Incredible Burt Wonderstone once. Also after that I accepted it. You have forgotten that even if the consensus seems to be going in your favor reverting someone's edits still counts as edit-warring because consensus has not been reached yet. If this is a strong-arm tactic to stop me being able to discuss this matter then I'm afraid that will not work because that is not the way things work around here. Also I ask what is wrong with giving proof of innocence? You kept saying that I have combatic behavior so the only options I had was to show a proof of innocence that I didn't. Also you should know that Tenebrae deleted my comments on his talk page saying "rants of a high school user". I ask from which angle is this civil behavior? Unfortunately it's not me but you who have constantly induldged in combatic and implotic behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    KahnJohn27, some of us are real sick and tired of your disruptive behavior over your issue over BOM, Boxoffice.com and such. You've been bashing at us when we tried to be reasonable to you, but you continue to be disruptive and uncivil, not to mention you bully at us. You also been accusing with such violations that we never violated anything on this site, regardless of what you think. Do you think your bullying is going to help. It's not going to help out on this. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to bully you. If I was trying to bully you instead of saying that everyone's opininions matters I would have said that I am right and you're wrong. Also I myself said that only by contacting the sources we can find out the truth. I don't think that is combative behavior at all. If you think my behavior is combative then it can only mean two things. Either you're misinterpreting my statements completely. MarnetteD said that anyone who says "they're trying to do.the right thing" is trying to enforce his opinion. That's a gross representation of my statement. Apart from that what you were calling as rants on his and Tenebrae's talkpage when in actual I was trying to prove myself innocent. I had particpated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games here ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_97#Statistic_Brain) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources here ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_7#Statistic_Brain). They never even said anything about any disruptive behavior and they were perfectly cooperative me. Also you say that my grammar is incorrect while you have made such mistakes yourself. That is no reason for discounting someone's opinion. Tenebrae called my comments as rants of high school student. I ask what kind of behavior is that? You have been induldging in combative behavior yourself. I agree I have been rash many times but I still have shown respect towards everyone's opinion. If I really have been combative then my punishment will be decided by the admins. I assure you that I'm not bullying anyone but simply speaking the truth. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the reason that this dispute happened in the first place. You have been combative about the box-office issues and such. boxoffice.com is questionable at this point and I don't think it has any reliable outside online news reference that we know of. BOM has outside outline news references on The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Don't you see? Box-office numbers and production budget costs differ in those sites, regardless of whatever it says n/a on the foreign gross and such, so we don't know whatever or not boxoffice.com is reliable and accurate, whatever it's domestic and foreign gross. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please note that BattleshipMan seems to have a habit of always exaggerating matters. I'm not trying to bully anyone but am saying what I see. I don't think statements like "KahnJohn27, some of us are real sick and tired of your disruptive behavior over your issue over BOM, Boxoffice." can be classified as civil. If you want to talk Boxoffice. com and BOM please talk about it on reliable sources noticenoard. Abd anyway unlike Box Office Mojo BOM doesn't have this n/a problem. Also Hollywood Reporter and Variety do not use BOM as a source for Red Dawn, Texas Chainsaw Massacare 3D and all other films where BOM has provided incorrect figures. Can you not see that? We all are trying to reach a peaceful solution and I humbly thank you for that. That's why I ask that please forget past transgressions and let's work towards making Wikipedia better. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, the irony! "always exaggerating matters" Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, you may does some good faith editing, but it is not with the consensus that we should use boxoffice.com yet. You may think your not trying to bully anyone, but you are disruptive editor, whatever you realized or not and you bash us for reverting your edits on film articles. Good faith edits are not always right and no one can take someone's word for it. Sometimes someone can unintentionally cause an edit war, like you did with some of film articles and can put stress on other editors. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't wanna blame anyone but in actual it was MarnetteD and yourself who had reverted the edits at Incredible Burt Wonderstone and The Call respectively. Even though I agree that at that time consensus was not in my favor but it was already known that a clear decision still won't have been possible because it couldn't be ascertained why was this n/a problem there on BOM and the user knew also that admin intervention was to be requested. Also please note that User:MarnetteD has been accused of having combative behavior on ymy talk page. Technically I think it's more of her fault and if you think that I had participated in an edit warring then the blame for triggering it in first place should go on Marnette and you too while the discussion was going on. I hope you do not mistreat this an insult. Because this is what had really happened. Apart from that edit war means indiscriminately reverting each other's edits. However since we have reverted edits of each other 3 or 4 times I am not in favor of calling it an edit war. Also I'll like you to note about 2 of the 4 users who have said that my behavior is combative and implosive actually themselves behaved in such manner. Although user Tenebrae has ony gotten into once MarnetteD on the other hand has a much more serios combative behavior and from what I've seen on her talk page she has resorted to such behavior with multiple users and something must be done about this. I know and confirm that your's and Betty Logan behavior has been civil. That's why I request you to please ask MarnetteD to stop behaving in such a disrputive way with editors who oppose her view. I will be highly obliged. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrelated issue; should be in its own discussion
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    While it neither has any interest or relevance for me to comment on any of the above, I do have a concern about the general attitude of User:MarnetteD, which I want to add here in support of KahnJohn27. My brief experience (perhaps all too brief?) with her was not too pleasant. But it need not have been that way.

    You can see at the end of the section of the talk page HERE I'm taking the time to try to explain something as genuinely and as clearly as possible, which subsequently gets offhandedly dismissed as a "Wall of text" (by the way a few paragraphs does not a "wall of text" make, check HERE for a REAL wall of text and see how User Acroterion has shown considerable patience and fairness beyond what I would consider the "call of duty"). Having never heard the expression "wall-of-text" before the discussion with MarnetteD, I was deeply offended, as it completely missed the points I was trying to make. The discussion ended by another user actually providing some constructive input in the form of references, which is what MarnetteD should have done from the beginning. I think user MarnetteD is impatient, inconsiderate and ill-mannered and needs some diplomacy skills. Up until now I was considering my run-in with her a personal matter that I had to deal with myself, in my own way, under the restrictive umbrella of Wikipedia, but now I see she treats others the same way. I see also she removes comments on her talk page that happen to disagree with her point of view (check the revision history of her discussions)! Its no longer a personal matter, its a civil matter, which should be of interest to Wikipedia as a whole.

    I was reluctant to bring this to the attention of Wikipedia admin before because I just wanted to take it on the chin and chalk it up to experience, and frankly I didn't think the "abuse" was serious enough to report. I may have been wrong, now that I see its happening elsewhere. Its not just about me any more, its about other users as well. I added a comment to her talk page as part of KahnJohn27's discussion there, and she now has removed the whole discussion! See how she compared me to an "insect" in her edit summary (see the revision history)! Ha ha! What stupendous arrogance! I was providing an opportunity for "talking" on her "talk" page, and she then resorts to personal attack! It seems she's incapable of taking any constructive criticism, let alone actually responding to it in a civilized and humane manner! As a senior editor she has a responsibility (like all editors) to be more gracious with newer editors such as myself and KahnJohn27, and not be so dismissive, since it is well accepted that newer editors can add just as much value (sometimes more, with a fresh perspective) as established editors do. Newer editors should be encouraged, not dismissed. I've only started editing in the last few months (despite having an account for 3 years), learning about policy as I go along, but not unsympathetic to those also are still learning. I would have left Wikipedia after her dismissive attitude, had it not been for the timely and more encouraging intervention of other editors. -- Jodon | Talk 15:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to add my voice to those with concerns about KahnJohn27's disruptive behavior, which includes passive-aggressive bullying and threats. He already made a baseless claim against me at this noticeboard, which an admin quickly closed, and now he's threatening BattleshipMan at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com ("I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI.") KahnJohn27 completely doesn't seem to understand that beating a dead horse, bludgeoning other editors with huge, rambling walls of text with poor grammar and spelling, and digging in his heels so tightly that he keeps dragging other editors to several different pages now is disruptive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Tenebrae. Beating a dead horse and bludgeoning editors with a huge amount of text and forum shopping counts as disruptive editing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I must concur with Tenebrae's assessment of this problematic editor. To get a full understanding of what several of us have had to put up with you will need to read through this thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Which box office number site that should be use for references. Here are a few items that need to be pointed out
    1. KahnJohn 27 first post includes this statement "I'm not gonna just sit and let two inexperienced users decide which source is reliable on the basis of some worthless reason like publication in trade sources. You don't know what a reliable source actually means." You will note the combative tone, the insult to the two editors that had already posted there and the attitude about our policy regarding WP:RSs.
    2. K implies with this statement "I'm not here to discuss who is honest or not" that everyone who has posted there is being dishonest. K again implies that all who disagree with K are inexperienced and that the reason that K has used that insult is "Why does teacher sometimes insult his student. Not to actually insult him but to clearly show them their mistakes." That never worked for any students that I have been around and it certainly won't work for long time and experienced Wikipedia editors.
    Please read the rest of the thread to see other examples. K was then recommended to get input from the RS noticeboard and began this thread Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com. Again you will need to read through the various posts there but it should be noted that after K was not getting the responses K wanted K went on a spree [7] of posting [8] on the individual [9] talk pages of editors who had disagreed with K. Some of us got fed up with the continued insults and removed the threads from our talk pages which we have every right to do.
    In my very first post I had suggested that K not turn this situation into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. That was ignored and K's behavior since then has hit most of the items in that section of WP:ISNOT as well as several others on that policy page. MarnetteD | Talk 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you suggest we should do at this point? BattleshipMan (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    More unrelated
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    An apology from MarnetteD for her dismissive attitude to me, at least, would go a long way. I don't think I'm asking too much. -- Jodon | Talk 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    About BattleshipMan I stand by what I said. Not only he is continuously harassing me and he himself is beating a dead horse. If he continues this harrasment then there is no choice at all left for me. Continuously blaming someone is direct bullying. Especially WP:RS noticeboard which is no place for commenting about someone's If my remarks seems to be passive bullying then I suggest all uses MarnetteD to look at her behavior first. I have read her talk page and her seems to be the most disruptive. This user is constantly bullying other editors. Apart from that I agree my behavior is rash but I don't think it is combative or either disrespectful. I am now carefully selecting my words. Apart from that the point of a debate or consensus is to take all points. After passing that inexperienced insult I haven't passed any personal or bullying remark. I would like to know BattleshipMan and Betty Logan to know that the reason I insulted them was because I really thought they were new users. I sincerely apologise for that remark. A bullying or combative user never uses words like "please", "I apologise sincerely", "I accept my mistake", "I request you to". Also as I have already said that you are always misrepresenting my statements. I ask how does "I'm only trying to do the right thing" idms enforcing opinion. Yes I am trying to do the right thing by putting forward points with concrete proof. According to rules of consensus there is nothing wrong in disproving other's statement when you have proof for it. And last but not least I sincerely ask what does poor grammar have to do anything in determining someone's behavior or that their edits are in good faith or disruptive? KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also what users are calling as rants or wall-text or spree they are merely just proof of my innocence. There is nothing wrong with proving yourself innocent no matter how long or cubersome the proof is. Removing somebody's comments as rants is however actual combative behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, KahnJohn, these editors are not beating a dead horse, but rather, trying to help you understand how policy works, and to show you that consensus is running against you. They've devoted an extraordinary amount of time and effort to doing so, long past what many editors would do in these circumstances, and yet you continue to push the issue beyond the point where there's any possibility of the resolution you demand.

    I stumbled into this discussion and the one below as an outsider, and from that perspective, have real concerns about KahnJohn's ability to understand what constitutes a reliable source, and what doesn't. From my perspective, and for what that's worth, what we have here is one inexperienced editor who lacks much understanding of the basics of Wikipedia policy and so, when challenged, takes on a battleground stance on an issue. His arguments in the discussion cited by MarnetteD remind me of WP:SOUP argument; he's decided his source is right and he's going to go hunting for what he perceives as errors on the part of the established source, most easily explained, and attempts to use them to discredit the source as a whole in favor of the one he prefers. Meanwhile, he remains blind to the problems with the source he favors when they are pointed out to him. Worst, he goes through periods where he will calm down and discussion reasonably, then suddenly his rhetoric becomes aggressive and threatening (a threat couched in polite language is still a threat), which is what got us here. This user requires some decisive administrative action, perhaps a short cooling-off block and/or topic ban, and at the very least, a mentor. Otherwise, his future looks bleak, and will be littered with a succession of discussions such as this. --Drmargi (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already intervened on both KahnJohn's talk page and the RS noticeboard. We will not be taking administrative action at this time. Also, note that 'cool-off' blocks are not sanctioned by policy.
    I'll discuss the rest of KahnJohn's comments on their talk page when I'm home from work. m.o.p 17:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can say is that I am not threatning anyone and nor I have calming down or agressive periods. Repeatedly blaming someone is also a kind of bullying.Also as I have already said that my behavior has been most civil. An editor with disruptive behavior doesn't accept his mistakes. I still think that some of the editors themselves seem to have conflicting behavior and I cannot be blamed for it. It is their own responsibility. You cannot say that user caused you to become impolite. It is your own responsibility. I think the admins themselves know that I remained civil most of the time no matter how much abuse was directed to me. Apart from that I still stand by the fact that BOM hasn't been proved reliable in those cases where it's foreign gross is inaccurate or incorrect. A consensus always needs proof. A combative user doesn't respect others opinions. However I have every time even though the users complaining about me haven't sometimes. I think that's all I can say about this topic. I trust your judgment. Apart from that as I have already accepted my behavior is rash but I don't think it's combative. Last but not least I have earned praise from 4 editors including m.o.p. for my respectful and helpful nature and always standing by the truth. I am not trying boast about myself but stating the fact that I'm atleast not disruptive. After the discussion of Boxoffice.com and is over I will take a break from editing Wikipedia atleast for 3 months except grammar corrections or where I think I really need to do something. I will try to focus myself on improving my behavior and make it more polite and less rash. I can atleast promise that but I cannot guarantee the end results. I really hope you understand that. But my behavior will be somewhat more refined I can promise. I trust your judgment. Thank you very much. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This post above combined with this [10] response to m.o.p on K's talk page show that absolutely nothing has changed. This rather extraordinary statement "I'm sorry m.o.p. but I cant back off from this issue. I hope you understand it's not because of my pride or it is correct according to me. It's no more just about Boxoffice.com or BOM but also bringing about positive change to Wikipedia and if I alone have to do it I'll still do it.". This combined with the diatribe above fulfills almost all of the items at WP:NOTHERE and basically confirms all of the concerns expressed by most of the editors involved in this thread. The continued WP:PAs are tiresome but unlikely to stop. MarnetteD | Talk 02:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good for you. As it can already be seen that MarnetteD has always been misrepresenting other's statements. Apart from that yes I cannot quit because of bullies like you on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong in saying that I waNot only that the only person who in actual has combative behavior is MarnetteD. There is nothing wrong in trying to bring positive change to Wikipedia. That is the goal of every editor. And yes if I alone have to do I still will do it. As stated in WP:BOLD and near every other policy "just do it". And so you do not misrepresent that I mean to say bring the positive change and every other editor do so. Not only that yes I will try to improve my behavior. There's nothing wrong in that. Apart from that there's no reasoning with you. So I don't think there's no point in keep on trying to explain to you. Still thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    KahnJohn, do you see the irony of saying if I alone have to do I still will do it? You do understand what "consensus" means?
    Added to that, BOLD is a guideline, not a policy, and clearly within the guideline it says but please be careful. In fact, right after the phrase you quote above ~ just do it ~ comes (With civility, please!), which seems to have slipped past your attention. Not that you are being specifically rude, but the walls of text, even "proving innocence", can be uncivil, and ignoring consensus, even if you believe it to be mistaken, is definitely so.
    If you are utterly convinced that everyone but you is wrong, i.e. that consensus is mistaken, the answer is to work to change consensus, not to ignore it. You'll find it easier ~ not to mention more productive ~ in the long run. Cheers, LindsayHello 05:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said I'll do it alone I wasn't at all referring to the consensus. What I have meant as even if eveyone becomes wrong and tells me to just back down by bullying me I will stand by the truth. Apart from pointing out the obvious I think that it is known by everybody that sometimes we cannot ascertain what is a user really impying. For example sometimes a praise is an insult which is a real irony. Yes I have tried to make the discussion more productive. Wikipedia policies always say to try bring a positive change which I have tried very hard to. I have not said that I will try to keep on trying to prove BOM unreliable. No I have instead said that I will support the decision of the consensus if it is fair. Honestly to say I still think it is somewhat unfair but still most of it seems to be fair to me. The statement "I'll alone do if it have to" is the same as saying "never ever give up except to convictions of honour and good sense" said by William Churchill. Also please not that he also used the word enemy but I am clearly not saying that anybody is my enemy here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you really do not see the irony....let's quote this again: "....if eveyone (sic!) becomes wrong and tells me to just back down by bullying me I will stand by the truth...". Could it be that if virtually everybody else is saying you are wrong....well, that there might be some truth to it. We do not have a truth (TM), really. And telling you you might be wrong is not bullying, either. Lectonar (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, KahnJohn, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you're beginning to run in circles and it's - forgive me for being blunt - a bit of a time-suck for everyone involved, including you. Where in MarnetteD's message above was your statement misrepresented? The editor merely expressed an opinion, which is perfectly acceptable.
    I understand that you feel like you're being targeted, but I keep getting sent on wild goose chases through editor's contributions because you accuse them of being combative/bullying you/misrepresenting you/etc - then, in the end, nothing substantial shows up. Unless you can provide a diff of statements you think are unfair, you need to focus on more-productive things. It may sound a bit bleak, but a thicker skin is a benefit on Wikipedia. If someone makes a blatant (and I mean blatant) personal attack on you, then we can do this dance. Until then, let's stop playing "he said she said" and work on the actual content dispute.
    Please don't take this personally. I am not trying to shut you down. As I've said multiple times, I understand that you're editing with Wikipedia's best interests in mind. And I'll do everything I can (within reason) to help you if you're feeling shaky about some policies or need a hand. In return, all I ask is that you tone it down a notch. And, if this is causing you real-life stress, remember that you're always welcome to step away for a while - take a Wikibreak, go for a walk. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back. m.o.p 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not running in any circles. Because I already said that it was not related to the discussion. Also please note that my decision to never quit inspite of difficult circumstances and sometimes bullying by other editors and always standing by truth. Apart from that I don't blame anyone for being blunt. They deserve praise. Aside from that MarnetteD clearly misrepresented my statements when she clearly knew what I meant when I said "I can't back down because somebody tells me to" that some editors(only 2 actually) tried to bully me and that's why this statement was made in the first place. Also this is not the ony time she has misrepresented my statements and she has shown agressive and rude behavior. Aside from that I sincerely thanks m.o.p. for caring. Yes I agree this discussion has put some stress to me mostly because of the direct bullying attitude of some editors and their continuous harrasment. Still I think it's better to forgive everyone no matter how wrong anyone might be. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, a thicker skin will be highly beneficial if you can manage it. If someone says something that bugs you, it's easiest to just let it go - if they continue harassing you, you may ask for help. But, in this case - and trust me, I've seen a lot of disputes over my eight years here - it isn't that big of a deal.
    As for the stress, try not to let anything get to your head. At the end of the day, you are a volunteer, and you are free to step away whenever things get too hectic. Just remember; try to focus on editing, ignore any offhand remarks, do your best to discuss civilly when necessary, and you'll do just fine. m.o.p 07:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from that yes I still stand by what I said about my statement because that is what I really meant. I am honest and will always stand by what I say. Ofcourse my behavior is impolite and rash which I myself accepted that but I wonder why most editors nearly always forget to mention that. I think I have said all I have to say. Apart from that I think my agreement with the consensus says everything else. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    KahnJohn, do you have some type of connection with boxoffice.com that is leading you to crusade to the last man to get it approved as a source? I can see no other basis for your position - it is not benefiting Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am not connected to any source and neither biased towards any source. I only acted upon what I saw. Also MarnetteD had also represented another of my statements much earlier in this discussion. I had not noticed about this earlier. The statement was "I'm not here to discuss who is honest or not." MarnetteD said that by this statement I (KahnJohn27) was implying that everyone posting on the discussion was dishonest. However it can clearly be seen that that was not what I meant by the statement. I only said that we should'nt be discussing who is honest or not and should instead focus on trying to solve the discussion and it can be easily seen about that from the statement. I won't like to start any blame game again but it was a gross misrepresentation of my statement. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aichik

    Myself, and several other users, have been having issues with Aichik (talk · contribs) since (around) February. I'm not completely involved in this, but I have overseen many of the instances and I was asked by Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs) to help in filing a case (as he is not familiar), so he would be the one to explain in detail. To reference, a summary of events written by Jivesh last month can be viewed here and here. The latest problem took place on Madonna (entertainer). Aichik has an extreme issue with incivility and personal attacks. It has come to the point where it has become too much; except, for me, that was months and months ago, at him calling Jivesh a misogynist. Another discussion to see would be this GAR page, which he actually removed some of my words such as "Oh my god", "goddamn" and "hell" as personal attacks. I will be notifying all users involved in disputes with Aichik to comment here, as I can not speak for them myself.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your help Status. It seems that Aichik always narrowly escapes after directing personal attacks. Committing a mistake is not the problem but repeating the same mistake is. I avoided replying to him for a certain period of time but till how long can we ignore him? How about warning the one who "poisons the atmosphere and disinclines collegiality" and stop "let(ting) the petty insults pass by without acknowledging them?" After all, we are all human beings. How far are we expected to be noble? And he is not among those who can change (in my opinion). How can you not see your own mistakes and instead ask (not once but twice already for me to be blocked? [11] [12] Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from somewhat involved Binksternet. Note that Aichik has recently been warned by Kww as the result of a February 24 discussion at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Personal attacks from Aichik (talk · contribs). There, The Bushranger said that if there was another instance of something as bad as the "misogynist" attack, then Aichik would be blocked very quickly. I am not seeing a more recent attack which is as bad as that, but I am seeing some attacks that are less severe, more like insulting, belittling attitude. A sampling: "Wow, IndianBio continuing in his arrogant tone without actually helping matters"[13]. "You're acting like a cantankerous husband"[14]. Aichik said my reverting of news about a non-notable boyfriend of Madonna's was "a clear example of ageism"[15], which I assumed was a personal attack, though I did not bother to respond in kind. IndianBio threw that ageist comment back at Aichik several times, which I thought was a response based on emotions and frustration.
      I have looked at Aichik's recent work on Wikipedia and I think the editor is abrasive in personal style but correct in targeting the poor writing style in pop music articles that we have been promoting to GA. (For instance, the GA version of Beyoncé bio includes this grammar failure: "Knowles is one of the regarded sexually appealing artists in the industry.") Thus, I would caution Aichik to work more smoothly with other editors, to refrain from browbeating them or talking down to them. I would encourage Aichik to continue the cleanup of pop music articles, but to please treat other editors with respect. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I actually completely forgot about the other AN. Thanks for pointing that out. It appears I don't have a very good memory...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only saying something as bad as "misogynist" should not be the big issue. I would also like to pint out that Aichik frequently write words "less severe, more like insulting, belittling attitude" and the frequency should also count. It is not necessary to drink poison at once; you can also consume it little by little but the outcome remains the same - death. That's the best way I can explain my views. Aichik may not use words as bad or worse than "misogynist" but he continuously misbehaves. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm kinda baffled as to what exactly is Aichik's problem that he/she cannot check these back-handed comments about every edit the person makes? As Binksternet pointed out, the editor is good in pointing out the problems occurring in the music related articles, but adds an extra unnecessary personal attack along with it. And seriously this needs to stop because it undermines the discussion to take place, aggravating other editors (including me, Jivesh etc) and leads to a mess. If you cannot edit in good faith and keeping a neutral tone, then no-one would be interested right? I hope he/she sees the err of their ways, else I believe administrative action should be taken. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My finger constantly hovers over the block button when I review Aichik's edits, but he never quite crosses the threshold in my eyes. I will have no objection to any other admin blocking him.—Kww(talk) 06:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's one more belittling word Aichik used on Jennie--x's talk page: "darling", employed not lovingly but condescendingly. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the accused. First off, Binsternet, that word to Jennie is taken out of context. Jennie and I have been posting notes to each other back and forth for some time on various topics around the Beyoncé's article, and she attempted to end the conversation (though not with even close to the tone that Status, Jivesh and IndianBio employ when they try) by deleting my referenced edit, calling it based on a "minority point of view". So I wrote back without touching her edit, "That can be used to take out most of Wikipedia's content, darling. Don't use it as a hammer to drive your own preferences" out of frustration.

    Now, for everything else, I've been warned on every one of these instances mentioned above, some several times in ways other editors could venture to call overkill. For Status, Jivesh, and IndianBio to not admit to their own indiscretions, their own building up of the poison, is completely intellectually dishonest but somewhat expected, given the way I've been treated by all three. (Oh, wait, Kwww included here too for not employing his criticality to anyone else involved and showing up randomly threatening to block me, "My finger constantly hovers over the block button" being his go-to expression.) It is a complete lie on Jivesh's part to write has been ignoring me, his commenting "I avoided replying to him for a certain period of time but till how long can we ignore him?" is completely laughable. See this this this and this. He's made it a habit to stalk and goad editors who don't agree with him since I got him warned by [Kwww here], or since perhaps I first touched his fault-ridden Beyoncé contributions.

    • I'm not so convinced that "darling" was delivered in any but a condescending tone, intended to insult the target, to diminish her contribution. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even bother to read what I just wrote, Binksternet? Not one word is in there about it being NOT condescending. That's not the point. Like you generously did with above with IndianBio's weird, over-the-top retaliation against my "personal insult" "directed at" you, I put what you take out back into its context. It's really digging, Binsternet since here it's from a thread that you didn't participate one iota in: Beyoncé not Madonna. Jivesh himself would [cut you down for mixing the two].--Aichik (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, completely uninvolved I do not find a diff posted here that would should Aichik breaking WP:NPA. A bit heated language at times, definitely, though that seems to go for those who disagree with him as well. If there are diffs with clear violations, please post them. Otherwise I would agree with Kww that Aichik (and others) would do well to think about WP:CIVIL, but I see nothing that would warrant a block.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would you define a personal attack? [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
    And I don't appreciate him asking for me to be blocked. [21] [22]
    And according to him, I I have lowered Wikipedia's quality across the board. I NEVER asked for recognition for my work but what the hell is this? My work is now being questioned in such an unpleasant way? Telling other users that I have lowered Wikipedia's quality across the board? There is a limit to all nonsense. Such remarks hurt a lot. According to him, there are far too many Beyonce articles on Wikipedia and he does not like it because Jennifer Lopez and Diana Ross don't have? Pathetic!!! He even masked the information he removes through his edit summaries. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jivesh, I've had a quick look at the diffs. Quite frankly, you seem to be at least as guilty of breaking WP:CIVIL. I would recommend both Aichik and you to seriously consider Wikipedia's guidelines.Jeppiz (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jivesh calm down as Jeppiz says. Coming to Aichik, reviewing each and every of your edits and summaries and even each and every one of your comments in this as well as the previous ANI, I'm sorry to say, you have no understanding of civility policy and you are borderline making personal attacks to any user you interact with. As Kww said, you kinda are smart to remain within a tolerance level, but well again the question begets, how much is tolerable? I'm not saying he/she should be blocked or anything but this is a serious case of misbehavior that needs to be checked. Respect others and you would get equal respect Aichik. Learn to apologize for your behavior. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, Status, like, I can't write on your wall like anyone else on Wikipedia can, whoa, step back. Maybe if I'd taken your threats and shouting more seriously, I would've been on there sooner, but really I prefer to edit than to argue with people who don't know how to communicate. IndianBio, you should be the first to cite civility policy when you went nutty on me when I mentioned ageism to Binkernet. You never asked for an apology then, and finally, here after a ton of drama, you've finally calm down make yourself look humble in front of a worldwide audience. The process shouldn't take this long. You've obviously worked without an apology from me so you can continue. Life goes on, let's see what other changes need to be made in these articles that the world relies on. I hope we can be civil, but if we can't it's no big deal to me, I don't know you and frankly, the 9th and the 10th times you harp on the same stuff about me you don't sell yourself well to me I'm afraid. --Aichik (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you can't, as I previously already warned you to stay off my talk page. And even more so with such hostel behavior. I am not searching for an apology from anyone (I wouldn't expect one anyway); I was asked by Jivesh to file this ANI. We don't have a problem (that I'm aware of, at least), so I'm not sure why you are now bringing this on me. Please, show me my "threats"; I'm beyond curious. If you prefer to edit, I'm quite confused as to why every second edit you make is in dispute with somebody, and every fifth is a borderline attack. Again, this is about your behaviour; I, for one, know how to communicate with people, just not people who lack the will to. Why we're here today. Not just with one person now, but several.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor(s) using accounts solely to adverstise

    Section Cross was just indeffed by Daniel Case for his username only. But the editor is obviously using the account solely to advertise some alleged political party similarly named Cross Section. I'm not sure if Daniel even looked at the edits to see if the account can be indeffed totally just for the editing, but check out the post the editor made at the help desk, and the article they created. That'll make it clear what's going on. And now there's a new account that's surely the same editor... a couple minutes after the block, MitchAnth popped up as a new editor and is making the same edits. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel is very accomplished in this area, 76*, I wouldn't be too concerned WRT to the spam on the indeffed user. I'll check the other situation in the event Daniel's not around. Tiderolls 21:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to write Daniel directly, but apparently IPs can't post on his talk page. Sorry, but I do get concerned when I see spramming like this and articles like this being created. And then more concerned when I see an apparent block-evader with a new account doing the same things. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My intent was to assuage your concern, not condemn it in any way. Tiderolls 22:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Sorry if I came across as less than appreciative. :) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The username was sufficient to justify the indef block. Had it been reported at UAA, I might have used {{uw-spamublock}}, but it was at AIV instead so I wasn't thinking in a username frame of mind (and I was also using my iPad from a table at a meetup while conversing and eating, to add to the distraction). Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Cmt: Per Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages, Daniel Case should have "an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." I would post this on his talk page, but.... ;) Rgrds. --69.95.62.119 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have thought about doing that, to be honest. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Daniel. My concern was not the spamming in and of itself, but the editor's clearly outrageous and disruptive behavior in how s/he executed the spamming... at the help desk, with the article they created, etc. So, to me, simply saying... hey, I'm only blocking you because of your username sends the message that the edits were acceptable (because nothing was said about it). There are many nice, cooperative spammers who simply don't understand the rules until someone teaches them, but this editor crossed the line not only by his editing, but by ignoring all admonitions.. One final thought... I think registered users, especially admins, should not treat IPs like second class citizens. I have to be honest, it hurt my feelings when I came to your page and realized I couldn't write to you. And I was really surprised... I was like... wow, I can't even post a message to him. That's why I came here. I'm sure you're a great admin, but I hope you'll consider opening up your talk page to everyone. Remember, it's not just IPs who occasionally cause trouble on people's talk pages. I've seen quite a bit of very hostile talk page posting from registered users. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion, for what it's worth, is that username blocks and softerblocks are grossly overused. In my experience, in well over 90% of cases where a user is given a block message saying "your username is the only reason for the block", the user has been using Wikipedia for promotion. Telling such a user that there is no other reason for the block than their username is unhelpful for at least three reasons. (1) It is totally unfair to that user, as it encourages them to continue with the same kind of editing, which is likely to be a waste of their time and lead to another block. (2) It is unhelpful to Wikipedia, as it results in more spam, which could have been stopped. (3) It makes it difficult for administrators who assess unblock requests. I used to frequently assess unblock request from such users, and what do you say to someone who has explicitly been told that it is perfectly all right to carry on with the same kind of editing as before, provided they make a new account, when you decline a request to be allowed to do exactly that? Now, when I check for unblock requests, whenever I see "your username is the only reason for the block", I almost always move on to another request, leaving that one, because it is likely to be just too much hassle. Judging from how long such requests tend to stay in the queue, it seems likely that a lot of other admins do the same. Finally, it is not just matter of what message is given to the user. It is also a matter of blocking without disabling account creation, which means that a new account appears, and sometimes (though not always) it is not immediately obvious that it is the same spam-only user. As far as I am concerned, if I block a promotion-only account, I make it clear to the user that promotion is part, if not all, of the reason for the block, and I disable account creation, so that they have to undertake not to spam if they want a new account. I reserve "your username is the only reason for the block" for the much rarer situations where the username really is the only reason for the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. In such cases I almost always use a spam username block, {{Uw-spamublock}}, which makes it clear that the promotional activity is the big problem but also covers the username problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel, while definitely one of the good guys, is clearly on the gentler side of things (though in the past he's said he really doesn't see himself that way) compared to my position on spammers (and those who commit marketing on these pages in general). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.249.204 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Daniel is a very good administrator, and I have high respect for him. However, I do tend to take a different line than him towards anyone I see as using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Also, in response to what Boing! said Zebedee said above, some time ago I gave up using the standard "spamusername" block template, because in my experience it is too complex and confusing. It tries to cover everything relevant, rather than just the most important points, no doubt with the intention of being helpful to the blocked user. However, in practice, it is not helpful to most blocked users, because there is too much information for them to take in, which very frequently results in users making good faith unblock requests that are declined because they don't address the reasons for the block. Also, it seems to me that being confronted with such a long wall of text in a big orange box is likely to look unnecessarily intimidating to the user. Instead, I now use a much shorter and simpler message of my own. My message briefly states that the block is for promotion, explains that promotion is against Wikipedia policy, mentions that the username is also against policy, and says how to request an unblock. It is 88 words long, excluding the signature, compared with 457 words for the standard spamusername block message. I believe that my message is more user-friendly, as well as clearer and less subject to misinterpretation than the standard message. Also, in my experience, it does not lead to anywhere near so many unblock requests that completely miss the point. Maybe I should make a template of it and make it available for more general use, just in case there is some other administrator somewhere who feels as I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes a lot of sense. While the great majority of users I block like this never come back (they're mostly one-off blatant attempts to promote a company), I do see a lot of spamusername unblock appeals where the editor has not understood at all. It might be very useful to have a template version of your warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IP User 209.89.13.124 adding category Boy bands indiscriminately

    Blocked 36 hours by AuburnPilot. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User-multi error: "209.89.13.124" is not a valid project or language code (help). is methodically adding the category Boy bands to articles about musical groups that consist entirely of males. That seems to be this user's only criteria. Almost none of the bands in question fit the definition of a boy band. Many predate the boy band concept and/or were way to old to have been considered a boy band (e.g., the Mills Brothers. Almost all the user's edits are to add this category. The user has been warned on his talk page but is ignoring the warnings. --hulmem (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be careful in labelling his edits as vandalism opposed to good faith edits that are incorrect. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines as to what constitutes as vandalism, nor does it appear any solid attempt has been made to explain why the category may not apply to certain bands whose members are all male. "Please stop! Just because a band has all male members does not make them a Boy band!" at the end of vandalism templates are likely not to be noticed nor does it really explain your position. Mkdwtalk 05:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. There is a non-templated comment on his talk page from 9 April which very clearly explains why what he is doing is wrong and which asks him to stop. The subsequent warning templates from other users may be more generic in wording but are nonetheless very conspicuous and unambiguous. The user has had sufficient warning that their edits are disruptive and sufficient opportunity to engage in discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that the user should ideally discuss, I cannot really see the problem. Wikipedia defines 'boy band' as an all-male group, often vocal but sometime playing instruments as well, that was formed when the members were teenagers or in their twenties. Under that definition, most of IP's edits would be correct. One can disagree with that definition, but I see no reason to call it vandalism.Jeppiz (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, of course, comes from Boy band (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which isn't a reliable source anyway, and contradicts itself continuously through the article as to what a boy band is. The lede suggests they are vocal groups, then it goes on to list acts such as A-Ha (definitely not, under any definition), The Bay City Rollers and the Raspberries (who appealed to teenage girls, but that was it), and a number that are distinctly borderline. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Its often easier to use cultural memes that define a subject, but provides no hard context for what designates it. Boy band is one such term, while the formation and popularity of the band should be during the teen and early 20s, it is not specific and portrayal in media is the only real gauge backed by a tacit community approval that is largely silent on such topics... Because the definition cannot even be brought down, I'd not call it vandalism either, but make the template be permissible with RS naming the group as a boy band. A band of boys and a boy band are completely different, and some of it could be lost in translation as well. The users intentions are probably good, given the circumstances and confusion around the base definition, it is best to reach out about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's an idea: have a discussion on the talkpage of the catgeory or in WP:MUSIC and determine what the formal paramaters are for what Wikipedia wants as the definition of the term "boy band" as it relates to categories. Once consensus is reached, you have something to point them to. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To call the Mills Brothers a "boy" band is a racial slur. That may or may not be the intent in this instance. In any case an African-American or black male of any age is never called a "boy". It is racist and demeaning. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, that is nonsense. I don't necessarily agree that the Mills Brothers are a boy band, but referring to a musical group as a boy band is not racist or a racial slur, under any circumstances. Referring to anyone as a "boy" may be a racial slur, or just a slur, in general, but a boy band is not necessarily comprised of boys. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is going on here? There is nothing in the world to discuss, this is simple idiotic vandalism and should be dealt with appropriately. This IP editor added the "boy band" category to Nirvana of all things. Step up to the plate and swing for an WP:RBI, please. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just plain vandalism now. He did it again to The Temptations article and that has been reverted already. The IP address should be blocked. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for 36 hours and will reblock if this person continues without discussion. Content dispute, vandalism, or disruptive editing, it's irrelevant so long as somebody refuses to communicate. --auburnpilot talk 19:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated racism and personal attacks.

    Reading about the reactions to Margaret Thatcher's death, I happened to come upon some very disturbing comments by Quis separabit?, with whom I don't think I've ever interacted. In several edits, the user calls other "scum" [23], calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" and adds some attacks on the Irish [24], [25]. In another comment, the user expresses his joy over the murder of human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson[26]. The user obviously has many valuable edits, but repeated racism of this kind is disturbing and violates quite a number of policies.Jeppiz (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The user is actually User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, who has history here. I can understand that various emotions were running high after Thatch's death, but the Rosemary Nelson diff is completely out of order and I would certainly have issued a block to them had I seen that at the time. I'm actually about to revdelete it now. If any other admin wants to block for that I wouldn't object at all. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I found it downright disgusting, and the openly racist comments about Caribbeans and Irish just as bad. It's among the worst comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia, hence my bringing it here though I'm not involved.Jeppiz (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any rational way in which those comments represent an acceptable level of discourse. I've blocked the account for 1 week, and would invite feedback about that decision. MastCell Talk 18:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with the block but I think it should be noted that the accusations mentioned are against particular members of their respective classes rather than as slurs against the classes as a whole. There is no implication that all members of each class are such offensive things. The terminology is still unnecessary and insulting by implication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't actually that worried about those. It was the comment about the murder of someone (which I've revldeleted, and am not going to repeat here). I cannot imagine what a member of her family would have thought about Wikipedia if they'd read that. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm, I suppose, a major supporter of Robert and have been involved for many years in blocking his accounts, back in the day. I was a major supporter of his unban, too. He's basically a good guy and means well. Having said that, I have to support the week-long block here, as those comments were utterly inappropriate by any interpretation - Alison ❤ 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This week long block seems utterly pointless and 100% punitive, yes the comments were in poor taste, but why do we suddenly care now when no one did 6 days ago when they were made? Since this outburst the user seems to have returned to constructive editing so I oppose this sanction and support just letting it go (with a warning). - filelakeshoe (t / c) 19:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I care about it today because I became aware of it today. While I take your point about the time lapse between the comments and the block, I do think there's some value - some preventative value - in making clear that those kinds of comments are unacceptable, even at 6 days' remove. That said, there is not much science to choosing a block length, and I wouldn't defend 1 week as The Right Answer. The fact that Alison is willing to vouch for someone goes a long way for me, and I'd be fine with shortening the block to 24-48 hours as long as there's general agreement that the comments in question were inappropriate. MastCell Talk 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose the block duration, and its much-delayed timing. The OP's linked comments were neither "racism" nor "personal". Stale issues should not trigger blocks. Looking at histories at Talk:Margaret Thatcher and User Talk:You Can Act Like A Man, a lot of edits not by rms125 were revdel'd from the user talk page, but rms125a seems not to have edited Talk:Margaret Thatcher since 9 April. This makes this block less valid due to staleness. The OP duplicated alleged offensive edits. RMS's comments must be read in whole, not in part, to understand them. I see this block as an overreaction by people who don't read for context. rms125a has been civil in all discussions with me. However, as a reminder to be more civil (since I don't think RMS was uncivil), and because a few people were offended (I think too much, really) this block should be for 1 or 2 days maximum, since it's a first incident since 2009. --Lexein (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally made the accusation of racism against Rms125, on my TP, but did not report it here as perhaps I should have because, assuming gf, I recognised it as probably being a result of the general heightened emotion of the time. I'm not commenting on the block, but re: the timing, there is no Statute of Limitations here. Basket Feudalist 11:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the 2009 block of RMS' account was done in error. Having said that, I'm not opposed to a reduction in block duration if that's what's agreed. I'm pretty-sure he's not going to repeat the offense now - Alison ❤ 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to claim that the comments weren't racist then the rest of what you say is simply going to be ignored, as it clearly also makes no sense. GiantSnowman 19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the timing, I brought it to ANI now because I saw it now. After six days, I might not have brought a "normal" policy violation here, but expressing joy at the murder of another person and referring to "Afro-Caribbean criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" is well beyond what is acceptable.Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to note that the Afro-Caribbean comment does not say what you seem to think it says. It's an adjective describing a subset of criminals (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What policy permits a block for someone "celebrating" her death? No one in the UK has been charged with any offence for publicly celebrating her death - yet. Leaky Caldron 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares about policy? Sometimes we use common sense. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when it comes to removing someone's editing rights we don't. Leaky Caldron 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job you're not yet an Admin. then. Leaky Caldron 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, even a little after the fact. The Nelson comment was beyond the pale. The other comments were block worthy too; it is long established that we avoid expressing personal opinions about individuals, especially if those comments are derogatory (per WP:BLP). This needs to be impressed on him very strongly, and if he does it again I support stronger blocks. --Errant (chat!) 22:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that now. Wait until its an overreaction due to context-free reading that results in you being blocked. For a week. With no prior shorter block. RMS125a was also not given notice that he would be blocked if his comments weren't stricken. I strongly feel that what due process exists here at Wikipedia (warn, stronger warning, warning of about to block, then block short, then block long on repeated offense) was shamefully not followed. --Lexein (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that would require me to agree that there is some context to this that makes the comments acceptable under our rules. Are you able to offer that sort of insight? --Errant (chat!) 07:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Having been the victim of "outright racism", I agree. However, the comments linked to show no racism whatsoever. I'm having great trouble with how people are parsing grammar today :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs presented in the first paragraph are quite enough proof to justify the block. One of the diffs had to be stricken completely, it appears. I am not sure what you mean by "parsing." It seems to be clearly racism. Jusdafax 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we're reading different diffs. For example, in the opening paragraph, Jeppiz claims that rms "calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds"" which is not borne out by the actual link. The phrase used is "it is mostly the "Afro-Caribbean" criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" - that does not call Afro-Caribbean people criminals/thugs or gaolbirds, it refers to a subset of criminals, thugs and gaolbirds who happen to be Afro-Caribbean. There's not a single speck of racism in that phrase, unless one parses it tremendously contrary to English language usage. Maybe it's a different link you're looking at? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BW, are you really going down that path? I thought better of you. GiantSnowman 11:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BW that is the diff I am looking at. And technically, you are right. But the intent seems clear, at least to me. Jusdafax 11:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bwilkins, I usually find your reasoning very clear, even when we disagree, but I'm afraid I don't follow this time. If the user wanted to point out that only "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" celebrated Thatcher's death, he could have written that. Adding "Afro-Caribbean" was not necessary for any other reason than to single out an ethnic group in a negative sense.Jeppiz (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Bwilikins, it seems your parsing is what is too fine. If as you maintain the subject is, criminal/thugs/gaolbirds and they are identified as Afro-Carribean or Irish, they are being held out for ridicule by race, otherwise why mention their race, especially when it's a sourceless opinion that "those" people are the problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I will restate: as someone with an ethnically-diverse background, I loathe any false claim of racism. When one reviews the reign of Thatcher (which is public knowledge) you'll find that two the major themes were a) N.Ireland relationships, and b) a crackdown on crime, which included the arrests of an inordinate number of "Afro-Caribbeans" (yes, including family members of mine, thank you very much). So, with the death of Thatcher, those groups of individuals might indeed be celebrating. RMS at NO time said that either of those groups were a "problem", nor were they ridiculed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? Celebrateing a death wasn't a problem? When it caused widespread sturm and drang commentary and even riot? Second, your personal feelings are not the issue. The issue is what one objectively looking at that sees. They see a race identifyer attached to a put-down. Finally there was no "they might" but that would hardly make the analysis different. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, his major issue seems to be with the Irish; they are Slugger o'Toolites, Shinners etc, and his signature is (was) the motto of the UDA, a proscribed organisation. FYI. Basket Feudalist 12:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I get Bwilkins point on how "Afro-Carribean" is used. He may be right, but I think it's actually ambiguous and could mean both a sub-set of Afro-Carribeans or it could mean (given the short-hand/truncated style many of us normally adopt when posting) that the words following Afro-Carribean are used adjectivally for the entire group. I suppose WP:AGF - we should assume the best interpretation. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting aside the "Afro-Carribean" comment (though I still say it was racist), the anti-Irish/pro-Ulster issues highlighted by YCALAM are extremely alarming. GiantSnowman 12:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya know, I'm from the Southern US; people call us "Appalacian Americans" all the time (a derogatory regard in ways), but I don't have time nor inclination to care. Is it insulting? If YOU let it be. There's something called "Freedom of Speech" where I live, and your rights to such end only when it approaches yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. So were "comments" made offensive to some? It appears so. Should we defer our common sense and rights EVERY time someone supposes their feelings are disregarded or hurt? Probably not. Should we "ban" someone for their words when done without malicious universal actions or physical threat? Probably not; again, these are mere words. In many ways the knee-jerk reaction of overly sensitive or zealous persons should not dictate how we see and regard information, both good and bad. Closing your eyes and ears to the unpleasantness of the World does not reduce or erase it's problems, it magnifies the ignorance associated with being uninformed and closed-minded. Opinions, good or bad, are just that. Words are similar. You take the good with the bad. Deal with it, because it is not going away in any of our lifetimes. Just an opinion :) Barada wha? 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HGJ345

    In February, User:HGJ345 added some problem templates to 16:10 [27]. In the ensuing discussion on the talk page, User:HGJ345 has displayed a number of signs of a tendentious editor:

    • "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors". It took him over a month to start responding to my requests for more information about why he thinks the article has the problems he claims it has. Until that point, all he could offer in terms of arguments were vague statements like "The sources in that section isnt reliable" [28] and "It is just a bunch of people sharing their personal opinions" [29]. Even when he finally started quoting specific parts of the article he found problematic, his arguments were weak and easily refuted as having no basis in Wikipedia's policies.
    • "One who repeats the same argument without convincing people". User:HGJ345's main argument throughout the dispute has been that a number of sources report on opinions and therefore are not reliable. I've explained repeatedly that reporting on opinions isn't forbidden and sources that do so aren't inherently unreliable, as well as that this doesn't mean the article is written like an essay, but that doesn't seem to have had any effect (possible case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU).
    • "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources". The sources which User:HGJ345 is disputing have, in the course of previous disputes, been met with editor consensus. User:HGJ345 is not only disputing a large number of sources at the same time ("Yes, all of them." [30]), he is doing so without offering even the slightest shred of evidence to support his arguments (beyond the aforementioned, demonstrably fallacious "it's just opinions"). At some point during the dispute he shifted his focus from arguing about the sources themselves to criticising the way the article uses the sources (claiming that "It is just a bunch of opinions which falsely is stated as facts" [31]), though later he returned to attacking the sources themselves again, for instance deleting one for being "written like a blog entry according to me" [32].
    • "One who deletes the cited additions of others". While perhaps not 100% applicable as he hasn't exactly demanded that edits be discussed with him first, it's still relevant - as WP:TE points out, "removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption". That is exactly what User:HGJ345 has done [33] [34]. This was after User:Solarra (who joined the dispute following my 3O request) raised concerns about a couple of sources [35]. I responded to those concerns and (hopefully) allayed most of them, and User:Solarra hasn't replied yet, but nevertheless User:HGJ345 has used her comment as an excuse to go on a ref-deleting spree throughout the article (not limiting himself to the sources that User:Solarra mentioned) [36] [37] [38] [39].

    Other examples of User:HGJ345's behaviour include outright deleting disputed content [40], pushing his non-consensus, POV edits into the article rather than working towards an amicable resolution, and accusing me of edit warring [41]. Also, comments such as "Me and many other 16:10 users hate 16:9 for gaming" and "I am mad at those developers who have decided to make 16:9 main stream" [42], combined with the removal of content and sources that report on positive reactions to the 16:9 aspect ratio [43], indicate a clear bias on the subject.

    In short, User:HGJ345's behaviour during the dispute has been tendentious and his edits disruptive. He keeps removing relevant, reliably sourced content (a violation of WP:NPOV), invoking the "guidelines for reliable sources" [44], yet at the same time demonstrates ignorance of said guidelines by using self-published sources [45] [46]. I've tried to point him towards the relevant policies as much as possible, but he seems either unable or unwilling to cease his disruptive behaviour. As such, I feel some sort of administrative intervention is necessary. Indrek (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick bump before this is archived. Or if there's a better forum for me to take this issue, I'd be happy to do so, if someone points me in the right direction. Indrek (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    TheRealCABLEGuy

    Resolved
     – Blocked for 6 months by Kww.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For the purpose of full disclosure without requiring editors to go through every single link for date checks, these examples have all happened since the start of 2013.

    This user, for longer than I can remember, has been unwilling to participate in discussion regarding their incivility and has been offensive towards other editors in edit summaries (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 "Assplug", 18 "Dumbfuck").

    The user also frequently removes sections they don't agree with, even if they are sourced (particularly with the PTC: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

    The user is unwilling for discussion and frequently blanks their talk page in response. Additionally, they will often edit endlessly to prove their viewpoint, regardless if it is correct or incorrect. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

    Since I and other editors have been unsuccessful in getting a message across, maybe it's time for an administrator to become involved. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 22:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like obvious personal attacks and POV editing. I'd like to see what he has to say, but I could support administrative action. —Rutebega (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the editor has been blocked seven times before, for up to 1 month, for edit warring, incivility and vandalism. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    People say that I overuse indefinite blocks, so he's only blocked for 6 months.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you don't want people to object about indefinite blocks, you could always block for something like 10 years :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Go with what the railroads did when leasing a competitor instead of buying them, to avoid regulatory oversight--make it for 999 years! rdfox 76 (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, this was a good block. TRCG is a good editor, especially for WP:TVS, but their 'my style or (expletive)' pushing of their views over any collaboration or talk page use, along with removal of good information for not meeting their article style, is very ugly and after a run in with them last year I avoided them when I could. Nate • (chatter) 12:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I wish I had seen this thread a few days ago. I got a soft spot for him--but I don't see how this could have ended any other way. Over the years I've tried to work with him, and I've blocked him a few times as well. I checked in once or twice, and I thought that they were going to be OK. Well, not so much. Anyway, there's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy/Archive to keep in mind; no socks were ever found and there was never a convincing case for CU made, but it is likely that Cable Guy will be back as an IP editor. We'll see. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk Psychoanalysis

    Sorry to bother you with that, but a user hide my contribs an talk page after a so called Arbcom-waring. I'm not agree with that. I think the warnig was a big mistake. But this warnig concerns only the talkpage of the POV-article [47]. Now I don't have the curage to revert the edit of this user. What shall I do now? --WSC ® 06:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The warning concerns all "pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science." Your comments were hatted because they did not conform to our talk page guidelines. See WP:TPG. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, exactly what paragraph of this guideline? --WSC ® 07:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    READ THE WARNING. Also, read, as the warning tells you, WP:ETIQUETTE and the list of policies and guidelines, WP:LOP and WP:LGL. Especially read WP:TPG,WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:TE, and our core policies, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. It is your responsibility to know and adhere to these policies and guidelines at all times. As the warning states, "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bombing a user with acronyms isn't very helpful :) it's better to at least try and answer the question! --Errant (chat!) 08:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reminding me, Errant. I forgot to mention WP:IDHT. Several editors, including me, have tried getting through to this editor, and failed. That's why she was slapped with the warning. Should also mention that she has an impressive block log at German WP, for a wide range of issues, including all of the acronyms I listed above, and more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember, WP:IDONTCARE !!! Basket Feudalist 10:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Widescreen; the warning applies generally to any topic under the broad umbrella of "pseudoscience". Wikipedia's patience for disputes over those topics was exhausted in 2008, and Arbcom authorised discretionary sanctions. In terms of that hatted thread - I don't see anything too problematic in there and the editor in question probably shouldn't have been so brusque with you. However, if you wish to question Arbcoms stance/decision the place to do so is open a request for ammendment - although its unlikely to work unless you can present a cogent argument for why it is stopping you from improving the article :) --Errant (chat!) 08:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    See the explanation already offered at WP:AE by User:Sandstein at the bottom of the page. Sædontalk 08:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A good explanation. After failing several times to get Widescreen to be specific about changes or to take an article that she doesn't appear to believe should exist to AfD, I wihdrew from what has been an unproductive discussion. She should take the article to AfD, make some very specific suggestions about changes, or stop posting to the talk page. If she doesn't then some sort of sanction will be needed. The section heading above makes no sense, as this concerns her behavior at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience and her adding pov tags to the article without making any specific suggestions. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that means everybody is entitled to revert my contribs on talkpages related to pseudoscience? No matter what I've wrote about? Don't you think that's a bit freaky?
    I cite ErrantX: "Wikipedia's patience for disputes over those topics was exhausted in 2008." Who is Wikipedia? Do you mean some POV-users who loves clear decisions, like there is one definition of pseudoscience, the user knows and is entitled to call everything pseudoscience he found a source for? En.WP don't like to discuss to much! I could be expose Wikipedia is not right. It seems, some users rather live in a own wikipedia dreamworld, than having passionate debates.
    @Dominus Vobisdu: I'm the 2nd or 3rd most blocked user in de.wp and the one with the most procedures of community ban. I'm wikipedian since nearly 10 years... and I'm one of the users impelled the delation of the the de:Kategorie:Pseudowissenschaft. It taks more than 1,5 years of intense controversy. The catagory is delated since 2007. --WSC ® 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is Wikipedia? It's the Wikipedia community as a whole, which led to Arbcom imposing discretionary sanctions on psuedoscientific topics. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be the case that de.wp allows editor argumentation to take precedence over a strict reading of sources, I don't know since I don't edit there, but if you're going to edit en.wp you have to adapt to our policies, guidelines, and culture. I don't know if de.wp has an equivalent to discretionary sanctions, but just in case not let me explain how this usually works. Basically, if an editor on a covered topic, such as pseudoscience, repeatedly violates policies or otherwise edits tendentiously, that editor is warned with the template that was placed on your page. If the editor continues the previous behavior the next step is a temporary block and if it happens again then the next step is usually a topic ban (though sometimes topic bans are the second step). It seems, based on what you've said above, that you're familiar with topic bans so I won't explain that, but feel free to ask for clarification. The main difference between discretionary and normal bans is that they can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator, do not require community input, and must be appealed to WP:ARBCOM. Incidentally, it is uncommon for Arbcom to remove discretionary sanctions when imposed at WP:AE.
    While you may have had luck at de.wp, it's highly unlikely you would succeed in such a venture here and my advice is to drop the notion of an English Wikipedia without a strong framework for categorizing and labeling pseudoscience. As ErrantX points out, the community's patience in dealing with this topic has been exhausted, the consensus has been formed and for the most part we have little patience when it comes to this topic. Sædontalk 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bushranger: The Arbcom now imposing not to citizise Artikles in this area? That sounds unserious to me. Let's say, just hypothetically, that I'm right. Wikipedia don't notice a large range of excelent philosophical sources. Than the Arbcom would cement POV at wikipedia articles.
    @Saedon: Thanks for that straight answer. What makes you belief that I don't argue strict by high quality sources? The problem is, I agrue with high quality sources. You would know that if you had read the discussion on [[48]]. But my arguments are now been reverted, thats why no one can read them anymore. My opponants on this debate don't use any source. The article is full of weak and partial sources, but no one seems to care. When I go back to the debate in philosophy of science, my opponants bombing me with secondary wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE. I think, anyone is able to proov my objections. He should just take any old textbook of philosophy of science and read it. [49] You ought find in these books a more or less large passage about that issue. To take sources seriously was the way to delate the catagorie against a strong framework of so called sceptics in de.wp. Whats ongoing here with lists and catagories of pseudosciences is highly sceptical organisation POV. If you have nothing better to do, please make a experiment with yourself. search for the most relevant textbooks of philosophy of science, and use the search function for the name of the philosophical goodfather of so called scepticism Paul Kurtz. Than you have an access to estimate what importance he got for the philosophical debat. But if you rather live in a wikipedia dreamworld, leave it. --WSC ® 04:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect you and I could have a fun conversation on the philosophy of science as it's one of my favorite topics but it's of less relevance here than you might imagine. I've read through some of the discussion you had and I think understand your point - that there is no clear definition of pseudoscience, the items on the list are sourced to what some might consider a "capital S" skeptic POV, and because of this the article has a POV slant. I understand your position especially because I have a background in both science and philosophy and thus view the modern skeptic movement...let's say skeptically. So, if I've characterized your position correctly, I believe it has merit. However, for the purposes of en.wp - for better or for worse - it's of little consequence.
    In some specific circumstances we have stringent requirements (for instance WP:MEDRS for biomedical articles) but as a whole en.wp is fairly lax when it comes to minimum inclusion requirements. Basically, WP:NOTABLE establishes the criteria necessary for an article to exist (widespread coverage in reliable sources) and WP:V states the minimum criteria for inclusion in an article (being published in a reliable source).
    One of the walls you'll run into is that attempting to delete the article on the justification you used would require WP to basically rewrite the consensus on the reliability of skeptic sources (see WP:PARITY) - a topic which was debated for such a long time that most editors are no longer willing to discuss it (hence ErrantX's and my comment). The second wall you'll run into is that en.wp is very procedural due to its size. I bring this up because as was explained on the talk page, deletion discussions take place at WP:AFD, and if you disagree with the idea of discretionary sanctions you would have to appeal to Arbcom. So at the bottom, whether you're right or wrong is irrelevant if you're talking in the wrong place. But most importantly, whether you're right or wrong has no bearing on whether the sources used are considered reliable for the purposes of WP:V. Since they are, the page's existence is justified prima facie. I get the impression that on de.wp the "bigger picture" is more relevant, but en.wp policies and culture are a little more focused on the trees. Lastly, note that articles regarding pseudoscience will likely always have a slant because few people outside of skeptic circles write about pseudoscience, with the exception of philosophers of science who tend not to write about specific pseudoscientific modalities, but pseudoscience as a whole (though I would love to read Popper on something like Crystal healing :)).
    When I say that my advice is to drop it, I really mean that your prospects of being productive in this area are so slim and your chances of getting topic banned large enough that this is not a worthy investment of your time or that of others. Sædontalk 06:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saedon: I'm confused with your answer. At the one hand you say I'm right, implicite, at the other hand you say it would be wrong to be adamant that I'm right. But what you write is a very coherent describtion of the actual state of en.wikipedia. Especially the part about the procedural manner of wikipedia. Those are my sentiments too. But in one point I'm a bit more rigorous. If anyone is not willing to discuss about fundamental and important issues and policys he should leave it. The discussion about the cerntral issues for the development of a importent and, obviously, high frequenced subject area in wikipedia is a fundamental way of quality-control. If anyone is not willing to hear somthing about the basics of this topic, and requires a policy ore lousy sources, that helps him to win a discussion about a lemma like Crystal healing, he doesn't fit to those pricipes of wikipedia. This procedure come across to me like a weakness of this system.
    I had a lot of such discussions about scientific sources and religious, ideological and scientiffic POV. But don't require such policies which doesn't exist in de.wikipedia.
    In this "POV-debate" I'm in right, of course. Because I go back to fundamental scientific sources of that issue. Theres no need to question that. Who question the philosophical debate about that issue, don't have a clue and shoud better be quite. There must be a way of handele this issue without ban or block the one who's right. Otherwise the wikipedia spreads POV. A violation of one of the five pillars. To oppose against that, is like betrayl the basics of our doing. --WSC ® 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Wikipedia does not "spread POV," but it does document various POV using RS. That is fundamental and backed by all our policies. As far as your discussions of the definition of pseudoscience, there is more than one definition, and we have never denied that, but the List is not the place to deal with that. The Pseudoscience article is the place for that, but you chose to use up far more than your legitimate options in the wrong place, and now any continuation by you would just be disruptive. We don't take kindly to near world record holders in getting blocked (I think you claimed to be the second or third most blocked user at the German Wikipedia?) coming here and repeating their disruptive behaviors. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I'm the critic in this case. Only I know where my criticism is on the right place :o) But seriously: You are not right. You can't spread a ideology by ignoring various other, and much better and relevant, sources. Do you try to tell me, you didn't get this point? You only use the sources you choose to spread your POV. Just like the "pseudoscience" you try to fight against. Or do you wanna tell me that various textbooks and the writings of the famoust philosophers of the 20th century are not as relevant as a sceptics monthly newspaper or a website? You must be joking. --WSC ® 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You make a lot of talk but are consistently light on sources. The nearest to a source you got was a google search: [50], the rest is based on your personal feelings and experiences. You have discussed this topic to death at NPOVN and List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience, now you appear adamant to discuss it to death here as well, can you please just stop. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh.... You're throwing lots of straw man arguments around, which means you are imputing beliefs to others which they do not hold. This line of thought is only appropriate on the Pseudoscience article, but you've blown your chances. It's time for a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking along the same lines. We have a serious case of WP:NOTHERE here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Widescreen, I believe the best thing you can do at this point is to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass, as it's thoroughly dead. We understand your position - however you refuse to understand that Wikipedia does not work that way. It may not be the way you think it should be, but it is how it is, and, speaking frankly, the chances of it changing in the way you seem to believe it should change are about the same as the proverbial snowball. Given this, you need to either agree to edit in the manner that consensus has agreed upon, or not to edit at all, as to continue to edit against consensus because you don't like the consensus will only prove that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia and result in your not being able to edit at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now you have the insight, that you can't win this debat. Now the phase of personal attacs begin. The cutest argument is from IRWolfie. If you don't belief me, READ THE SOURCES! Or do you wanna tell me, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Hans Albert, Adolf Grünbaum, Hilary Putnam, Rudolf Carnap I referring to, write somthing different thant i suggest in this discussion? And there are much more I can go back to. What about the critics of the Critical Rationalism? Paul Feyerabend, Theodor W. Adorno or Max Horkheimer. And now the typical nonsense, the german skeptics also spread against the most famous philosopers of the 20th century: Straw Man, WP:NOTHERE and so on. I tell you what: [51] --WSC ® 04:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay everybody, listen up. Take a look at this old comment from Widescreen.
    • Editwars are never helpfull. But it's in your own interest, to have a POV-Button, at POV contents, at least. To revert the POV-button is so ignorant, I can't find words for that. I'wont accept that and I will not accept that. --WSC ® 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC) [52][reply]
    Are we seeing the same attitude? Strong evidence of a negative learning curve? There seems to be no hope. A topic ban isn't going to be enough. This user has been banned from the German Wikipedia, with one of the longest block records, and they've been continuing the same behavior here, and only been blocked a couple times here. That's not right. Here's their own brag from right above:
    • @Dominus Vobisdu: I'm the 2nd or 3rd most blocked user in de.wp and the one with the most procedures of community ban. I'm wikipedian since nearly 10 years... and I'm one of the users impelled the delation of the the de:Kategorie:Pseudowissenschaft. It taks more than 1,5 years of intense controversy. The catagory is delated since 2007. --WSC ® 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not a psychiatrist, but something's not right, and the community doesn't seem to be able to deal with it. We don't do psychotherapy on other users. That's not our job. We can't cure this type of problem, so in the interest of protecting the community from further waste of time, I suggest a long block. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well User:BullRangifer seems to belief that a discussion about philosophy of science in the area of Pseudoscience has somthing to do with Psychiatry. I think thats uncivil and nonsens as well. Futher, when I was banned from de.wp. Why did I only just make a edit there? If someone neutral follows this debate, he might notice, that my opponents aren't interested in a debate about the sources or the writings of the philosophers I go back to. No, they only have argumentum ad hominem. Is this only my impression or do other authors also see, that my opponants have no arguments anymore? --WSC ® 04:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The belief that you were banned came from your own comments, so you have only yourself to blame for that misunderstanding. And the reason your opponents have no arguments anymore is because you continue to argue 'I'm right, I'm right, you're all wrong (and horrible people)", so after a certain point they give up arguing because they know you're not listening. The simple facts of the matter are thus: there are ArbCom sanctions applied to 'pseudoscience'. You can either edit within the sanctions ArbCom has imposed on the topic, or you can not edit articles that come under those sanctions, either by choice or through enforcement, be it blocks, topic bans, or overall bans. If you believe the ArbCom sanctions are inappropriate, you need to discuss that with ArbCom, not here, and you need to edit within the bounds set by ArbCom until and unless they are changed. If you cannot, or will not, do that, then you need to accept the fact that en.wiki is not a place you can contribute at. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I start this thread to concern the delation of an edit, not been criticised by the warning. Than YOU try to outline that my conserns about the topic of pseudosciens are only a wast of time. So that I have to explain my point, in that discussion. And now you have the currage to tell me, thats the wrong place? Don't you think, that a bit unfair? --WSC ® 07:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    On the basis of the material in the above thread, I propose a topic ban for Widescreen (WSC) from fringe science and pseudoscience topics broadly construed until they demonstrate to the community that they will not continue the disruption further, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Befor you start an ban proposal, you should better read a textbook about philosophy of sience. The only thing that I disrupt is your skepitcal POV!
    A interesting development in this case is, that no one really negate my main point, that philosopy of science and the related writings, like textbooks and main work of the philosophers are excluded in the topic of pseudoscience. Some of the useres are agree with my criticism. The reproach is, that I adress the criticism at the wrong place. But now it seems like the there is no right place. The List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is the wrong place, the ANI seems to be the wrong place. It seems like, there's no right place to adress my citicism to. So this ban proposal is only a attempt to exclude my comprehensible objecitons, everyone with a minor understandig of the philosophical debate knows. --WSC ® 10:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Zombie block?

    Zombie block met DerHexer's boomstick. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:GoodDay is complaining that a block from August 2012 has somehow sprung back to life, preventing him from editing even though no new block has been imposed. Could someone take a look? -Rrius (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds more like an WP:AUTOBLOCK of his IP. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I was thinking as well. Sounds like maybe his IP got in trouble. Although if that is the case he should have a message indicating that when he tries to edit I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked http://toolserver.org/~nakon/autoblockfinder.php?u=GoodDay and it said no autoblock was found. Does that just mean he's caught up in someone else's block or does it mean the problem isn't an autoblock at all? -Rrius (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Really we need to know the message he is getting when he tries to edit. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that just means that if it's an autoblock it's someone else's. However he's saying that it's the block by Coren from August 2012 that has mysteriously sprung back to life - so I presume that must be the block message he's getting. If that's the case, it's got to be a bug. It might be worth throwing this at WP:VPT. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the message he just posted to his talk page its because he is editing from an open proxy which was blocked by DerHexter. -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on it. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the unblock, DerHexer. Also, thanks to everyone here & at my talkpage, for helping me out. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an aside for any admins who may be perusing, incidents like this are why standard practice at WP:OP has been to no longer indef block IPs, even if they're full of proxies. Generally the upper limit is about 5 years. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SergeantHippyZombie reverting valid anon IP edits

    User warned. Will be blocked the next time he makes inappropriate reverts or inappropriate comments on user talk pages. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am semi-retired from Wikipedia but I do occasionally check ANI (don't ask why), and ever since the recent thread about SergeantHippyZombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) using Twinkle to revert perfectly valid anonymous IP edits without explanation or helpful reply on his talk page, I've been occasionally checking his contributions. In under five minutes of checking this morning I found several additional problematic Twinkle edits (diffs: [53], [54], [55]) wherein SHZ is reverting the addition of perfectly valid content with no explanation.

    To SHZ's credit, the majority of SHZ's reversions are of blatant vandalism, so I personally am unsure how best to proceed. I think aggressively reverting valid contributions by anonymous editors without explanation has a significant chilling effect on people new to the project, and in my opinion conceivably outweighs the positive impact of their valid anti-vandalism efforts. In any event, this pattern is disruptive and has continued unabated since the last ANI discussion, so I'm raising it again here. Ideally, SHZ would be more careful and this would amount to nothing, but given that the pattern has continued perhaps some more action is warranted. Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    I'd agree with that. Despite numerous editors contacting SHZ in this regard, they seem to pretty much regard edits by IPs as vandalism. User page comments such as "if you are an unregistered user, your house will go on fire!!!" do not inspire confidence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've been down this road before with this user. Note what they have been reverting, and who (including my favorite Portuguese soccer editor)--this is totally not good. I don't know what the answer is. Pulling Twinkle isn't one, since we can't. I don't care if this user gets blocked: "vandal fighters" are a dime a dozen. Few things piss me off as badly as this kind of willy-nilly reverting, with complete disregard or complete incompetence. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pulling twinkle is possible in a sanction sense; although, not in a technical sense. My preference would be to say, if you use Twinkle, you'll be blocked end of discussion, no loopholes allowed. He could come back here to get permission in no sooner than a month. That being said, I think he'll end up being blocked anyways. His edits don't appear to be due to a misuse of Twinkle, they're a result of his attitude towards anons. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, on the next occasion, block the editor for 31 hours to prevent further damage (reverting positive edits) and disruption (valid, good-faith contributors getting pissed on). Are they still posting that IP nonsense, by the way? Was that recent? Drmies (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's something recent. User:65.48.157.71 is indeed a vandal so SHZ leaves a comment I think it's blocking time! on the talk page. It's not a useful comment, but I don't think it's entirely problematic. The next comment by SHZ, however, is. After the IP was blocked, he commented we need to send wiki hate!. A comment like that would be inappropriate after the blocking of a user. It's even more inappropriate when an anon is blocked, because somewhere out there, somebody's first experience with behind the scenes Wikipedia is going to be a message that says "we need to send wiki hate!" Ryan Vesey 20:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's going on? And am I supposed to revert the suff that has the changed height and weight tag?SHZ and don't forget to sign my guestbook!!! 22:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Height and weight tag? Huh? Uh, what's going on is explained above, and on your talk page. You are reverting valid contributions from anonymous IP users with no explanation, and it is clear that you are not bothering to check whether these contributions are valid or not before reverting them. It is one thing to make this or this kind of reversion. Those are plainly problematic edits, and you don't exactly need to check sourcing before reverting them (although you should always be careful). But the diffs I list above and on your talk page are not by any stretch of the imagination clearly problematic. You have to double-check contributions like that before reverting them, and you clearly aren't. And the problem is that this has been going on for some time now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive attempt to "shut down" a discussion at WT:AT

    Eyes are needed at WP:AT... we were engaged in what I thought was very congenial and productive examination of why the "rules" regarding article title format were written the way they are, when suddenly people started to call for "closing" it as disruptive. From my POV, it's the attempt to shut down the conversation that is causing the disruption, not the discussion itself. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a MOS related issue and then because it's a subjective thing, any consensus formed on it won't have a very solid rational basis. Therefore people in favor of the present consensus feel the need to defend very strongly which is why you get these big disputes in this area. There has already been an ArbCom case about a related issue (about dashes, hypens etc.). Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is... there was no "big dispute" in this case (at least not until people tried to "close" the discussion). Are we now at the point where we can not even discuss issues that are remotely tangential to the MOS? If so, then we have a much bigger problem than a disruptive discussion closure. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion was starting to heat up and was a nasty mess in the making. I closed it as an uninvolved admin, with the explicit direction in my closing comment that discussion should continue in better-defined chunks. That's not "attempting to shut down a discussion". — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps that was not your intent, Hex... but that's certainly how it came across to me. The discussion didn't seem particularly heated to me... until people started to suggest that the discussion should be "closed". Then it got heated. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seemed to me that Xkcd and Rob were both getting pretty worked up from the beginning. It does seem a little unusual to close that kind of discussion, but in fairness, it wasn't really headed in a productive direction. If anyone wants to submit to the community at large a formal proposal regarding this, they can do so whenever they please. Until then, bickering doesn't solve anything. Furthermore, if the history of sentence case merits continued discussion, that can be moved to WT:Titling in sentence case.
    No harm, no foul. —Rutebega (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "it wasn't really headed in a productive direction." I disagree with you. Some of us were having a productive discussion. Others are tying to silence the discussion before consensus can begin to shift. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to shift consensus, open an RFC. —Rutebega (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We just want to talk about the rules. Where they came from, what justification was used when they were formed. How can we make a proposal if we are not allowed to discuss first? We don't have a proposal because we dont fully understand the history, and the discussion is being silenced. Xkcdreader (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: In reference to "As a side note, Xkcdreader is contradicting herself by stating that No proposal was made, when this section begins with TITLES that represent names should be... which is a proposal." My personal opinion is not the same thing as a proposal. In fact, Rob made a point that changed my mind half way through. If anything, now I would ask to look into lowercasing titles, not capitalizing them. I think there is some reading between the lines and interpretation needed to jump from "TITLES that represent names should be" to "I propose the change." As far as the ANI itself, I agree with blueboar, the people who disagree with the conversation are the ones causing the disruption. Whenever I post something, the person responds first, every time. I can't get a word in without the discussion being derailed. I find it slightly offensive that our discussion is being pushed to some hidden page that wont have a wider range of voices weighing in. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to get confused easily. I suggested that the uncovering of the history of our use of title case be continued at WT:Titling in sentence case. What you are talking about here, looking into lowercasing titles, is a different discussion, that would be perfectly suited to continuing in a new section at WT:AT, as my closing note made clear. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why it needs to be moved to some corner that nobody sees. I see that as an attempt to silence. I don't understand why the conversation needs to be closed. If it started as an inquiry into the rules and evolved into discussion of possible changes, why can't that occur naturally, without closing it and reopening it? Are we really resorting to personal attacks on the admin noticeboard (eg: You seem to get confused easily.) From my perspective, the people trying to shut down the discussion are trying to control what other people talk about. I find that behavior dangerous and not really excusable. I also don't see why are articles currently titled in sentence case and should we look into lower case titles as "different" discussions. These arbitrary distinctions are just a way to disrupt the part of the conversation that was actually somewhat functional. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being paranoid, and I'm done here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Case and point of disruption: Instead of having a conversation about the rules, I am having a conversation about if we are allowed to have a conversation about the rules. Since the rules are spread over 5+ pages, it is very easy to claim "this isn't appropriate here" as soon as the conversation drifts slightly off topic. The conversation is then uprooted and replanted elsewhere. This cycle repeats ad infinitum. This is turning into a trail of tears. The conversation keeps moving until people who are opposed to it occurring with any visibility have sufficiently pushed it into obscurity. To quote Peter coxhead "Why close down a discussion? If you don't want to take part, just don't." I'm not paranoid, I'm starting to get frustrated that a small handful of users are able to consistently shut down any conversation they don't agree with. This isn't the first time this has occurred. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    Xkcd alleges that xhe was merely trying to find out about the reason and the history behind the MOS adoption of sentence case for titles. FALSE. Although xkcd's opening post is so titled, the post was pure rhetoric from the first sentence, predicated on overturning that principle. It slams the MOS, stating "Wikipedia is the only site I can find that does not capitalize bear in Black bear. The MOS rules are arbitrary and poorly formed.". The second paragraph goes further to boldly assert: "TITLES that represent names should be written with every word capitalized per standard English 'Title Case'". xkcd continued to trumpet the superiority of Title case. In so advocating, he seemed to be a lone voice. Xhe wasn't there to listen, but to lecture. And that's why some got worked uo about it. Further, xkcd couldn't be bothered to comb through the archives oneself for when the rule was introduced or to raise a proper RfC. So I challenged xkcd to put up or shut up. He didn't put up, so others duly acted upon it. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS is not sacred doctrine. I can "slam" it. It isn't perfect. I freely admit I believe it is flawed, and we should be allowed to discuss possible flaws. "Further, xkcd couldn't be bothered to comb through the archives oneself " Yea, the answer came from 2001. How in the world would I have ever found it? There is nothing wrong with asking others if they know where an answer is. Talk pages are for talking. "xkcd continued to trumpet the superiority of Title case." That is not true, I have already modified my position since the conversation started, do to a point Rob made. "Xhe wasn't there to listen, but to lecture." I contend people who say "the mos is fine the way it is" are the people who refuse to listen to what other people have to say. Fingers are already in ears. "So I challenged xkcd to put up or shut up." Put up what? We have not reached a conclusion yet, because we were trying to have a discussion ON A TALK PAGE. If you don't like the discussion we are having, I am not forcing you to participate in it. There is WP:OWN of the TALK page going on, if you don't have a conversation the MOS supporters approve of, they close it. This is an issue. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom." Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. California. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Time for another link to WP:FREESPEECH? And it should be noted that, in the professional literature, I'm pretty sure that while bird names are capitalised, i.e. "Common Yellowthroat", other taxas' names are not, i.e. "Black bear" is the correct formatting and those other sites that do captalise it are the ones that are wrong. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I quoted an educated person who was illustrating a principle. The principle of free speech existed before the constitution, and the point I am making is that if you don't like a discussion someone is having, start your own discussion, don't silence theirs. I hope you can understand the difference between invoking the principle of free speech and the implementation of that principle by the united states government. The issue here is people preventing others from having a discussion about the rules on a talk page. This isn't the place for a bird/bear debate. (http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=black+bear%2CBlack+bear%2CBlack+Bear&year_start=1740&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=) (If you really want something to think about, substitute Black bear with "red meat".) Regardless of what the "correct" capitalization is, we should be able to discuss it on talk pages. People should not be allowed to come in and say "youre not allowed to have a discussion concerning the rules," followed by the closing of a discussion. Discussion should not be closed in the first place. Xkcdreader (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling by 68.50.128.91

    68.50.128.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been tying up numerous editors on Talk:Robert B. Bell with a repeated frivolous semi-protected edit request. The anon. editor wants to include unreliable information about one of the most-trolled individuals on the internet who is of no notability by wiki standards. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_20#Christian_Weston_Chandler and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Weston_Chandler. Despite repeated attempts to explain things to the user by at least 4 different editors, the anon persists in mis-using the template and trying to violate WP:BLP. Actually, if you look at the IPs contribs, you'll see pretty much nothing but attempts to add CWC material to Wikipedia. At this point, I'm pretty sure the IP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to spread the trolling of CWC. This list edit summary accusing me of trolling/vandalism for trying to politely explain policies is the final evidence that the account is just here to troll wiki and/or CWC. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, regarding calling my actions "trolling."
    You are incorrect about my user contributions; I invite anyone reading this to look through them to see the truth. If I have spent more time than I wanted to on the Bell edit request, it's because the editor above keeps trying to close it before discussion can be had on it. If the above editor finds the sources that I have posted (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles and television news reports, as well as official court documents) "unreliable" the above editor has a right to their own erroneous opinion. We can discuss it on the the talk page, or not, and we'll see what others have to say. But the above editor should not try to shut down discussion because he/she happens to disagree with the request in the first place.
    In short, the above editor should handle this like an adult and let the process take its course like it's supposed to. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed the edit request as not done; there is obviously no consensus to implement it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)\[reply]
    There needs to be a reasonable period to discuss it, first. Obviously there can't be consensus if the discussion is shut down almost immediately in a knee-jerk way by editors such as Sailsbystars. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You discuss and form consensus before pinging all of us who watch the template with a request. Not after. gwickwiretalkediting 02:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. I was told by an administrator on this very noticeboard to make the request due to the edit filter's false positives, as I have pointed out numerous times. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They were assuming in good faith that you had legitimate edits to make, which you really haven't shown. In spite of badgering us on the talk page for two weeks now, where you've argued about policy, deleted people's comments, and reverted people when they disagree with you, you STILL haven't provided a reliable secondary sources. WP:BLPPRIMARY is abundantly clear that a reliable secondary source is required. Do that and I'll make the edit myself. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on Mehmed the Conqueror admins needed

    Page protected, discussion taken to DRN. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I would like to ask the opinion of the administrators on the dispute at Mehmed the Conqueror's page. This was a 15th century Ottoman/Turkish ruler who conquered the Byzantine Empire, their capital Constantinople, and mostly struggled against other Christian powers. In short the dispute is about LGBT and rape of this ruler, whether he was LGBT/rapist or not. In the talk page it is very long discussed so I will try to explain it in short.

    It is claimed by some contemporary Byzantine historians that Mehmed was trying to rape several little boys, but this is disputed by modern Turkish historians who point out that contemporary Ottoman historians do not mention any of these claims.

    Before I started editing on this page, the LGBT and boy-rape stories were presented as if they were facts and there were a dozen of LGBT categories in the article. There was no criticism to these stories after all rape is a serious accusation. And I knew that Mehmed has a much different image in the works of Turkish/Ottoman historians. So I wanted to add criticism to these claims and I found sources in which modern Turkish historians, including Halil Inalcik, dispute these stories (see this and this, by pointing out that these stories do not appear in the works of contemporary Ottoman historians. I first tried to add sourced criticism, it was reverted and I was accused of promoting pro Turkish/Neo-Ottoman and Islamic agenda and being anti LGBT. In fact I was not doing this. I was only adding the other point of view, since rape is a serious accusation, but it seems they make these kind of personal accusations to silence other users. After an edit-war and long discussions on the talkpage, the criticism was accepted and the categories were removed since its not a fact and based on disputed weak sources. Then the page was protected for a while. After the protection expired an anonymous (changing) IP who might be a sock puppet and who is still violating this page (mass-removal of text) and has done this in the past, removed the criticism to present it as a fact. He is basically pushing his own POV and doesn't allow the other point of view to be added.

    It is always the same IP (same location, IP numbers show small differences), who is adding and removing sourced text without discussion and who accuses everyone which he doesn't agree as "Turkish nationalist/neo-Ottoman and Islamic propaganda"

    Here are some of his edits and IP's he uses:
    93.133.190.75
    77.4.193.214
    93.133.167.212
    77.4.253.60
    93.134.137.144
    93.133.148.229
    77.4.249.210
    93.134.173.227
    93.133.174.169
    93.133.141.203
    93.134.142.91
    77.4.209.24
    77.4.239.146
    77.4.243.235
    93.133.171.31


    But I reverted to the consensus but then they added more stories about boys being raped.

    There was a German scholar called Franz Babinger who wrote a biography about Mehmed's life and his book is critical about Mehmed and bases this on these Byzantine historians. His book includes most of these claims including who originally came up with these stories. His book is called Mehmed the Conqueror and his time and is perceived as one of the foremost works on Mehmed in the West. Probably all other modern Western sources are based on his book. First the article stated that Mehmed was attracted to both men and women, later I added (according to Franz Babinger), they first didn't accept it but later they did. I added criticism of Turkish historians.

    The boy rape was first based on 1 story:

    • The execution of Loukas Notaras, a Byzantine nobleman, some Byzantine historians claim he was killed for refusing to hand over his son to the sultan, while according to all Ottoman and some Byzantine sources he was executed for treachery and bribery.

    Since I added criticism to this story, the Personal Life section of Mehmed turned into the execution story of Notaras so I removed this all to the article of Notaras.

    In the Personal Life secton of Mehmed I left, "According to Franz Babinger he was atracted to men and women and based this on various Byzantine historians". So I did not go into much detail but summarized it in the claim of Babinger since his book contains most of these stories. I think this is sufficient.

    But then the anonymous IP added another source that Mehmed tried to rape Radu, a 15th century Wallachian prince, and added LGBT categories back.

    I removed this because 1 sentence in Babingers assertion was already enough and there was no reason to go into so much detail about. Or we had to add criticism to it.

    But then User:Contaldo80 completely wrote a detailed LGBT section, where some sources are mixed with the wrong sentences. I did not like this because it is again presenting these stories as facts while cherry picking sources and only mildly refuting them.

    I have also tried to improve the article with the facts that really matter and which for a long time have not been expanded, because the only edits were edit wars about this LGBT. I did research and expanded the history, reign administration but User:Contaldo80 accused me of "clearly pushing a pro-Turkish/Ottoman bias".

    So the rest of the edits consist of me undoing his edit and vice versa. I think we should not add so much detailed info which is disputed by historians and who are ultimately based on 15th century rumors of Byzantine historians who probably wrote this stories as slanders because Mehmed conquered their capital city Constantinople and ended their empire. Some Turkish historians think this was the reason.

    So it does not seem to be neutral to devote so much space in the page to Mehmed raping little boys. I think one sentence about LGBT in the Personal Life section is enough or we have to add more criticism to each of these allegations. But I think adding so much negative info will result that the page will be full with these disputed dubious rumor stories and I think they were also added primarily by anti Mehmed users as slander.

    So my first proposal is to indefinitely protect this page from anonymous IP's who are only adding above mentioned subjects, ignore discussions on the talk page and never really contribute to the article, except for slander and discredit the historical person.

    My second proposal is to only add a short sentence about this LGBT, I do not think it necessary to add so much details about dubious raping stories, which make the article un-encyclopedic and I found an article with extensive criticism of Turkish historians but I didn't find it necessary to add their entire detailed criticism and so I summarized it in one sentence, otherwise I can expand that too but then the article will have too much disproportional discussions on LGBT and rape.

    Can you please look at this and end this discussion about (raping boys) once and for all. And the page should be protected from IP's I don't think they are neutral, in my opinion their goal is to vandalize.

    Thanks in advance.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a way to summarize the above post? An (admitingly very brief) read of the above seems to suggest this is a content dispute and should go through the usual dispute resolution process... Singularity42 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can summarise it quite quickly for you. Mehmed II was a 15th century military leader. A number of contemporary sources claim Mehmed sexually exploited the sons of vanquished nobles. Some editors, including myself, have tried to refer to this in the article in a relatively brief way and using mainstream academic sources. The complainant above has a problem because they argue the primary sources were written by hostile observers (whereas local - Ottoman - observers do seemingly not cover the issue). My argument is that the sources cited are good ones and we do not know for sure that the primary sources are incorrect in their claims. Nevertheless I have also made sure theat text has remained in place citing the counter-argument - ie that the primary sources are potentially open to bias. That seems a good balance to me. The complainant continues to insist this is a LGBT issue" (the term is anachronistic here). Despite their protests they are clearly pushing a pro-Turkish/ Ottoman polemic which is skewing the balance of the article. The complainant has also been personally abusive on several occasions. I have explained I am happy for them to challenge the robustness of the secondary sources, or to include mroe secondary sources which support the claim of bias; but I am not prepared to leave the whole section out on a personal whim. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If this isn't the right place, where should I add this?DragonTiger23 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    BEfore Contaldo insisted to include his own text, the only mention was about attraction to both men and women and the story of Notaras execution. But now Contaldo combined different stories as to prove it was common, he basically copied this book. In that book the execution of Notaras is deeply investigated by analysing various sources, Contaldo cherry picked the sections relating to Mehmed and used this in his text without critism. I have already explained these stories in detail on the talk page, they are controversial weak sources so I do not understand why all these stories should be added in a way which implies that they are facts and only mildly refuting. These claims are also not relevant to the article or proportional to this ruler. What Contaldo insist is to add some Byzantine slandering rumors in detail, since all these stories are already summarized in Babinger's book and Babinger's concludes that Mehmed may have been attracted to men and women. Even Babinger states that they are based on a few Byzantine sources and he himself does not find them very credible. Also can you please say that they should stop accusing me of being pro-Turkish/ Ottoman, if I am so by their logic only because I added criticism then doesn't he become anti-Turkish/Ottoman because he insist on presenting rape stories as facts? Is this normal that they are trying to discredit my User by using so cheap accusations, I have done nothing which suggest this.

    I think this is sufficient information for the page.

    My version:

    Franz Babinger in his book Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time, asserted that he was attracted to both women and men, by basing this upon various Byzantine historians such as Doukas, Chalcocondylas.[1] However these assertions met fierce criticism from modern Turkish historians, including Halil Inalcik pointing out that contemporary Ottoman sources do not mention this.[2]

    Contaldo adds this after the siege of Constantinople:

    Several contemporary chroniclers have also written that following the fall, Mehmed deliberately spared the sons of certain noblemen from execution[3]. These youths had apparently caught his eye and were subsequently sent to his seraglio, supposedly to be seduced. Most notable was the youngest son of Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, who numerous contemporary sources say was “snatched from the arms of his parents”. The Byzantine historian Doukas described how after the fall of Constantinople, Notaros resisted attempts to deliver his son to the “pleasures” of the sultan and was summarily executed[4][5][6][7]. Leonard of Chios, related the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas[8]. The young Notares later escaped the harem and fled overseas.

    Nor did this seem to be an isolated case. The son of Sphrantzes met the same fate; and later lost his life after a plot to kill the sultan failed. Nor were the detainees confined to Constantinople. Radu cel Frumos, (son of the duke of Wallachia), was also reported as being subject to Mehmed’s erotic advances. The academic Demetrios Chalkokondyles describe how Mehmed “proposed toasts in his honour, and invited him to his chamber”. Radu at first resisted attempts by the king to kiss him, stabbed him in the thigh and fled up a tree. Thereafter Radu submitted to become the sultan’s lover and lived with him in the palace[9].

    The suggestion of homo-erotic impulses has met, however, fierce criticism from modern-day Turkish historians, including Halil Inalcik, noting that the events described were set out by hostile Byzantine or Greek chroniclers, and such tales are not to be found in Ottoman sources. Indeed there is a chance that the stories echoed polemic from Iberia in relation to Saint Pelagius who similarly resisted the advances of a muslim king[6]. Also, figures such as Notaras and other Christian dignitaries in the city were likely executed for purely political reasons[10][11][12][13].DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, (ed. WC Hickman, translated from the original German by R Manheim), Princeton University Press, 1992, pp 475, 426 - 428.
    2. ^ http://arsiv.zaman.com.tr/2003/05/31/kultur/h5.htm
    3. ^ Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, (ed. WC Hickman, translated from the original German by R Manheim), Princeton University Press, 1992, pp 475, 426 - 428.
    4. ^ Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Cambridge University Press, 1965.
    5. ^ Crowley, Roger (2006). Constantinople: The Last Great Siege, 1453. Oxford: A.P.R.I.L. Publishing.
    6. ^ a b Andrews, Walter G. (2005). − The Age of Beloveds: Love and the Beloved in Early Modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society. − − Duke University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-8223-3424-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    7. ^ The Siege and Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies, Marios Philippides,Walter K. Hanak, 2011, page 609-611
    8. ^ John R. Melville-Jones, "The Siege of Constantinople 1453: Seven Contemporary Accounts"
    9. ^ The Siege and Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies, Marios Philippides,Walter K. Hanak, 2011, page 609-611
    10. ^ Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Volume 88, Karl Krumbacher, page 281, 1995
    11. ^ The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Marios Philippides,Walter K. Hanak, page 641, 2011
    12. ^ Studies from history. Richard i. Mohammed ii, William Harris Rule, page 119, 1854
    13. ^ The Ottoman Empire: conquest, organization and economy, Halil İnalcıkpage, page 190, 1978
    • DragonTiger23, sorry no one has mentioned this yet as I can see you put a lot of time into your post, but neither WP:ANI nor administrators deal with content issues (admins have no extra say on content matters). You're looking for WP:DRN but see WP:DR for general dispute resolution practices. May I suggest that when you post to DRN you keep it brief, long posts like these tend to be ignored by many people. Good luck. Sædontalk 09:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is plenty of discussion, let me reassure you - so I don't think semiprotection is a useful approach in this case. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Then I will remove this to section to there.DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Move my puppet case

    Mooooving right along. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can an admin please move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh Rumage to the correct location? I messed up the title and am unable to move it. Pinkadelica♣ 19:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --auburnpilot talk 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Pinkadelica♣ 20:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Iyad Burnat

    The Iyad Burnat article would probably benefit from semi-protection and revdel-ing all the tagged BLP violations per WP:CRD. The article appears to be under attack by ultranationalists or possibly some kind of hobby club for sociopaths, hard to tell. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotected by NawlinWiki. BLPvios are probably bad enough to warrant revdeletion, assuming the article survives AfD. —Rutebega (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    AFCShandong

    Apologies extended and accepted. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    AFCShandong (talk · contribs) has been editing Chinese football articles for a while and has caused more than one editor grief. See editor's talk page and User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2012-12#User:AFCShandong for examples. Editor has received multiple warnings and several final warnings. Editor simply refuses to discuss, quite possibly since the editor is not a native English speaker. Today, editor has decided to go against WP:OVERLINK again and is walking through articles and linking China in its various forms (edit summaries, player talk pages, etc.). I am opening this notice in hopes that editor will start discussing, if not a short block might help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I attest 200% to what Walter conveyed in his message. Sadly, i'm not as hopeful as he is, this guy will NEVER talk with us unless he's blocked, not sure he will if that occurs also. --AL (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, I really didn't really know complex Wikipedia editing is. I'll look up tutorials and I promise that whatever you mentioned will not happen again, such as overlinking, removing sections etc. Also when the notification came up with new messages, I ignored that because I thought it was just spam or something similar in that aspect. As I said, I'm truly sorry and I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. If I ever mess up again, just shoot me a message. AFCShandong (talk)

    • So, i must also present my apologies, for saying you would not talk to anyone. Hopefully, it will be the end of the misunderstandings and we can all work together improving the articles from now on. Sorry. --AL (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Walter, are you also happy that AFCShandong has seen the error of their ways and will now be able to edit/discuss matters in a more constructive manner? If so I will close this ANI and you can all go about your business. GiantSnowman 08:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the editor has been here for six months on-and-off. The first warnings arrived just over a month in and no effort was made to communicate either via talk pages or in edit summaries. I have to assume that it's a language issue and will work to communicate better and without warnings. I don't know if I'm happy, but I'm willing to close the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Very Poor Experience with Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu

    I am a Padres fan and over the past months I've tried to add detail to the "Jeff Moorad" article. The article seems to have been stripped of a great amount of detail. Not sure I understand the rationale behind this? Removing the entire Community Work section seems especially strange: almost as if there were a personal campaign against Mr. Moorad by some editors... Honestly, I am done editing this article. Over the past months I've tried to add detail to the article, much of it coming from an MLB.com biography and some from more recent news articles, etc. I feel cheated as a Wikipedia user that my edits have been stripped in the name of mere technicalities. There seems to be no protection from the tyrrany of Wikipedia editors. Pretty interesting that when the community tries to get involved in editing an article, there is this harsh a response from Wikipedia editors. Of course, I understand fully: Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu have found niches here on the baseball sections of Wikipedia, and someone trying to help with the articles would take some of their power. The editors used seemingly every tactic to remove my edits, including accusations of slanting sources, etc. Yet, it seems that the editors are slanted in the very opposite direction to which they accuse me of being. Practically every edit I made would be removed and I would receive a message directing me to the "Welcome Page." I will not study the welcome page as I do not plan to spend hours on end editing Wikipedia articles, and I don't think that Jimmy Wales' intention was to have every user known every technical detail, but rather to come together and share our knowledge and create a great resource for the world. I've tried to do that and found that I haven't been able to do so.

    This is not what Wikipedia has been to me, and I'm sorry that it has had to be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Spain

    Hi, I am currently involved in an edit war with user:LTblb because he refuses my edits (corrections) in several articles (the principal, Spain).

    The issue started with user:Bashevis6920. He changed the data about the Metropolitan Areas of Spain without consensus, he removed all (MA) data from the article, and he added/introduced random and sourceless figures, as he stated the data of Bilbao and Málaga were/are wrong.

    I think user:LTblb-user:Bashevis6920-user:Alex320000 are the same person (it is a kind of sockpuppet user). This user refuses to correct metro areas, typo, spelling and pronunciation because he says I haven't reached a consensus... But how can we reach a consensus if we start with lies, and there is always an antagonic actor who refuses all my edits, and edits what he wants or likes...

    Can an expert help us here, please? Alburzador (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    * Here Bashevis6920 changed the previous reference for metropolitan areas in Spain - ESPON (2007) - without consensus) Alburzador (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    It takes two to tango. By my count, You're at nine reverts while LTblb is at ten. Everyone Dies In the End warned you both at 0230 UTC. Talk:Spain is the place you should be now, not here. —Rutebega (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Its always amazed me that the most fractious debates on WP usually revolve around diacritics.
    @Alburzador - I would cease the edit war and try to discuss the changes that you are making one-by-one on the talkpage. If you reach something that you simply can't agree on with User:LTblb, consider an WP:RfC! Good luck. NickCT (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple IPs edit-warring in conspiracist claims

    semi protected 3 months. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Article on Collapse of the World Trade Center is being hit with some serious edit-warring by various IPs pushing the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. One IP was blocked, but semi-protection is clearly needed and the POV-pushing IPs should probably also be blocked. At least one belongs to a proxy server.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indeffed. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Harleyborgais (talk · contribs) has been making legal threats. I asked him to explicitly withdraw them and the response is:

    "For the time being I will promise not to attempt any legal actions against anyone on this issue, even though I disagree with you. For now I will carefully ponder all of your comments and as soon as I have the time to return to this issue I will respond to all of your comments here. I will present evidence to support all of my claims, and withdrawal any that I feel you have proven me wrong on.

    As I sat considering which charges I would bring, the only ones that came up were severe: Crime against humanity (for spreading false info that cause harm [injury, loss, or detriment], treason [if in the US, for giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution], and potentially fraud [though I cannot see a gain on your part, unless you have interests which I find difficult to believe considering the inherent righteousness of what you actually do here]. It was never my intention to press charges that severe, as the harm does not seem severe enough to warrant the punishments these bring.

    Anyways, until I have more time and am able to respond to everything, I will take NO legal actions against anyone on this issue."

    This doesn't look like a withdrawal to me but statement that he may still take legal action. If you look at his talk page and his few article edits, I don't think he is going to get very far editing in any case. But on the NLT issue, does anyone see a reason not to block him? Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Even if he did mean to retract rather than just put on hold his (outrageously ridiculous) legal threats, his other recent postings show he's some kind of fringe nutter (Sovereign citizen movement-promotion and stuff), so there's nothing positive to expect from his contributions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. He's convinced he's right, that labor taxes are illegal, ditto home foreclosures, you don't need a driving licence, etc. He's in the wrong place. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank god he's not representative Basket Feudalist 11:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone else think it is rather ironic that a "sovereign citizen" nutter fringe theorist is threatening legal action, in courts that he presumably doesn't believe are legally constituted?--ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mass uploading of NFC of recently deceased by Slowking4 - possibly a POINTy violation

    User blocked for 48h - although judging by his talkpage we may well be back here again in around 42 Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A discussion has been started a few days ago by B (talk · contribs) on WT:NFC on the issues of non-free images of the recently deceased. The matter is being discussed in a reasonable manner though no clear consensus has come out yet.

    It has been noted that Slowking4 (talk · contribs) has started going what appears to be alphabetically through Category:2013 deaths and uploading NFC images of these people, starting shortly after the above discussion thread was started. A number of these have already been tagged as CSD or FFD, in that while deceased, the possibility of finding free media exists (this is related to the thread above). While a strict reading of NFC says that once dead we would never be able to generate free media of such people, there's other avenues of getting non-free.

    I've given Slowking4 a warning (and mention about ANI), but I'm wondering if this is POINTy violation, given past issues with Slowking4 and NFC, and some of his responses in the open FFD (eg : the last bunch at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 16) that flaunt NFC policy. I am hesistant to outright request a block or removal of uploading priviledges at this time, as I've just now warned him, and in the long run, the actions aren't necessarily wrong - but it is exasperating the current discussion on whether we should wait to use non-free images on the recently deceased. However, at the same time, such actions are just not appropriate for a free content goal. I open the question if anything more needs to be done - pending Slowking4's response and the issue at hand. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am currently removing images that he has uploaded where the relevant persons were public figures up until their recent deaths - for those people it is very clear that a free image may be available (and that's all NFC requires). Slowking's rationale is that "he couldn't find any free images of them on Google" - which of course due to the nature of Google being slanted towards commercial sites you almost certainly won't. I have left a few alone (for instance, a sportsman who retired 50 years ago). These are either reasonable additions or can be discussed at FFD. This is a direct violation of WP:POINT by Slowking and he needs to be clearly aware that such editing cannot be tolerated. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This really should be at ANI, I believe, not at AN. I'm (obviously) involved, so I'm not going to take it upon myself to do so, but I believe it should be moved. --B (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a question for Masem — is it possible to prevent uploading without a block? I'm under the impression that all autoconfirmed users are always able to upload images unless they're blocked. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think that we can un-autoconfirm someone, and an edit filter seems a bit much for just one editor. Depending on what we find out, I say we either do nothing or we issue a ban on uploading nonfree images, per Salvidrim's suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If a decision were to be made for a community ban on uploading non-free images, it could be enforced just like any other topic ban. I'm not even advocating that necessarily - I think that there just needs to be some kind of meeting of the minds and an agreement not to upload fair use images in this manner. Acceptable: you're editing an article, in the course of doing so you observe the lack of a photo, you look around and try to find a free one and can't, you search flickr and don't find anything, so you upload a photo under a claim of fair use. Unacceptable: you patrol through a category of dead people and upload fair use photos in alphabetical order with no attempt whatsoever to obtain a free image. --B (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Any list of "acceptable" uses would get abused. I think an uploading ban is the most reasonable way to address this problem.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, and they can still request an image to be uploaded (I think that is still around?); unless, of course, that's abused in turn. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I say this without having looked at his editing, but given the evidence presented, I see no reason for an uploading ban — do nothing if it's less severe, and ban from uploading non-free images if it's more severe. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at his edits pertaining to Arts on the Line.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing issue

    Slowking4 has resumed uploading non-free images of deceased people. In a clear case of WP:POINT, he's now gone to people deceased a while ago (1970), but it's clear he's still not making any effort to find free images further than the usual Google search. On his talkpage, responses to other editors included

    • "sorry, i ignore policy discussion, and ANI. much ado about nothing. more heat than light. what controversy? anything you try to do here is controversial: it's SOP. why do anything? this is not a bulk upload. this is the upload wizard one at a time. but now that you mention it, i should really write a bot for fair use uploads." and
    • "i can see discussion is of limited utility. this playing subjunctive gaming of rules, "oh you could try harder to find a free image" is bullshit... i'm going to handle it. deal with it."

    I would suggest that this probably has to be dealt with here now - this is clearly WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT given that there is currently a discussion going on at WT:NFC about the issue which Slowking4 refuses to join, and he has previous form for this type of uncollegial behaviour. I am reluctant to block him as I may be perceived as involved, but I don't think nuking all his latest contributions would be controversial. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • This has to stop. He's uploading photos from commercial content providers (violates WP:NFCC#UUI #7. He's uploading photos like File:A. A. Allen.jpeg, which is from a prolific public figure who died in 1970 and public domain photos almost certainly exist. Basically all of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 16 and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 17 is his photos and basically all of them are inappropriate. If you're uploading fair use photos at a clip of every few minutes, then you're not making any effort whatsoever to find a free photo. Rather, fair use photos ruin our chances of obtaining a free one. Take File:A. A. Allen.jpeg. Suppose we email the successor to this guy's ministry and ask for a public domain photo or one that they own the copyright to and are willing to license under acceptable terms ... what do you think they will say? "Why should we? You're willing to use a 'fair use' image - why should we do this for you?" --B (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since he's evidently deliberately defying the consensus here that these uploads are inappropriate, in the face of a clear consensus that sanctions against him may be necessary if he continues, I have blocked him for 48 hours to put a temporary stop on these mass uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's another one: File:Franz Aigner.jpg. According to {{PD-Austria}}, copyright of photos expires 50 years from publication. Are we really to believe that a guy who wrestled in Austria in the 1920s didn't have a photo published of him in that time? Heck, this one might even be public domain. And regardless of whether it is, he uploaded a tiny unusable photo rather than scrolling down to the bottom of the source website and finding one of usable quality. This is the problem with these bulk uploads - he's not putting any effort into doing it right - just google, find, upload, and move on. --B (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I seems to understand that the definition of a simple photo is very narrow in Austrian law and that most photos get a full life+70 years protection. The Egyptian example that I posted at today's FFD page is better, I think. I think I've shown that free photos of A. A. Allen exist, see FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay - international copyright law is not my thing. But the point is that if you upload a really tiny image from the top of a page and don't scroll down one page view and see that there's an actually usable photo a little further down, you're engaged in way too fast of a process, rather than a serious effort to build an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • How do you know there are free photos available? I thought there was a rule against "crystal ball" conclusions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Several points here: (1) WP:BALL refers to content of articles and is completely inapplicable here - I'm not writing an article about the potential for existence of a public domain photo. (2) WP:NFCCE says, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it for non-compliance with criterion 10c are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." In other words, if you are seeking to retain the content, you must provide evidence that it complies with our fair use policy (ie, it's not replaceable) - it's not my job to prove it is replaceable - only to show that it reasonably might be. (3) As I said, the issue with this photo isn't just copyright - it's that Slowking4 is carelessly uploading these things. This is a tiny unusable photo and, supposing that it is legitimate fair use, there's a better one at the bottom of the page that if he had even taken the time to scroll down he would have seen. Edits to the encyclopedia - fair use photos or otherwise - should be well-thought out, not haphazard.--B (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Voidz

    Is User:Voidz here to help create an encyclopedia or is Voidz here to promote. Voidz has started a lot of articles on a lot of subjects. Lots have been overly promotional. Lots have been supported by bad sources. Lots have been deleted and more will be. An example of the puff Voidz creates "Although Shaun Polack has shown to be a natural talent to be successful in motorsports, he has an unorthodox view on how sponsorships and how professional drivers are portrayed by the media. This is apparent on his decision to only work with sponsors who he feels have the same views on him towards the message they are trying to convey to the public." [56]. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like a professional spammer. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly concur, and another non-admin editor and I were already prepping to make this case. His original articles, quite numerous for someone active only since February, are marked by strong promotional tones, general (but not complete) dubious notability, and sourcing that goes beyond being poor to being dishonest, seeming to throw in anything that has the subject's name in it, whether it contains the information being supposedly cited or even whether it contains any reference to the subject at all. (My favorite example of the latter being a reference in the article Justin Johnson (singer) for this Google Books result for a book index that happened to contain the words "Justin", "Johnson", "gospel", and "singer" on the page, albeit with no reference to a Justin Johnson, and certainly not this Justin Johnson, who was only 6 when the book was published.) Voidz does not tend to involve himself in the AFDs of his articles, although there are sometimes SPA accounts that do so (as in the Justin Johnson page), raising the question of whether some form of puppetry is at work. There may be some argument that some small portion of his contribution are not strictly promotional, but the time of other editors that he wastes by generating so much that needs policing outweighs any benefit those edits generate. User has now been warned about his edits multiple times. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papisjap. De728631 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Socking is very likely for an editor for hire. If SPI pans out I think the DUCK principle suggests the editor is a professional spammer rather than an overzealous fan of up and coming musicians, photographers, and entrepreneurs from all over the globe. 75.69.118.163 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds about right. Previous editors-for-hire/spammers show similar patterns. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request

    So have you wished it, so shall it be. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could an administrator please edit the Queue 5 for DYK and change Sugababe's to Sugababes'. Thank you in advance Till 14:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done by Yngvadottir. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Boston Marathon bombings

    Protected for 2 weeks. That's all folks! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Will someone please consider semi-protecting the article pronto? Both Writ Keeper and I are somewhat involved in a content dispute, and the article keeps getting disrupted by IP editors sticking unsourced North Korean pressure cookers in it. [FWIW, the content dispute wouldn't be affected by semi-protection since it involves registered editors, but I'm not putting my head on the chopping block again.] Quickly please: it's already busy enough. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I had already protected it for a week, which I felt was very mild, but Zzuuzz reverted me [57] without notifying or discussing with any of us that had been involved with the protection. I don't mind being reverted, but I should have been notified (before or after) out of courtesy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's strange, Dennis. When you discussed this with me on the talk page, yesterday, you were adamant that the place to make requests for page protection is WP:RFPP, so that's where I went. Yet here you are asking the boys at ANI to circumvent WP:RFPP. I wonder why you would do such a thing. Then again, it looks as though the result here is a foregone conclusion, so maybe that's why you would do such a thing. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RFPP is the proper place to make a simple protection/unprotection request, but as soon as it proves controversial and appears to need discussion, this is the appropriate forum to seek consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also add that it is normal for an admin considering reverting another admin to discuss with him (or them), or at a minimum, notify afterwards. I found out that I had been reverted only by going through the edit history and seeing recent IP edits, then having to chase it down. Even now, I notified him and Bongwarrior of this discussion since they were previously involved. Had I and Bongwarrior been invited at WP:RFPP, it might could have been handled there instead, but now requires a full community discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • [EC]It wasn't in the least controversial. I made the request; it was discussed, left overnight, and then uprotected. It's clear from Dennis's comments on his talk page that he is peeved because he didn't get his own way, so he's come here to make sure he does. There is absolutely no reason why he couldn't have taken this request to WP:RFPP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that this was not a reversion, but an un-semi-protection. Although a time frame needs to be fixed when setting the protection, this time is not fixed as if law. We should unprotect when protection is no longer necessary, and one of the ways of doing that is by 'testing the water'. Anyway, Dennis' view on unprotection was previously made clear on the talk page. For WP:RFUP to work properly, it must take into account these views, which is something I did (as well as reviewing all edits to the article and its talk page). I maintain that unprotection was worth a try. It should be obvious that if protection is required again it should be applied again, and I will not be bothered if it is. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for two weeks semi-protection

    Protection can always be reduced if a consensus finds it is no longer needed, but when protecting, you must pick a time frame. There is no "as long as needed" option. The last case like this, Sandy Hook, I took it to WP:AN and the consensus was one month, so I'm already erring on the light side here and in my previous protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The North Korea has already hopped to at least one new IP to continue posting his thing, and sadly, I don't think this is going to be the last of the wild claims we hear about this. In an overabundance of caution (and with no small regret, since there are definitely constructive IP edits to that page, as well), I think this is needed. (Note: as mentioned above by Drmies, I did and still do consider myself too involved with the article (particularly in a dispute over one of the victims' name) to protect it myself). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - it's clearly going to continue to attract problematic "North Korea" IP edits for a while yet -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: BLP violations are evil. In fact, one can make a case for full protection given the number of editors sticking in a victim's name against consensus on the talk page, against common sense, and against WP:V. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - original protection was sensible, now even more so - no idea what zzuuzz was/is playing at. GiantSnowman 16:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above. Some IPs obviously want to help, but with current events like this, we tend to see first-time contributions and vandalism. —Rutebega (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There has been very little vandalism since the page was unprotected. As soon as a vandal does pop-up there is a proposal to protect the page for 2 weeks. What vandalism there has been was removed instantaneously. The vandalism has not been an impediment to editing. There are more eyes on that article than on just about any other. It just needs a few admins to keep an eye on it and block the vandals as they crop up. By doing that you will keep the article available for all to edit. That's what WP is supposed to be about. That's what admining is supposed to be about. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well we have had about half a dozen admins show up here in the space of five minutes to vote to exclude unregistered users from the page for 2 weeks. Perhaps one or two of those would be good enough to keep an eye on it, thereby keeping the page open to all. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's done

    I've extended the semi-protection (and the full move protection) for an additional 2 weeks. There seems to be fairly strong support for such an action, which is actually not that big of a deal in the first place; we routinely use semi-protection in this manner on high-profile, controversial in-the-news topics. MastCell Talk 16:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) The discussion was archived just as I was gonna say my thing! Here it is anyway: Support (if my support means anything, as I'm not an admin). I personally wouldn't be upset if the page went full-protected. I doubt that's the best course of action, but I certainly wouldn't be upset. Ignatzmice•talk 17:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too. re:zebedee. How many admins in this 10 minute old vote? How many voting to take the lazy way out? How many voting to keep the encyclopedia open? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the "lazy way out" - it's what page protection is for. People died. Other people are vandalizing a sensitive topic. PP is created for just such a situation. If you don't like it, Conservapedia is somewhere else ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kamarupi Prakrit and user User:Bhaskarbhagawati

    Please discuss disputes on user talk or article talk pages before running to AN/I. —Rutebega (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Bhaskarbhagawati is removing a duely referenced (with page number given) sentence from the article Kamarupi Prakrit. He is insisting on a link to verify the sentence, but there isn't one (not all books are fully on the web). He has removed the sentence twice. diff) and (diff). The reason given, in his edit summary, is "Give page link for claim regarding usage of X sound"; which is strange because this sentence is not at all about phonetics, but the use of certain letters in an old language.

    I request that he be prevented from removing sentences arbitrarily----instead he should ask for more evidence, if needed. Such abrasive behavior has lead to edit wars in the past, I am afraid.

    Chaipau (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello everybody! relist this please

    Looks like someone's trying to raise the dead... m.o.p 19:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachchan family--Penssail (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, really? I'm actually impressed. Please don't clutter up ANI with requests like this. m.o.p 19:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Astynax, War of the Triple Alliance

    Dear all,
    Astynax (talk · contribs) has recently gone on a mission to redirect all links to War of the Triple Alliance to the term Paraguayan War (please see his recent edit history: [58]). A similar situation was previously discussed in the NPOV noticeboard ([59]) on April 12, 2012 (over a year ago).
    The main problem with Astynax's edits are not just the fact that he is trying to subtly remove the number of times the term "War of the Triple Alliance" leads to "Paraguayan War", but that he is using edit summaries to hide his misbehavior as "link disambiguation". In the article Chincha Islands War, he tries to impose the made-up word "inbrolied" as well as the term "Paraguayan War".

    1. On my edit summary, I noted that my edit was a copy-edit and WP:COMMONNAME (see ([60])
    2. Astynax then reverted my edit, again restoring the term "inbroiled" ([61])
    3. Given that his edit was not in Good Faith, I called out its blatant vandalism ([62])
    4. Astynax again reverts, reprimanding me for calling his edit vandalism, and returning the word "inbroiled" and term "Paraguayan War" back into the article ([63])

    It should also be noted that War of the Triple Alliance links directly to Paraguayan War, so the "link disambiguation" claim of Astynax is false.
    Please help.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I also would like to point out that the term "Paraguayan War" was imposed at the "War of the Triple Alliance" article in a controversial move discussion in 2012 (see [64]); to this day, "War of the Triple Alliance" has 261,000 Google Books hits (see [65]) by comparison to the miniscule "Paraguayan War" with 43,600 hits (see [66]). The move discussion even continued after the end of "voting" (see [67]). Since then, the term "War of the Triple Alliance" has been continously hounded down by those supporting the term "Paraguayan War".--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response: MarshalN20 never discussed or explained his reversion of my edit, either on my or the article's talk. Although my version contained a spelling and grammer error (and I was planning on looking at it again today), MarshalN20 decided on a simple revert instead of correcting and improving the sentence. MarshalN20 is undoubtedly aware that links to redirect pages are discouraged in FA-class articles, as he has reviewed at FAC, and it was not vandalism to change the link to the correct page. MarshalN20 could have piped a different title to the correct page, had he chosen and were it really an issue. As it was, I found the sentence confusing (which "alliance"?) and my attempt to improve it was not vandalism, as MarshalN20 alleged here. As for my "campaign", my edits this morning were simply cleaning up a lot of old links to redirects that I never got around to doing back when the article was moved. Another editor's comment reminded me that it hadn't been done, and it seems that MarshalN20 is taking my misspelling as an opportunity to resurrect an argument for Paraguayan War's article title for which he could not garner editor consensus twice before. • Astynax talk 22:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Astynax already knows about the sensibility over the article title of "Paraguayan War" and "War of the Triple Alliance". Astynax participated in the second move discussion and in subsequent discussions related to the matter (see [68]). I find no reason to "explain" to him something he knows. Furthermore, his long list of continuous recent edits (which he calls a "campaign") show his determined attitude that was not going to change with a comment on his talk page. Coming straight to AN/I still seems to me as the friendliest and easiest way to resolve this matter once and for all.
    I also did not make a "simple revert" of the material. As shown in the diffs, the original material that Astynax changed ([69]) is considerably different from my edit (see [70]). The fact that Astynax, a constant FA reviewer, did not even bother to notice that he was reverting to the term "inbroiled" also demonstrates that he was reverting for no reason other than to engage in an edit war with me.
    The article "Paraguayan War" is neither a Featured Article Candidate (FAC) nor a Featured Article (FA), and War of the Triple Alliance (as shown in the Google Books result of my second statement) is a perfectly acceptable direct link to the article "Paraguayan War".
    Lastly, what is at issue here are Astynax's recent edits that clearly aim to harm the wikilinks that use "War of the Triple Alliance" (for no other reason than to make a WP:POINT).
    Kind regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Although I am aware of your displeasure at repeatedly failing to garner editor consensus for an article move at Paraguayan War, I'm unsure what accusation you are leveling at me here or what actual harm you think I have done. Is it the 2 reverts I made to Chincha Islands War? Is it being bold in pointing a particular link in the latter article toward an article's name? Is it because I think it is important that articles progress toward higher levels (whether they are yet candidates for advancement or not)? Is it because of some point you imagine I am attempting to make? Is it because I made a mistake in my edit and didn't catch it before reverting the second time? Are you attempting to argue for an article move to another title here, rather than on the article's talk? • Astynax talk 08:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Provocative editor needs some action

    IP blocked 2 weeks because s/he obviously is not here to build an encyclopedia, rather, to fuel invective and is almost certainly a sock. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    We've got a IP who seems to be solely involved in provocation. If you take a look at the edits to GoodDay's page here and others we get provocative and insulting comments that have nothing to do with improving any article. GoodDay looks likely to be subject to Arbcom restrictions so actively trying to wind him up and actively encouraging him to sock is especially nasty. Also editing as SixtyNineSixtySix. Would an admin please take a look? Warning at least but the behaviour seems enough for a block in my view. I suspect its one of the old B&I article sock masters. ----Snowded TALK 21:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, alright. I'll leave off GoodDay. I guess he's a lost cause anyway. Anyway, I told him to go to Wiki News, so not really SP. Can't log in at the moment; forgotten password (will find it). 86.23.69.66 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you said "Just retire, have a few months off, then come back as someone else." That's sockpuppetry, and the rest of your post makes it absolutely clear you were aware of that. You also another editor's comment without permission. —Rutebega (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rangeblock on Fort Irwin National Training Center

    When an IP range is targeting one or a few articles only, then protecting the article(s) in question will almost always result in less collateral damage. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fort Irwin National Training Center is getting repeated spam from a cleaning service. All the edits, among edits to other articles of exactly the same nature, are from 69.235.x.x Might it be possible to rangeblock the offending IPs for a while? Per whois they're registered to AT&T Internet Services (69.224.0.0 - 69.239.255.255). I'd try it myself but I have a feeling I'd block ¼ of the US if I got it wrong… Could someone who understands CIDR take a look? Thanks. Tonywalton Talk 23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I have a feeling there would be a lot of collateral damage --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unregistered users blocked from editing this article for a year. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Potential vandalism on Iraq attacks article

    Not for here, and IP is already blocked by Materialscientist. Drmies (talk)

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

    Not sure how to proceed on this, but a few minutes ago part of the intro section and background info in the 15 April 2013 Iraq attacks article was deleted by User:216.169.108.216, whose talk page features an older warning from 2010, as well as one that just now happened on the Cony High School article. I already warned him, but wanted to have this here just in case whoever is behind this account decides to act again later. Skycycle (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Run-of-the-mill vandalism; such cases can be reported at WP:AIV if it gets out of hand. There is no need to start an ANI thread for such cases, and at any rate the IP is already blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Harassing/overbearing editor

    And we're done. Please don't drop warnings at the drop of a hat, especially if you're a guilty party. With thanks to Someguy. Drmies (talk)

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

    I have only reverted this editor once, yet he feels the need to post all this stuff on my talk page, accusing me of edit-warring. It's been a while since I've actively edited Wikipedia, so I don't know where to report the harassment, but I figure this is as good a place as any. Please move this to a more appropriate forum, if there is one. --C S (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    By my count, you have reverted twice. That is edit-warring. It's rather crass of him to warn you for it, because he's part of the problem too, but it is not harassment. Please continue to discuss the issue on the talk page and, as always, AGF. —Rutebega (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point out my second revert? I reverted him once here. That's it. I also made a change later here, but that's not what I reverted earlier, nor did he make any edits in between my two edits. Well, I'm probably not disposed to view his/her actions favorably now, but that kind of behavior encourages more polite, busy people to just go do something better, as I am going to do now. So s/he wins again. --C S (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [71][72]—Rutebega (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So the first link is to the first edit I've made to the article... I saw something wrong and I made the change. That counts as a revert now? Anyway, I guess this is enough time on this. Thanks for your input. --C S (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should really should stop being so surprised to see someone participate in an edit war with an edit summary of, "Please do not edit war. Seek consensus on talk". Someguy1221 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Messed-up page history

    All cleaned up. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Jasonvaidya123 recently moved User talk:Jasonvaidya123 to Wikipedia:Dhananjay prasad vaidya. I attempted to undo the changes, but the page history for User talk:Jasonvaidya123 is still at the Dhananjay prasad vaidya page. Not sure what I did wrong. Could someone please take a look and make it so that those two pages have the correct edit histories? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Something else is weird here. The talk page has entries to things like "Speedy deletion nomination of Potpie inc", but the user contributions for Jasonvaidya123 do not show him as having created or edited that page. Is this a problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's normal. The page was deleted, so it no longer shows up in his contributions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moreton Bay Symphony Orchestra (2nd nomination)

    Closed. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    without contacting a specific admin, could an admin close this as it went past 7 days. thanks. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User talk:68.231.15.56

    There are some issues here. I don't know if they merit a topic ban or if that is the answer. I will try to summarise them effectively. In adding some reliably sourced verifiable content to the current events portal I was unpleasantly called into check by the above editor. My contribution was deemed "sockpuppet account vandalism".

    In a further edit they stated the following: "dude in all fairness to WP:CIVIL - i have to ask are you just flat out "addicted" to maheim." This rather puzzled me considering it was they who seemed to be doing much of the deletion and violation of WP:CIVIL. The editor went on to again accuse me of vandalism and to say "it just wastes all the other editors times."

    Many of this person's issues seem to rest on accusing those they disagree with, those who won't let them delete or maintain what they desire, of sockpuppetry. I for one have not engaged in anything for "purposes of deception" or "to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." I have not deliberately or, as far I know, even accidentally (if that is possible) gone out of my way to do any of these.

    I later noticed the same editor had (yesterday) deleted this, was reverted by User:Capitalistroadster, then ignored that user and deleted it again. When I put it back this morning - I thought it was verifiable, useful, reliably sourced, provided good context to the event in question - the same editor immediately deleted it and stated: "if my removal of your vandalism was wrong other editors would have reinstated changes" - but how could they do this when this editor would simply remove it again as had now been demonstrated several times?

    On their talk page I attempted to address the points they made, trying to maintain the civility they said that I lacked. But the editor did not reply, then deleted my response - they can do that I know, but then this tells me they are only interested in the very things they have accused me of doing. They appear to continue to ride roughshod over consensus, delete anything they dislike. There is no attempt to discuss, only wild accusations of vandalism, incivility, sock-puppetry, and so on, thrown round willy-nilly. From looking at their contributions this sockpuppetry/vandalism obsession when dealing with others goes back quite a bit - 15 April restoration of unsourced material 11 April - targeting of IPs as well, which seems a bit much considering the editor is themselves an IP. At risk of violating the 3RR single-page 24-hour period rule, and not wanting to do that (hope I haven't, sorry if I have), I came here. I wondered if the current events portal is only open to contributions from established editors or is it part of the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Or can anyone explain this editor's repeated actions? Or tell if they are justified or in violation of Wikipedia policy? Am I, are others, such as Capitalistroadster, all wrong for getting in their way? --86.40.107.69 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=550963273"