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 Sergecross73 (talk | contribs) at 12:43, 3 June 2013 (→‎User:Thibbs). 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

    Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke

    Blocked by Bushranger. To be continued? Drmies (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added for clarity Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a new situation with the prolific TJ Spyke yet again. Despite countless warnings and requests to stop "fixing" redirects per WP:R2D/WP:NOTBROKEN, this editor continues to make these edits at a rapid pace (he uses AutoWiki Browser WPCleaner to really speed up his violations). His edit summaries often misleadingly suggest that he is performing "cleanup" when they have not been shortened to simply a period (".") or comma (",") which he presumably does to save himself time.

    I'm currently trying to work with him to develop a set of proposed exceptions to the rule because I think there are some very valid reasons to bypass redirects on occasion, and I think we should bring them before the community for discussion. While this discussion is going forward I have asked TJ Spyke to stop making further edits of this kind but unfortunately he seems to be incapable of controlling himself. Our discussions began in early April and he has dragged his heels on it through all of April and May and I'm now much shorter on time than I was previously. Consequently I can't provide nearly as much oversight for the harmful edits he is making. I need help dealing with this. I've previously contacted User:Amalthea about this resurgent problem here, and I'll inform both Amalthea and TJ Spyke about this thread. Something needs to be done because TJ Spyke has demonstrated a real inability to make changes unless severe penalties are applied. For reference, here is a list of his prior warnings about this issue:
    2007

    2008

    2009

    2010

    2012

    2013

    And here are his prior AN/Is on this topic:

    • 1 - This is really connected to the terrible problems he was having with revert warring, but it importantly demonstrates his willingness to violate the redirect-related rules over and over again based on his own personal preferred usage of terms.
    • 2 - His last R2D-specific AN/I

    And finally his block log which demonstrates that real penalties with real impact are required to make any kind of impression on this guy.

    Again I don't have the time to deal with this any more and I need administrative help at least until September when I'll have more free time. I'll continue to try to work with him toward developing a set of good exceptions to NOTBROKEN, but in the meanwhile he may need some discouragement in the form of blocks to stop him from violating the guidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the only penalty left is an indef block at this point really. The edit summaries alone are disruptive enough but to continue the behaviour that has lead to not 1, not 2 but 6 separate blocks is taking things too far. If people still want to allow the user to continue to edit I would suggest an enforcement of not allowing them to use automated tools, a strict promise to always use proper edit summaries and a formal agreement on redirect editing with failure on any one leading to an indef block. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user's block log is a long, sorry read, with well over a dozen total. I suggest a preventative block of one year, to prevent any further consumption of editing time by the community. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 21:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been reading over this since it first hit the page, going back through edits and there is a pattern of deflecting criticism and WP:IDHT. The last in a very long string of blocks was 35 days, with previous blocks ranging from sock puppetry to 3RR and obviously, lots of problems with improper redirect "repairs". I'm thinking there is little choice but to block here, for a minimum of 90 days. An indef might be the better choice because previous blocks have had no effect in changing behavior. I'm not sure, but it almost like the edit count is more important than the edit quality here, and Wikipedia isn't a video game. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any particular reason as to why the latest block increments for this users have been 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 35 days when so many users end up with increments like 1 day, 4 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 1 year, then indef? Is there the slightest reason to believe that the 32nd block will change his behavior when the first 31 blocks failed to do so? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've also taken a look over this and come very close earlier to indeffing myself but decided I wasn't quite ready for my first indef block for something other than copyvio (especially after my first admin block of the other day). That block log is atrocious and I think an indefinite block is the only answer as they have a serious case of WP:IDHT. The obfuscating edit summaries are the final straw. Dpmuk (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boy, I'd really hate to have to drop an indef block over something as stupid as redirects.... but, honestly, if it's been this many years with this many blocks, all for the same thing? I don't know what other option is available. I'd like to see TJ's response to the above, but I am inclined to block in this case. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think someone hit the nail on the head and it seems it's more about edit count and pride of place in the top editors list that meaningful contributions or helping to genuinely improve the project. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am also waiting to see if they are wise enough to come help us understand before resuming editing. And Guy, I can't speak for other admin, but the idea of how to escalate blocks has evolved over the many years. Also, the violations are problematic but not the most disruptive type of problems that admin see, so I'm guessing that played a part. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out this does not seem to be AWB editing. It lacks the actual tag and the version number, something which has been rolled out for a long time now. Also, the functions performed are not of any AWB plugin that I've ever seen. A check for redirects seems to be occurring and then a manual insertion of the alterations. It is a bit bizarre and TJ's input is really needed at this point to make sense of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If memory serves me right (It's 3:16am, so it might not) but reading through his archives, he seems to be using some other tools that I'm not familiar with. At the end of the day, the editor is responsible for each edit regardless of tool. A block is inevitable short of a really good explanation, and sadly, he hasn't been forthcoming. If he hasn't come forward soon, I would likely just indef block and allow it to be hashed out on his talk page, as we shouldn't keep a report open forever. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, that's right. I guess one of the warnings from 2008 got stuck in my head. He's switched from AWB to WPCleaner now. I've fixed the statement above. As for TJ Spyke responding here, I was surprised that he didn't say anything yesterday (Thursday) since he had told me on his talk page that he'd be free on Thursday and ready to discuss the exceptions we've been working on. Something must have come up. Considering how prolific and experienced an editor he is, would it be worth dropping a note at WT:VG and WT:PW to get some insight into his behavior from his peers at the WikiProjects he is most involved with? It would be good to get some kind of explanation for his strange behavior. Given his history of sockpuppeting it might also serve the dual purpose of alerting others about pattern behavior that might show up in future socks. -Thibbs (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that is necessary. The problem here seems to clearly be choices made by the editor, not the software itself. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a non-admin, I strongly support an indefinite block. The block log is atrocious, and since the last 6 blocks are ALL for violating WP:R2D (which I wasn't aware existed, which may be a good thing, maybe not), then I can't see how any lesser sanction will make a difference. If they are ever unblocked, a topic-ban from all edits to redirects, broadly construed, would have to be put in place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone ahead and dropped the hammer for indef, as after six previous blocks for the same disruptive behavior I don't see how anything else is going to solve the problem. No objection to anyone unblocking if evidence of clue is provided in an unblock request. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That goes beyond what I was requesting but I completely understand why that remedy was applied. As this makes it TJ's third indef block I think it's quite apparent that he's a thoroughly lost cause. It almost makes me saddest of all that the bulk of his "crimes" amount to 3RR vios (14 of them) and R2D vios (7). His "rap sheet" practically deserves its own place on WP:LAME. I really can't fathom why anyone would choose to edit as he has. Anyway I'll give it a little while to see if TJ Spyke wants to appeal the block but otherwise I'll continue forward with the R2D exception proposals on my own. Maybe some good can yet be salvaged from all of this futility. -Thibbs (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just logged in to do the same. I think we have waited long enough for a reply. There really isn't any choice but indef here, and I wouldn't suggest considering an unblock for at least 90 days or more. It is easy to use sweet words, but there needs to be some reflection on what the real problem is here. I want to be careful and point out that he isn't guilty by the simple virtue of the length of his block log (not all blocks at enwp are wise blocks) but it is the the long history of the same behavior. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 10:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Copyvios by User:Faizanali.007

    We're done for now--at least in this forum. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    About two weeks ago, I left a final warning for copyvios in Qaiser Naqvi, Samira Fazal, Barkat Ali Siddiqui and Rehan Sheikh. His most recent creation, Tarang Housefull, copies from [1]. The user is generally unresponsive (3 user talk edits).

    A contributor copyright investigation is already open at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Faizanali.007. MER-C 12:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked him. He had his chance to address the concerns and chose to continue violating the rules. Wizardman 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User has posted an unblock request. MER-C 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I've declined. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated Personal attacks

    I have been very patient with Expatkiwi (talk · contribs) however their actions long ago passed borderline issues with WP:NPA. They have made repeated personal attacks and other insults directed at me because they either do not like WP:NFCC or do not understand it. Werieth (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Got diffs? Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    2. How about you go back and read that big-ass orange box you neglected to read when you posted on this page? You know, the one that says in big bold letters You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Echo already notifies users when their user page is linked to. Werieth (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still a requirement as per the directions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone will have it set up for that. Better to be safe and just drop a note. --Onorem (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I took the liberty of taking care of it, but it looks got it as well, Toddst. XD We must have both gotten the idea. =) - Amaury (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hypocrisy, overzealousness, and choking red tape rule certain editors on Wikipedia. My efforts to enhance pages on this site have been pulled down like a condemned building. I've had an utter guts-full. Expatkiwi 21:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you did violate a core image use policy ... WP:IAR does not apply to non-free image use and other copyright issues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    People don't read big-ass orange boxes on the internet, as determined by research six years ago: banners are invisible. If one of the five primary rules of a society is to "ignore all rules," it's not very reasonable to freak out when someone doesn't follow the rules. NE Ent 01:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You were called a hypocrite, and that rises to the level of an ANI report? This looks more like a tit-for-tat filing due to the 3RR report filed against you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    vindictive and my favorite, the same affection as I would a turd in a punch-bowl. Werieth (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that he's calling you a "turd in a punch-bowl"? No. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The bottom line is that I posted with good intentions, and it ended up getting torn out! How do you think I am supposed to take that? Expatkiwi

    Good intentions or not, you have a responsibility to the rules - especially copyright. You're also responsible for your reaction when the edits are removed. The rules were explained - your role was to then eat a little crow and follow them - not call people names simply having advised you of the rule (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'rules' don't make any bloody sense!!!!! If non-free illustrations are illegal in Wikepedia, then why is there a section devoted to justification of non-free image usage? Care to answer that one, Sunshine? Expatkiwi
    Do you care to check your attitude at the door please? "Care to answer that one, Sunshine" is more than a little inappropriate ... your actions are already up for review by admins, do you want to act like that while under such scrutiny? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as his sig links to either his talkpage or userpage, the linking is fine. The datestamping is an issue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be a bunch of petty-minded beaurocrats here who just avoid the issue instead of explaining things in non-beaurocratese. Its times like this that I wonder if I'm talking to a person or an answering machine. In any case, Bwilkins, since you told me that I'm under the microscope for the crime of trying to get a straight answer and a correct remedy for perceived errors and just getting double-talk and threats in response (thus making the unforgivalbe eeeror of blowing the whistle on that kind of conduct), it's going to be ponitless to continue as I'm sure that you and your colleagues whill find some interpretation to get me kicked off Wikipedia. User:Expatkiwi 23:30 (UTC) 1 JUNE 2013

    Unless you tone down your comments, no one, not even our petty-minded beaurocrats are going to be very interested in investigating your side of the story - that's the way it works here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And now that Expatkiwi's 3RR report has been declined [2], he and Werieth are in an edit war: [3]. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's mostly true, unfortunately. Although I'd describe that phenomena as the the way it doesn't work here. NE Ent 01:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was asked at my talk page to take a look here in case I could help this user understand our requirements. After investigating his history, I think the issues are deeper than a simple explanation can resolve. It looks like this editor has been doing this since 2005 - or at least something similar, to judge by this note. (Over 7 years ago, he was told with regards to repeatedly restoring flag images to list articles: "This is the third time I have removed the image from this page because it is copyright and its use on pages other than the article discussing the flag is not within the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines.") In 2006, he was asked to stop using non-free images in userspace (" Fair use images cannot be used in templates or userspace under wikipedia policy."), and persisted (and for long after - see this suite of notices). Additional image issues with block threats: 2006 (you can see the next cluster of talk page messages for how well that worked). I've dug through his history, and he's been warned many, many times over many, many years about policies and has persisted in creating problems. His latest edits are the same behavior he was cautioned against in 2005. The second of these was done after an uninvolved and friendly caution on his talk page from KoshVorlon. I think we need some assurance that this isn't going to continue. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now blocked. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat American_Academy_of_Financial_Management

    I have reverted this edit as disputed. The edit summary includes a legal threat, though I do not see active discussion attempting to resolve the dispute. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It certainly is a very specific legal threat, posted on the AAFM's website: [4]. I am one of the editors named for "libeling" AAFM, although I'm not sure how they figure that to be the case, since I believe all I did was to quote a Wall Street Journal article in a talk page discussion. In any case, it's a clear legal threat, and anyone connected with the AAFM should be barred from editing the article - since they seem to edit through IPs, I'd suggest that the article be semi-protected (at least). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And the AAFM issues a press release the day after I ask User_talk:Wealthadvise if he is connected with sockpuppeteer User talk:Doctorlaw. [5]. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the article to my watchlist, but at the moment the frequency of disruptive editing (and the number of separate disruptive editors) would not seem to reach the level normally required for semi-protection. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact edit summary says "News says that editors have been identified for defamation..." - that's not a legal threat, that's them supposedly quoting "news" - not a threat of its own. It is obvious that the goal is to create a chilling effect - at least IMHO (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The "news" is AAFM's own press release, which Beyond My Ken linked to above. It's not just a legal threat, it's off-wiki harassment. Bobby Tables (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but is it the IP who's making that threat - are they the ones "cleansing" the article? The entire "press release" is a joke - no self-respecting company OR legal team would release anything like that ... I especially love the heading that says something about being a financial supporter of Wikipedia ... you don't put that in a headline; period. Whoever wrote that "release" is a jokester. If WMF legal has received a formal submission from the supposed lawyer, great. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that the purpose of WP:NLT is to eliminate the chilling effect caused by the threat of legal action. Clearly, the release on the AAFM website is an attempt to create that effect, and the ridiculousness of the effort is an indication that that is its purpose, since, as you note, it's legally dubious at best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely qualifies as a legal threat in the way Wikipedia uses the term. If it were a registered user, it would have to be blocked. As it is, it's a one-shot from an IP, so reverting it is about the best you can do, at this point anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also been named as one of the editors who must recuse themselves or else face legal action. The IP, I would wager, is just Doctorlaw, who is under a permanent ban for abusing multiple accounts. The socks would toss around fraud, defamation, etc. in edit summaries and talk pages prior to being blocked, although this is the first time I've seen the AAFM site get involved. This isn't really a one-shot deal, although it (probably) comes from someone who has already been banned, so I'm not sure what sanctions could be considered. A note of this threat should certainly be made regarding Doctorlaw and related socks, in case this escalates into a severe case of off-wiki harassment. RJC TalkContribs 22:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel particularly harassed by the AAFM press release, since I judge that the chances of anything actually coming from the threat are infinitesimally small, but WP:NLT isn't based on the reasonableness of the threat, just the fact that it's made. Still, I see the problem with blocking an already-banned user, unless he starts using other IPs, in which case perhaps a range block would be reasonable. In the meantime, I suspect that all the editors who were named are probably watching the article and can keep it from being hijacked by an AAFM-connected editor with a COI and a POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-admin closures of controversial RM discussions - appropriate?

    In most discussions, non-admin closure works just as well as an admin close if done properly. Any non-admin closing a discussion needs to understand they are performing an administrative function and they will be held to the same standard of accountability. This means including providing enough information in the close that a passerby can determine the true consensus at a glance, and that those who participated have faith that the close was a reflection of the discussion and not a "supervote".

    The existing closures have been clarified or can be by another admin if needed. Closing discussion as all major points have been addressed and no other action is needed at this time. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm requesting a quick review of two non-admin RM closures by Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) because their appropriateness rests on an apparent difference in interpretation of WP:RMCI#Non-admin_closure, which lists the following requirement for non-admin closures:

    • The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days).

    In particular, how does this apply to an RM discussion where the !voting is evenly split, and so the WP:CONSENSUS determination depends on the evaluation of the arguments? Is it appropriate for a non-admin to close such a discussion?

    These are the two RM discussions in question:

    1. Talk:Avatar#Requested_move_2013
    2. Talk:National Association for the Advancement of Colored People#Requested move

    For Avatar,

    • Nathan Johnson closed the hotly debated discussion without explanation, saying simply, "Not moved". [6].
    • At User_talk:Nathan_Johnson#Controversial_close_by_non-admin here I explained to Nathan that the high level of controversy at that RM indicates that only an admin should close, and asked him to revert. He disagreed, I explained more, asking him to revert a second time, and he still said no, agreeing this should go to AN/I.
    • At Talk:Avatar, after the close, Dicklyon (talk · contribs) reverted the close, citing "Non-admin should not close such a controversial RM."[7]. Nathan reverted that revert, saying simply "take it to WP:MR". [8]
    • Further discussion by the three of us on Dick's talk page also lead no where: User_talk:Dicklyon#non-admin_close.

    For National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

    If non-admins can close RM discussions like this, that's fine, but it's news to me. I've always been under the impression that consensus has to be clear, almost unanimous one way or the other, for non-admins to close. In fact, I've closed similar RMs in the past, and have been reverted, and the community agreed my closes were inappropriate because of the judgment required in the close. Hence the impression I have. If non-admins can close discussions like this, where the !voting is pretty even, but the arguments are not clearly evenly based in policy/guidelines, then that needs to be clarified. Because I'm sure Dick and I are not the only ones who are not aware of this.

    Thanks! --B2C 03:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of the editor's status, closers should explain how they arrived at their conclusion. In both cases, Nathan Johnson apparently failed to do so. Failure to explain is not appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reason for complex explanations when the result is clear. In the two listed above, there was no consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I received notice while I was browsing the user's contributions. I found the following closures that may not follow WP:RMCI:

    There are too many to list; this should help: Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs). With regards! --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, you changed your close rationale on the NAACP, so that's well-explained. Still, explanation is recommended for complicated discussions, and... the way you explained your closures confused me prompted me to doubt your abilities. But you fixed your rationales, so I hope this discussion dies down or is resolved. But I have the same situation with JHunterJ with closures, and he is/was an administrator. In other words, it's not because your are a non-admin nor are you wrong. Communication is very important for everybody, and great communication is encouraged, especially in requested moves. --George Ho (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I modified the close. I originally thought that it was clear why I closed it the way I did, but see now that I was wrong. I think the NAACP issue could have been better resolved on my talk page, but que sera sera. I will endeavor to be more clear in my RM closures (though looking through old RMs, it doesn't appear closers were more verbose than I). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to let you know, I moved your relisting sigs into between original posts and first days of discussion, so the bot will move proposals to newer dates. I hope you don't mind. --George Ho (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When Nathan closed the Avatar RM, I immediately reverted him to let him know that he should leave it for an admin. He reverted back. He is not getting the message that RMs this complex or contested should be left to an admin. Non-admin closes are OK for easy cases, but he persists in doing complex ones. Admins have been approved for a degree of fair judgement; he has not, so he should limit himself to the easy cases – and explain the decision in any case. As for his "take it to WP:RM" "take it to WP:MR" comment in reverting my revert, that's what I was trying to avoid; that venue has been pretty much abandoned. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess he meant WP:move review. Challenges against the original arguments were weak, but dot the i is challenged lately. However, I agree that MRV is almost a ghosttown. --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected above. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To my simple mind, the existence of this discussion indicates that the closes were not "uncontroversial" or "uncontested". Had they been so we would not be here. On the other hand, it's easy to see how Nathan thought he was helping with a backlog. Perhaps the answer might be to request closure at WP:AN whenever this situation arises. If the backlog moves to the noticeboard, it will be more visible to the community, and alternative solutions to keeping it under control might be forthcoming. Begoon talk 03:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of this discussion proves nothing. See Wikipedia_talk:Requested moves#Can "no consensus" mean "move"? where B2C knew there was no consensus but was trying to change the rules on what a no consensus close means post hoc to suit their needs. Also, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure would be a better venue to request closure I would think. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that would be a better place, as it transcludes to WP:AN, and that's where I should have linked to. Thanks for the correction, Nathan. Begoon talk 12:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is one more: Talk:List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees. It was closed as "not moved", but there were concerns about the current title without either oppose or support. --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Nevermind, that was my err on my part. Nathan did appropriate close, yet rationale should have been better. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment: I think a no consensus in the Avatar case is fairly obvious. The discussion is complicated by the parallel discussion on WT:RM and there is no real consensus for either discussion. The NAACP discussion is, imo, not as clear since the oppose !votes tend to be based on 'preferences'. Regardless, I don't think it a good idea to start making a distinction between admin and non admin closes in the case of page moves. Better to bring up substantive issues on the closing editor's talk page and, if you're not satisfied with their responses and believe that the closer did not adequately address policy issues, take it to to RM/R. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the discussion a little more carefully, I'm going to add that NJ does seem to have the habit of not explaining his closes and that's not a good thing. A closing rationale is important because editors should not have to go to your talk page for an explanation (that already raises the temperature a bit) and because it is unclear what policy points were being used to justify the close. My guess is that poorly explained closes will fester and will likely be reopened later. --regentspark (comment) 15:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the closing statements were brief or non-existent. It's not a good excuse, but I was simply following what I had seen done in other requested moves. In the discussion below, I said I would use more detailed closing statements in the future. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it seems to me that the consensus has changed considerably since the last time I saw this issue discussed on AN/I. Before, it was clear that non-admin should only close no-brainer discussions. Now, it seems that's no longer true, though good explanations are highly recommended. Something to this effect should be added to WP:RMCI. --B2C 16:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    When a non-admin RM decision is challenged

    Sorry, I forgot to ask for clarification on this related question too, while we're at it.

    I've seen admins immediately revert their RM decision/closes if they were substantively challenged. I know that's not required for admins, but isn't it for non-admin closures? I mean, if a non-admin closes an RM discussion, and someone challenges it (either on talk page or with a revert), isn't that evidence that consensus (or lack thereof) is not clear? This AN/I could have been avoided if Nathan had agree to my request that he revert his close, or if he had not reverted Dick's revert of his close. --B2C 03:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Any admin may revert any NAC for any reason or no reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @User:SmokeyJoe that's wrong. Have you even read WP:RMCI? Admins cannot overturn a NAC simply because it was performed by a non-admin. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I certainly have read it, and do not give it much respect. More generally, closing discussions, distilling a difficult interpretation of consensus, is something admins are expected to do well, or not do poorly, and while NAC of discussions are welcome, if challenged we prefer to defer to admins. Admins alone are given the privilege of discretion in closing per a rough consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's wrong. "We" certainly do not defer to admins. This has been discussed before. Admins have no special privileges in closing discussion (outside deletion discussions). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The time-limited RM discussions are on the boundary of discussions that an admin may close per rough concensus. You are stretching the language of RMCI. Did you annotate you closes with the recommended template? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sorry Joe, but there's no simpler way to say this than "you're wrong". Admins do not hold a hierarchical position above anyone else with regards to reading and interpreting consensus in any form, and that includes undoing bad closures on the part of others. Admins have access to additional technical tools, but that access only gives them the privilege to use those tools, and in any action that does not directly involve the use of their tools, they do not have extra privilege. Moving articles do not require admins because any user may move an article. Undoing a bad closure also does not require an admin, though users should not battle back and forth over the matter, as edit warring is a blockable offense, and THAT would require an admin at that point. --Jayron32 16:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Jayron32, your post surprised me, but no, I am not "wrong". Admins do have a special role in closing some types of discussion, especially XfD. For RMs, I guess you are not up to speed with WP:MR, why it was created, etc. Let's take this to WT:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I know. But my question is whether a substantive challenge from a non-admin user of a NAC sufficient to establish that the NAC was too controversial, and so should be reverted? --B2C 03:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If every editor was equal and had to discuss on the merits of the arguments, than yes. Admins generally know the policies very well. Any closure, not even a bad closure, from an admin could be challenged. You just don't go about reverting admin closures without extreme reasoning; because even if they are "involved" the action is almost universally seen as disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but I've never seen any policy that says anything of the sort. All closures are subject to review, like the above, but whether it was an NAC or admin closure is irrelevant, and a single admin overturning an NAC should only do so in the equivalent of WP:RAAA. The only prerogative reserved to admins in regards to closures is that closures that require admin tools to execute (delete, move over redirect, merge) cannot be done as an NAC. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mostly agree, but in the case of moves, WP:RMCI clearly says that non-admins can close requested moves and then tag a page {{db-move}}. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • And doing so would have been fine, but the way you closed it was suboptimal and confusing. Closing "No consensus" is the preferred method (expected, actually) then explaining a bit. Then it looks like a reading of consensus and doesn't accidentally look like a supervote. Being an NAC, it is helpful to really dot the i's and cross the t's with procedure in a contentious case, so stuff like this doesn't happen. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you User:Dennis Brown for your helpful advice. I don't think stating "no consensus" versus "not moved" is either preferred (or expected), but I had already changed the close of the Avatar RM prior to your comment and added a link to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. I also modified the NAACP close and relisted 2 more of the discussions listed above. I don't think there was anything wrong with any of the closures, but I am open to constructive criticism. However, I don't think it's appropriate for users heavily involved in a discussion unilaterally overturning an uninvolved users close. Or to question, or revert, a closure for the single reason that it was done by a non-admin. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thing is, Nathan, I'm not sure that is "the single reason". George annotated his comments above with his concerns, and then you asked "Where those closed wrongly? Or are you just bitching because a non-admin closed them?" I don't really follow that. Begoon talk 13:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • It was the primary reason for the original complaint in this thread; my closure of the Avatar RM. It was the primary reason for questioning the NAACP closure as well. I have added to the close of both those, as requested, and feel that now the only reason for questioning the closure is that I am not an administrator. There were complaints that the reasoning was not explained. I've looked through a large number of old requested moves and they are almost all simply stating the result, even when there was disagreement in the discussion. I have stated above that I will add better summaries in future. 2 of the closures that George mentioned above I relisted. I had thought of that before closing them. For one, there was move-warring going on, so I thought that referring them to actually discuss was better than simple relisting. The other 2 I still think were right, albeit with no summaries, but see previous. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks, Nathan, for the clear response. Dennis speaks wise words (again) below. Communication is usually the problem with these things, and you're a braver man than me for taking on these closes. I'd never personally contemplate an NAC in anything other than a SNOW situation, but the way things are, non-admins seem needed to keep the backlogs under control. I might ask you to have a look at a Merge/Redirect discussion I started in a few days if anyone actually comments there... . Sorry if I added to your troubles. Begoon talk 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The authority in a close comes from the quality of the wording, not the bits assigned to the closer. To the eye, a non-admin close should look identical to an admin close. This is why I'm saying a close should appear more formal and with more information in a contentious debate. The reading of consensus IS separate from the action taken, which is why they need differentiating, to prevent situations exactly this this. It should be short, but speak with authority, so even those that disagree can clearly understand how you determined what the consensus was. Maybe old RMs did it wrong, so they aren't a good judge. I'm not picking on you, just trying to help keep you from having to do this part again. You are absolutely right that involved users should not have reverted the close and should have sought outside opinions, but again, a formal and explained close will make this all less likely.Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 14:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not doing clean-up after move

    Firstly this editor's closing statements are very brief and meaningless (which is being discussed above). The worse point is he is not doing clean up after moving articles.

    This is unacceptable! Generally RM closers do the required cleanups after moving articles. If someone can't/doesn't have time they should notify the nominator to make required changes! Nothing has been done in these moves! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 13:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I've moved Augusta Township, Michigan back to Augusta Charter Township, Michigan. There was no evidence that the short form is more common and the township web site uses the long form. There was no discussion at all of this move, only a request made to Anthony Appleyard's talk page that he moved to the article talk page. older ≠ wiser 14:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine as only one user supported the move. WP:BRD and all. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here again, I would have added "Moved to the new name, asking others clean up the article to reflect the new name". Or I would have cleaned up the article, either is fine. Finality is important, and is what defines "closing". And Bkonrad, if you had followed the link [9] you would have seen the discussion. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown Why would you assume that I had not seen what you mistakenly describe as a "discussion". Do you seriously think "discussion" is a fair description of that exchange? older ≠ wiser 01:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It probably is a good idea. However, I would expect that those users that actually care about an article, as opposed to me, would be much more qualified to clean up. Further, if they started or supported a requested move that requires cleanup, I would expect them to be watching an article and be ready and eager to make the necessary changes. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though it doesn't require the admin bit, closing is an administrative function, and when you do an admin-like job, you should do it in an admin-like way. Accountability to explain is the same for you and I, for example. You have to remember that many people are good editors but aren't policy experts, so you have to offer gentle guidance in the close, so they know what happens next. A close isn't solely for the benefit of the !voters, a close should be directed at the community as a whole. It takes a little practice. Nothing here got broke, that is how you learn, so I would say we just move on. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 16:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    RMnac

    The instructions at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Step-by-step_formal_closing_procedure include the following:

    Replace text on left with text on right. Add {{RMnac}} within the template if necessary.

    I suppose "if necessary" should say, "if you are not an admin". In any case, I note that Nathan has not been using the {{RMnac}} template. --B2C 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is now simply harassment. Can someone close this thread now? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it harassment? I'm just pointing it out for future reference. I didn't know about it either. --B2C 17:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So, I changed the above to say "if you are not an admin" instead of "if necessary", and Nathan has removed the instruction altogether[10]. My change was a clarification of wording that apparently had consensus support. Nathan's edit, the deletion, is a significant change. Does it have consensus support? Should there be no instruction for non-admins to add the helpful RMnac template to their closes? --B2C 17:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Still no explanation at Avatar

    Nathan has updated his reason at the Avatar close to say this:

    No consensus which defaults to Not moved. See also this discussion.
    The link to the discussion explains how "no consensus" leads to "not moved" for him, but there is no explanation for how he arrived at the "No consensus" conclusion in the first place. In particular, the arguments on both sides were not addressed, nor was there any explanation as to why they were both strong.

    Per my reading, the only arguments opposing the proposal are based on the premise that article's topic is primary for "Avatar", which itself is based on some variant of the historical significance criterion. The argument in favor of the move is that since a similar argument can be made that the film name Avatar is primary based on the usage criterion and so it should be placed at Avatar, there is no primary topic here, and so the dab page should be at this location. This is not the case of two equal arguments. If the two arguments were:

    1. The Hindu use is primary per historical significance and so its article should be at Avatar
    2. The film use is primary per the usage criterion and so its article should be at Avatar
    Then I could see the point that the arguments are equal and there is no consensus. But the arguments were not that. They were:
    1. The Hindu use is primary and so its article should be at Avatar.
    2. Since the film also has a reasonable claim to primary topic per the usage criterion, there is no primary topic, and so the dab page should be at Avatar.
    The second argument is stronger because it does not even challenge any premise of the first argument - it accepts it and augments it. Consensus is supposed to be read based on the strength of the arguments. I see no reason to believe that Nathan did that. He seemed to rely on !vote counting, which is not an appropriate way to read consensus. --B2C 17:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ANI isn't to reclose the discussion and a close doesn't require explaining the minutia in the discussion. although more might have been better. It can be as simple as "both sides present reasoned arguments but there isn't a consensus on how policy should be interpreted". In a case like this, I would probably have closed as "no consensus, take to a full RFC" as to solicit a larger audience and more input. We aren't in hurry to move things (or shouldn't be) so the 30 day cycle of an RFC is a better venue for a move as large and contentious as this. Rather than debate the close, your time might better be spent crafting a neutrally worded RfC and posting notices in a couple of neutral places, like the village pump. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was not originally nor now asking to reclose the discussion. Originally I asked whether the close should be reverted based on my understanding for some time that non-admins should not close such contentious RMs. It is now apparent that consensus has changed about that.

        I still think any closer should be held to explaining how the "no consensus" decision was reached, and, if he is unwilling to or unable to do so, that the close be reverted. However, in this case it seems reasonable to accept your explanation in its place, and proceed accordingly. --B2C 18:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Shaushka: resumed edit warring, mass reverts, and ethnic namecalling

    Shaushka indef'd for intent to continue edit warring. Blackmane (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Shaushka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on May 29 for edit warring. The blocking administrator also warned him or her against making "further personal cultural/ethnic slurs". Since the block expired, Shaushka has resumed edit warring on the same article1, made a gratuitous reference to another contributor's supposed ethnicity2, and appears to be engaged in a reverting spree of said contributor's edits (see contribs for multiple diffs). I think a longer, last-chance block is indicated. Rivertorch (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really sorry my racist words but Ahmetyal resumed edit warring, not me. According to me-and most of scholars-, the topics that I have reverted are controversial. There are many sources that support my edits. Furthermore, I have written my arguments on talk page/s and I also said that I'll add the sources. Regars... Shaushka (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being reverted by multiple editors, who have requested that you discuss your controversial edits. Continuing to edit-war in these circumstances is inadvisable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Whole lot of edit warring going on, inappropriate edit summaries by Ahmetyal [11], off topic summary by Rivertorch [12], forum shopping to wp:3rr by NbSB, little use of article talk page ... but yea Shaushka needs to stop or be stopped (blocked). NE Ent 10:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't think it was forum-shopping, that wasn't my intent - I just thought it was necessarily a "required" formality to report the situation there, as it is obviously a 3RR violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    GB fan blocked Shaushka for 72 hours, so I think this can be closed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked them for disruptive editing on Yazdânism. They continued to add a {{delete}} template without explanation even after I explained twice that they needed to go to WP:AFD if they felt the article should be deleted. GB fan 11:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    From the editor in question's talk page: "I am going to eat my fettuccine guys. Afterwards, I'am going to continue my "edit-warrings". Regars...Shaushka (talk) 5:40 am, Today (UTC−5)" It seems very clear from this and behavioral indication that this editor understands what they are doing, but is intent on continuing it as they do not see it as wrong (hollow apology after intentionally ignoring instructions aside). Were it purely up to me, the continued cultural/ethnic abuse would have earned an immediate indefinite block. A longer term solution is probably necessary at this point to prevent further harm to the site and its community. - Vianello (Talk) 13:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. I see your May 29 block notice on the user's talk page, but I see no actual block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The block was never instituted for some reason; the message existed but given that edits continued through the "block period" on May 31st. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. I've got no excuse, it looks like I just got distracted at an inopportune moment and didn't actually put it through. - Vianello (Talk) 23:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but what was fascinating was that for quite some time there were no edits, almost like a notice was as good as a block (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This set of gems says a lot. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can anyone come up with anything useful this editor has contributed? Based on their history, I don't think I've ever seen so many reverts. Based on that alone, I think we should consider either a longer block or an indefinite block. And, of course, there's more than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In looking over Shaushka's contributions more thoroughly, I see he is unquestionably a WP:SPA. Considering his willingness to casually toss out epithets, and considering how fraught with controversy his chosen topic area is, I doubt we're be doing anything other than delaying the inevitable by using a time-limited block. Consider: 1234567. Still, there's no particular harm in giving him one last chance, as long as someone is willing to closely monitor what happens when the block expires. (I won't be that someone.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like Bbb23, I do not see any good contributions. WP:Competence is required. This user apparently has little idea about subjects they are trying to edit. My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As is often stated, blocks are preventative. In this case a block is meant to prevent continued edit warring. Their intent to continue edit warring means that the preventative measure needs to stay in place until they can provide assurance that they will not continue to do so. Blackmane (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur; indef per WP:FETTUCCINE. NE Ent 00:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In accordance with the above, and after a review of the contributions (which made the problems very obvious), I've upped to indef. If they want to edit, they're going to first have to demonstrate a radical change in attitude. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The Biggest Loser vandalism

    Good day dear sirs and madams, I would like to report this ongoing vandalism on various The Biggest Loser articles. I have kept reporting those IPs that vandalized those articles. But they always come back. They have been around since 2012. They have been changing tables infos already. Here is a record of the vandalism going on, Records. I have sought help from Drmies aready.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 18:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • And said Drmies endorses this message. A range block (or a couple of em) is sought; I've started semi-protecting infected articles for long periods of time. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotion campaign involving a small sock farm

    For at least six months, and more intensely over the last month or so, there's been a campaign to promote the Margo Feiden Gallery (a Manhattan business) and its eponymous owner. This has been a bit less ham-handed than the usual campaign -- the gallery is best known as the representative of the Al Hirschfeld estate, and most of the recent campaigning consists of inserting copyrighted Hirschfeld images into various articles with plainly inadequate NFCC rationales, often adding related promotional text, and plugging the Feiden gallery in the image captions. There are others, though, including an odd attempt to promote Feiden's 25-year-old book on dieting. I spent most of the morning today cleaning out this mess, to the extent I could track things down, but several aspects may merit scrutiny from extra sets of eyes.

    First of all, there seem to be several SPAs involved -- possibly multiple associates/employees of Feiden or her publicist, but given the coordinated editing and identical rationale texts, likely sockpuppets. The accounts I've identified are User:Chicago57th, User:Rwonderling47, User:Robyn42, and User:Factor-ies.

    There's also a heavily promotional AFC draft created recently that manages a lot of minimally sourced peacockery while whitewashing her notorious business dispute with Hirschfeld. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Margo_Feiden Feiden is likely notable enough to support an article, but this isn't an appropriate starting point.

    Finally, Feiden, forty years after the fact, started telling a story giving herself an important role in the events surrounding the 1960's shooting of Andy Warhol. One of the apparent socks recently removed the standard account of those events (in Valerie Solanas) and replaced it with Feiden's ersatz version. There's no verification of the Feiden version, and when it was reported by the New York Times, the online comments were so caustic and skeptical that the Times added a comment of its own noting that "The Times does not present Ms.Fieden’s account as definitive." Absent any verification (and some reports that her account is contradicted by most if not all other accounts) I don't see how this version belongs in Wikipedia at all, and certainly should not be presented as anything other than an uncorroborated story told only after everyone in a position to dispute it directly had died. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Galleries are notorious for promoting themselves on Wikipedia; usually by riding on the back of some notable artists the may have exhibited, and using their in-house published exhibition catalogs as references, claimig them to be 'books' they have written. That said, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, what exactly do you want us to do here? Protect a page? Delete an AfC submission? Block someone? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mistake while submitting PROD

    Problem solved (non admin close). Stalwart111 00:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I attempted to PROD the apparently autobiographical article Donnell Alexander, but mistakenly pressed the wrong Twinkle button, and submitted it with no reason.[13] I realised my mistake, and self-reverted[14], then submitted a correct PROD.[15] However, I apparently did not do this correctly, and only the original incorrect PROD remained listed. Subsequently, this has been listed as a Speedy Keep, since no reasons were given; while my reasoned, correct, PROD on the article has been removed by another editor since it was submitted after the original incorrect PROD was opened. I had originally marked it as a BLP:PROD, since there were no sources at all; the original author removed this tag.

    I have no idea how to rectify this mess, and still wish to list the article for deletion, since no evidence of the notability of this person has been offered. Could someone please help do this. RolandR (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Since the author (as xe is entitled to do) removed the PROD tag, it needs to go through AfD, though. I've added your rationale to the deletion discussion. Theopolisme (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Leelabratee

    Can we get some experienced eyes and/or admin intervention to help with User:Leelabratee? Her User Talk page is covered with warnings, mostly having to do with references, creating inappropriate pages, and copyright problems. But this is just the start of it.

    An article she created, Shonkhobash, has been put up for AFD. She has removed (and been warned for removing) the AFD tag 123 times. Her user page has been put up for MFD and she has removed the MFD tag 12 times. Her User page was put through MFD because she is repeatedly changing it to appear as other users: the first time as User:Titodutta, a second time as User:Ronhjones, a third time as User:Kironbd07, and a fourth time as User:Sonia. She often changes some details so I'm unsure of malicious intent—I'm really trying to AGF here—but she's also copying and modifying text from deletion discussions, such as using this from 16 May to write this from 31 May. On top of this, we've got refactoring comments in deletion discussion, redirecting AFC pages to her article, and other little things like responding to an offer of help to understand our rules with a request for help with the article that user marked for deletion. At this point, she's been spending more time working on her User page than trying to save the page she created, which makes me wonder if she understands what's going on. I'm thinking there's more than a little language barrier issue at play here, but WP:COMPETENCE and all.

    Any help would be appreciated. Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment All her uploaded images and a several pieces of text were deleted as copyright violations / no permission. I'm not sure she understands how copyright works.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I feel they are trying to learn. They copied my userpage, my AFD rationale and now they are using my signature too. Anyway, my signature is not that artistic and I'll change it again soon and remove "email" from it. That AFD comment change was a funny one— they updated Facebook like numbers. I'll see if I can offer more help! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 23:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment : No excuses for this editor, s/he edits often enough to have seen all the warnings on their talk page. If this hadn't been brought to ANI, stumbling on their behavior, I would probably have already blocked them for a very short while to prevent any further disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this comment was copied verbatim from a suggestion of how to respond from User:Titodutta. In that same suggestion, Titodutta advised her to respond to the AFD of Shonkhobash and she, again, copied much of it verbatim, including the parts where he told her what not to include. This is looking less like a problematic understanding of copyright—although there is that—and more like fundamental language barrier. Woodroar (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hassan Rouhani

    Moved from a section of the same name at WP:AN, since this is an incident. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hassan Rouhani (Persian: حسن روحاني) is a member of Combatant Clergy Association (ref:"Members of Combatant Clergy Association".) since 1976. But Gorrrillla5 insists on Association of Combatant Clerics which is a different association and Rouhani was never a member of. He ignores what I wrote on his talk page and keep reverting. Mojtaba Salimi (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You failed to notify Gorrrilla despite the big warning at the top of the page, so I've notified him for you. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous vandalism

    Resolved
     – 46.7.19.75 got blocked for 31 hours for vandalism on mainfreame articles. Materialscientist (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    An anon IP, 46.7.19.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has been engaging in vandalism and is currently misusing the Sandbox ([16][17][18]). I actually don’t know what the policy is on sandbox vandalism, but thought it’d be best to bring it up. —Frungi (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Stuff like this isn't really a big problem, except of course for your "engaging in vandalism" link. Just treat like any other vandal — warn until the user stops or until the user vandalises after getting a level-4 warning; if the former, forget about it, and if the latter, take the IP to WP:AIV. Note that the IP's been vandalising this section, so I've given a level-4 warning; feel free to go to WP:AIV if you notice anything else. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Deletion removal

    User:RevDaKing blocked by Qwyrxian. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RevDaKing keeps removing speedy deletion templates from OpTic Rev. This is the fifth time. I have warned him 3 times and another guy warned him the fourth. Citrusbowler (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2013

    This guy just reverted stuff to ploy it on me. I think he should be banned. Citrusbowler (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned him, and he just removed it, he used my signature as some sort of personal attack, but I don't think he should be banned, more like a block. TheInferno! 01:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant block, not ban. I warned him several times. Citrusbowler (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOOMERANG. I've blocked User:RevDaKing. Not only was RevDaKing the one creating the non-notable article, he was the one removing the speedy deletion templates. Lying to blame the party behaving correctly is purely disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone beat me to salting it. I'm guessing this a young kid, there is a serious clue deficiency at work here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Eve Hazza

    Done. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have reported User:Eve Hazza for stock puppetry. The user was than blocked from editing Wikipedia (except his/her user talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite. The user has since posted defamatory content about me on his/her user talk page. (see 1 for the latest example) Way2veers 03:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Royal conduct

    Page semied for 2 weeks. Plaintif warned for edit warring. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    They keep reverting changes in the Alex Jones article. No reason is given, except two on two different occasions. The first one was saying it's not a good source, even though it's Alex Jones' own site. The next one is "Uh, no." which his hardly appropriate. It's getting pretty ridiculous. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this complaint even here at ANI? User was never warned, and there's been a jolly old edit war going on. I've protected the page. Nothing more to see here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And given newcomer RocketLauncher2 (53 edits) a soft rocketfor edit warring. Closing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Improper protection of Phyllis Schlafly

    Saved from WP:BOOMERANG by the grace of Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Phyllis Schlafly has made many homophobic and bigoted/racist anti-latino statements. Despite this, an editor User:The Devil's Advocate has been reverting statements and refusing to attend the talk page discussion. Additionally, without notification or proper filing, he went through informal channels to have the page protected. This is a violation of wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.198 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was going to block you for BLP violations and disruption (with this specious post), but since the article is semi-protected you can't really do much real damage. Needless to say, you won't get what you want: your edits were reverted correctly and the article semi-protected justly. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Hazard-Bot broken

    User:Hazard-Bot is adding talk page templates to article space. Can an admin please stop it? - Shudde talk 05:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The "greatest" game

    After a quick search in likely locations, I haven't spotted any previous discussion on this. Briefly, Wikipedia is being used as a vehicle for a "super-dumb" game. Some examples are truly funny, but most are just lame. The game involves making an unsourced comment in an article along the lines of "He truly is the greatest A'Tuin" in Great A'Tuin. Examples may be found here and here. The website "College Humor" posted a page of examples here. although it intimates that the game is over, examples continue to pop up.[19] --Pete (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe someone could create an abuse filter for this. --Glaisher (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That website has explained something: though I've graduated, and several times, my sense of humor is still at college.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been aware of this joke for a little while, and I find that searching for "truly was the" (in quotes) catches most of them. Howicus (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So that's where that was coming from. I saw that and was wondering where it was from. As for the continuing edits, well, somebody is always late to the party... It will probably keep going for awhile. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I see they got Truman twice, for a net total of two minutes, in spite of which they display the very-short-lived vandalism version on their page with what I gather is meant to be pride.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock User:Arjann

    Nothing to do here. If Arjann wants to make an unblock request, he can do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    He didn't violate 3RR at Maryan (film), for which he was warned. He is sole contributor of that article-- Dravidian  Hero  08:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, it was not for 3RR, it was for edit warring (which you were also doing). And he is not the sole contributor to the article, as you well know - you have even contributed to it yourself! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I made only minor changes to that article, whole credit goes to Arjann. The warning doesn't even state which article he is edit warring. How should have Arjann known that, when he made just 1 rev in 24 h on that page. It's a very questionable block.-- Dravidian  Hero  11:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yourself, Arjann and Johannes003 are edit warring over multiple articles and this is a casualty of that war. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) How could Arjann not have known? The article has a terrible battleground history in which Arjann was up to his ears in it. You personally, as Arjann's ally, have brought two reports (at least) before this one to administrative noticeboards. And both have been against Johannes003. You first brought this report to ANI. You next brought this report to ANEW. It was the latter that led to the block of Arjann who was first warned and then blocked when he ignored the warning and made a second (your claim about one revert in 24h is false) revert to the article. Arjann doesn't talk much, but I think this comment on the Maryan talk page in mid May sums it up nicely, particularly when he calls Johannes "really sick" and states that he is "not going to work on this article anymore." Unfortunately, he didn't keep his promise and continued to battle in the article. As for your "minor changes", you reverted twice on May 31, and my guess is the only reason Canterbury Tail didn't block you is, unlike Arjann, you did not revert after your warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    lol I'm not an "ally" of Arjann. I am concerned over people, who destroy work and discourage people from editing in wikipedia. This whole episode is a farce.-- Dravidian  Hero  16:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attack/gross insult by User:Narssarssuaq in re my placement of OR and SYNTH templates on Straumfjörð

    I found this article while reviewing links in the Vinland section of {{Canadian colonies}} today (a template that badly needs renaming and vetting) and found all kinds of rank OR and SYNTH and unencyclopedic content and speculative/rhetorical captions and irrelevant images boosting the notions put forward in this article, which are highly original research and promotional for someone's WP:SOAPbox. My templates were removed by User:Narssarssuaq, who built much of the article, it seems, and the article damaged as well; and returned to check the changes I had made, which had been wiped, but even before I had a chance to restore the templates, had already been done by User:A.amitkumar who also commented on the vandalization of the article re this edit, where the word "artist", I suppose, was rendered as "autist" (ahem) and the aforesaid blanking occurred. In the meantime I got a message on my talkpage entitled "Get a life", with the text "You seriously need to get a life". I don't understand the blanking of the article by its ersthile author, which I hadn't done though only AnomieBot stands between his edit and mine. I had, after my edits earlier today, which I'd given up on for reasons of irritation at improper use of images and captions and also bad English and bad spelling, reported the article to the OR Noticeboard as I feel the page is grossly "leading" and full of leapt-to-conclusions and imposed suppositions. My seven earlier edits begin here and end with AnomieBot's dating of the OR and SYNTH templates I placed. I stopped by for a look, and as per habit started fixing things and removing inappropriate content; once I realized how bad the article was I stopped and took it to the OR board. People complain about what they think is my conduct and attitude all the time (really it's just my thoroughness), but I never engage in forum-style attacks such as this "get a life" business, which is utterly puerile. I do have better things to do than waste more time on this, but reining this user in and also seriously vetting that article is more than called for.Skookum1 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Immediately following the ANI notice on his talkpage I received this.Skookum1 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) The article was excellent: it meticulously cites nearly 100 articles in academic journals as well as books by scholars, and there are no original conjectures made except obvious summarization. The subject-matter is by nature speculative, as Nansen puts it: in the mists. The aesthetics of the pictures had to reflect this vagueness, and to reflect even the incredulity towards the subject of some of the cited authors. When you approach this subject-matter as if you were writing about a mathematical subject, with absolutely no understanding that the aesthetics and the enigmatic nature of the sagas must be somewhat matched by the pictures, then I get angry, and rightly so. (2) Yes, I do not want to collaborate with you, and you deserved the insult, although it is not directed to you personally (after all, I have no idea who you are), but to a certain class of editors. (3) Seeing that I do not want to follow the rules of conduct of Wikipedia, I would like to delete my account here. But that is not an option. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [post edit-conflict] Meticulous cites used to synthesize an argument and used in an work of obviously original authorship advancing a theory are decidedly against wikipedia guidelines. The article was in violation of much more than WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; I will refrain from further comment on this other than to provide this link from previous versions for editors wishing to examine the condition it was in before I began purging it of un-wikipedian content. Another user, an IP user, had removed images for the same reason I had, which you immediately reverted as of that edit. Other than two edits previously to add Categories by User:Berek - - all previous edits of the article were by yourself. You do not WP:OWN it, nor do you WP:OWN Wikipedia, and clearly have not read nor care about the OR and SYNTH or other guidelines as evinced by your behaviour and comments here and on my talkpage and in the content of the article. This article was only begun, by yourself, on April 17 and IMO does not belong in Wikipedia. In fact I feel strongly it should be entirely deleted as WP:UNDUE as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and obviously a territorial stake-out and more but I'm not in the mood to launch an WP:AFD, not tonight anyway. This is already bother enough.Skookum1 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the article is (was) not in breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It gives a review of all published theories, and these theories are to a large extent published in peer-reviewed publications, and absolutely no claim is made without a citation. Also, absolutely no argument is synthesized, except a conclusion which summarises the cited propositions. If you fundamentally disagree with every premise of the research which has been performed on this subject, I will assume that you do not know enough about the subject, or that you have some nationalist agenda. (For the record, conflicting national narratives could be the fundamental reason for this dispute.) Furthermore, the aesthetics you are trying to impose on the article is inappropriate. Aesthetics is difficult to discuss, you either have a sense of it or you do not. You are correct about the WP:OWN - Wikipedia is about crowdsourcing and collaborative effort, and if I cannot collaborate without getting angry, then a fundamental rule is breached. However, disallowing any form of anger is a perfect way of dumbing down and disempowering individual editors, making them stay and meekly accept just about anything - it is the success formula of both Wikipedia and the internet, and the main reason why people spend more time within these pursuits than they should. You classifying "get a life" as a "gross" insult is an example of this culture of insensitivity. I'll not be part of that any longer. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is zero discussion of the content, or of the templates, on the article’s Talk page. (My 2¢ worth on the content is that parts of it read as an essay, so could use some rewriting, but the worst of the ‘rhetoric’ was in the captions of images that have now been removed. I don’t see any significant synthesis in the text.)—Odysseus1479 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that Narassarssuaq made the statement "Seeing that I do not want to follow the rules of conduct of Wikipedia, I would like to delete my account here. But that is not an option." they are clearly not accepting the NOR policy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat at Karren Brady

    BLOCKED
    NE Ent 01:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See diff. Will inform anon concerned as soon as I save this. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP for making legal threats. →AzaToth 16:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's a clear legal threat, but I'm troubled by one piece of material the IP removed, which is supposedly about her admitting that she lied on a job application about having a degree. There's no cite for that next to the material. The closest cite, later in the paragraph, is a 45-minute audio interview, and it's not clear whether she actually said that in the interview (I'm not listening to 45 minutes to find out - I listened to the beginning). For that kind of material we need clear cites.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've transcribed part of the interview discussing her lack of a degree to the article talk page. I've listened to the first 18 minutes, someone else is welcome to listen to the rest. I just hope that you like Abba. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, I stopped earlier when they started talking about songs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:GagsGagsGags

    GagsGagsGags has created 3 articles: The Mrs. Carter Show: Live in Belgium, The Mrs. Carter Show, Live in Antwerp and Young Forever World Tour that are all hoaxes. I wasn't sure how to proceed other than tag them all for WP:CSD, so I thought I'd notify admins here. —JennKR | ☎ 16:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, (I Googled for all and found nothing). It's happened in the past too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrs._Carter_(Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles_album)&diff=552079990&oldid=551978946 I think he/she enjoys making up DVDs/CDs. —JennKR | ☎ 17:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's a confusing mix of the factual (in the sense that they've taken the accurate set list of the tour) and the fictional (there are no DVDs, or in the case for Nicki Minaj, no planned tour). Oh, and it doesn't :) —JennKR | ☎ 17:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Now, next time, what you can do is simply warn them--there is a standardized template for "creating inappropriate pages". Bbb, I'm surprised you didn't know they were hoaxes immediately: you're the biggest Minaj and Beyonce fan I know on Wikipedia. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no. I saw passed this over at New pages patrol and assumed it was genuine, I was really looking forward to a DVD of international recording artiste Beyonce Knowles from her tour, and can understand totally why she would choose Belgium as it is such an exotic, interesting and cool place. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit_request_on_1_June_2013

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Egypt#Edit_request_on_1_June_2013 i do not know if this is the right place (meybe someone can tell me) that edit request needs more attention if this is not the right place then please tell me about another 95.199.6.163 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    i meant ani is the right place, meybe some graphic designer user can see the request 95.199.6.163 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Graphics Lab’s request board at WP:GL/I will be the best place to get that illustration altered. See also the question under the original Talk-page request.—Odysseus1479 02:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    logged in and uploaded file and now it needs vectorization Beetsyres34 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    KunoxTxa sock

    Blocked by Ronhjones -- Dianna (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    QunoxTxa (talk · contribs), a likely sock of KunoxTxa (talk · contribs), is rapidly creating multiple Armenian football player articles again. Could someone please block them? - MrX 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by QunoxTxa (talk · contribs). The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KunoxTxa. I agree with MrX that the user should be blocked immediately to prevent further disruptive editing. Way2veers 21:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AFDs not being properly considered due to assumption of bad faith

    I'm sorry I wasted your time with this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Late last week, I had sent 4 articles to AFD after finding that they were in poor condition and they happened to all be authored by Enkyo2 (talk · contribs) (formerly Tenmei and Ansei). These were:

    Bueller 007 (talk · contribs) then independently decided to send a further 8 articles also entirely or partly authored by Enkyo2. The AFDs are

    Sometime after these had started, Enkyo2 posted this comment to all 12 AFDs (I will not provide 12 diffs for brevity), failing to follow WP:AGF and assuming that Bueller 007 and I were tag teaming him. As soon as he posted this to every AFD, all of them had been met with almost identical opposition from the same set of users, all of whom are opposing deletion in line with this same lack of good faith assumption, with several of them posting arguments obviously meant for the other AFDs. The "Gosei (Japanese diaspora)" AFD is particularly telling, with comments by 7&6=thirteen, ChrisGualtieri, and Doug Coldwell not addressing the AFD and copy pasted from the other AFDs. Barely any of these AFDs have been properly considered for discussion and are simply snowballing towards keep because of a series of lack of good faith and also just copy-pasting the same message to multiple pages. What can be done?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Shopping for a rouge admin? That one editor has indeed veered towards assuming bad faith, but so have you because the other !voters there did address the substance of the articles according to their understanding of policy. The vast majority of these articles are obviously also related by their nature—idioms. So expect the set of editors who !vote there to be related too if you're assuming good faith. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A little diligence discovers that most !votes came in after the articles were listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion_sorting/Language by User:Rcsprinter123, User:Evano1van, User:Czar, and possibly others. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gosei (Japanese diaspora). Once again, Ryulong doesn't like the result, and now want to contest this in another forum? He and I read the rules of wikipedia entirely diffently. I disagree with his conclusions, and decline his invitation to change my opinion. Respectfully, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not commenting on the actions, but noting that a few of these AFDs came up in this discussion at the Pump: WP:VPP#Time to get rid of WP is not a dictionary?. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    One can't copy-paste a response for something specific and term related. I didn't even respond to every single one; but had no need or desire to. I gave detailed and unique reasons with citations as I did for AFDs. Here's one I did for Salad Days; read it through, found a lacking cite, pointed to the cite in the reasoning and gave additional reasons for keeping. [20] I struck my comment from the Gosei one because it clear was intended to be here. Mistakes are human, and the cites are obvious when you look at I wasn't even talking about Gosei. Though I am appalled at Ryulong's bad faith accusation when I give detailed arguments for the AFDs which I became aware of from the VPP pump discussion. I agree and opt for merge here.[21] Here is an example of finding citations and developing a clear keep rationale. [22] Before I even did these comments I've been active at the VPP discussion here. From that discussion it seems that Ryulong doesn't understand the policy. Though here is a good post to summarize from Colonel Warden.[23] Ryulong; I think you owe me an apology because the accusation is blatantly incorrect; yes I posted to the wrong page, but just by looking at the source the intended idiom and AFD was obvious. If I had posted the delegitimization source instead would you have done made the accusation as well? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought there was an issue because your comment at the Gosei AFD did not have anything to do with the reason why I had brought it to AFD and it appeared that you had copy-pasted the same response to multiple pages. I apologize for including you in this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forum shopping. The articles nominated are all English language idioms. A normal person would find a short article on them useful. It would not occur to me to look in a dictionary for them. (Dictionaries are most useful for single words.) It seems strange that the articles should have been nominated for deletion. Maybe the nominators do not understand. Then they complain here that their proposals are not supported by normal editors.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Delegitimisation and Gosei (Japanese diaspora) are not English language idioms. The latter is not an AFD for violating WP:DICDEF but that has not stopped people from copy-pasting their "Keep: Not just a dictionary definition" comments from the other debates.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How is Delegitimisation not an English language idiom? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      An idiom is a phrase that has a particular meaning attached to it. "Delegitimisation" is an individual word.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see a whole slew of nominations where everyone is voting keep. So what, sometimes people disagree with you Ryulong. I fail to see how this is an issue for ANI. Is disagreement now an incident that needs admin intervention? Not everyone is going to think the same way you do about these things... --Jayron32 05:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That is not why I have brought this here. Multiple people just seem to be copy-pasting the same "keep" response despite the fact that isn't what the AFD is about.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course they cut and pasted. I would guess that they thought that the AFD proposals in question were fatuous, and did not want to waste their time explaining the obvious. (Well obvious to everyone except the nominators.)--Toddy1 (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Your edit summary is nice. My problem is that the copy-pasted responses are being added to the one item in the group that is not like the others, in that it is not being proposed for deletion for being a dictionary definition, in addition to the plenty of bad faith assumptions going around.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My impression was that this had something to do with the Ryukyu islands, whose status is disputed. Anyway, it seems to be a storm in a teacup and the most useful admin action now would be to snow close this bundle. Warden (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This had nothing to do with the Ryukyu Islands. How would an article on the phrase "teach fish how to swim" be related to that? You are mistaking the fact that I had made an inquiry as to whether or not Enkyo2's indefinite topic ban included the entirety of the Ryukyu Islands chain instead of just what was initially defined with anything else that's going on on this project, which is in itself not keeping with WP:AGF.
      What this was was a handful of AFDs I had started because, in all honesty, I found that Enkyo2 had authored one of the many phrase articles he likes to link to in discussions and found it to be poor, and then another editor came along and did the same thing with multiple articles. The only reason I'm bringing it up is because several editors have just been pasting the same response to all of the discussions, which would obviously be a good thing (if people can fix the idiom articles then fine), but the pasted responses were included in the only AFD in the set that had nothing to do with the others other than being authored by the same individual as well as several "keep, bad faith" !votes as noted above.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What administrative action are you asking for? If !voters cited inapplicable reasons, I'm sure that those !votes will be discounted by the closer -- what else, then, needs to be done? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What action should be taken when there's rampant failures to assume good faith?—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lightspeedx owning Erica Andrews article

    Lightspeedx has been trying to insert poorly sourced, or no sourced information into the Biography of Living person (recently deceased) of Erica Andrews including citations to unsourced playbills, myspace accounts, un-credited youtube video's, blogs, and main pages that don't mention Erica Andrews at all. When the information was removed per BLP, they started Forumshopping: Dispute resolution page, Talk:Varifiability page, Talk:Videos page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Erica Andrews. After the Dispute resolution ended with three more editors stating that the edits Lightspeedx wanted were poorly sourced, lightspeedx disappeared for a month. During the interim two of the other editors involved, User:Qworty and User:Little green rosetta, were banned from the encyclopedia. Lightspeedx came back and claimed that based on Project Qworty, all the material deleted should be reinstated. Those edits were deleted by Howicus who was the moderator in the dispute resolution process. Both Silver seren and Obiwankenobi have come to the page and reinstated what they felt was up to standards from the deleted material. User:Lightspeedx is not satisfied with this, and has Canvassed to find anyone to support their edits [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. I made a post on those pages letting them know the extent of the conversation thus far, and Lightspeedx has responded to me personally on some of their talk pages suggesting that I am Trans/homo phobic, need to get a life, and that I am obsessed with Lightspeedx [30], [31], [32], this one adds that I was in cahoots with LGR and Qworty. Then they have gone to the project Qworty page to post another rant against me [33], and another one on the Erica Andrews talk page.

    By my count we have over a dozen users letting Lightspeedx know that the edits they want to put into place require reliable sourcing and unless they can find reliable sources they shouldn't be in the article. Lightspeedx's response is to ignore that statement and find someone who will support their edits. They have been attacking me personally since this started, they claim that since I didn't know the actress personally like they did I shouldn't be allowed to edit the page, and they have taken to ignore any other editor who tells them differently instead focusing all their aggression on me. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As a note, I haven't edited the Erica Andrews article in over a month.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Lightspeedx has crossed the line and needs a block and a topic ban. Their ownership feelings are too strong. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the volunteer at the DRN and went through the article by hand, but kept the discussion open until it was autoarchived as was requested; Lightspeedx was blocked during a period of this. Howicus brought up the matter in detail on sources and I felt that things which were 404ed that probably shouldn't have been for the time that they were inserted and the dubious material and links were below the requirements or non-existent for verification at the time of my checks. I don't see bad-faith, but the user has been made repeatedly aware of the sourcing problems. Its just IDHT. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thibbs

    The entire discussion: User talk:Despatche#C1, User talk:Thibbs#C1_and_SF1, Talk:C1 (television), Talk:SF1 (television).

    I can't deal with this editor anymore. He deliberately ignores any given statement for reasons I do not know, and at no point have I shown him such behavior. He somehow uses this as a springboard to be accusatory and condescending without any sort of provocation or, again, some kind of similar prior behavior on my part. The worst of it at all is that he actually has a point, and it was one conclusion I came to when dealing with these articles (the why-I-didn't is all over the pages). But how am I supposed to acknowledge this when he seeks to destroy with that point? I've been writing myself in circles for reasons I don't even know now... I don't know what to do. Despatche (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If you feel he is condescending (I am not saying he is), why do you lower yourself to that level and say "He doesn't understand what an SPS is. He cannot read these words that are on this bright screen which is probably destroying whatever eyesight he may have. Why does he still exist?" As much as you -may-have a point, it might be worthwile to try to see if you can understand his line of thinking and come with a reaction to that other than: "it's on the box, so no other opinion is possible". L.tak (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Content wise, there's only yourself and Thibbs discussing this, since the discussion has started to run in circles then it's time to go to one of the noticeboards for outside opinion. Try WP:DRN, WP:RSN (which Thibbs already suggested) or WP:3O. That being said, Thibbs has been incredibly calm in their approach to discussion. At a few points you descended into unnecesarily aggressive ad hominems. Was this amount of snark really needed? If you really feel that Thibbs is actively blocking the discussion then raise an RFC/U. Blackmane (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all I completely refute the claim that I'm ignoring you, Despatche. I've read everything you said and tried to respond appropriately. I will note, however, that despite my repeated requests that you provide sources for your claims you still have failed to produce a single one and that despite my repeated requests that you cease to make edits in furtherance of your disputed vision of the Right and True name for the article, you continue to do so with abandon.
    Now for any condescension that you may have felt, I apologize. If you're referring to my reference to when I was new at Wikipedia, then that was just my clumsy attempt to show you that I understand where you're coming from and don't consider you to be arguing in bad faith. Telling you in the same post to "try actually reading WP:SPS" was probably a bit ruder that it could have been, but the frustration here runs both ways. The question of whether box/packing material is a self-published source or not is absolutely tangential to anything and is a very silly thing to dwell on. SPSes can be used as sources in situations like this because the topic of the article is the product of the companies that printed the box. My objection to your use of the box as a source has nothing to do with its status as an SPS. I'm objecting to your sourceless interpretation of the box to differentiate between descriptor, logo, product code, and official name when the reliable sources on the subject all seem to disagree with you. SPSes (and indeed all sources) can be cited for actual claims, but nowhere on the box is the claim made that "XY is the official name of the product contained herein." You're basing your argument on the assumption that it is obvious to the world that "W is the descriptor, XY is the official name, and Z is the company logo". I think you need sources to back that up because it is not obvious to the world at all. In fact all of the reliable sources I could find suggested differently.
    I'm willing to go through an RfC/U or through DR or 3O, but I still think that this question would best be handled by throwing it open to all members of WikiProject:VideoGames. Let's let the community weigh in on the content. Would you agree to that, Despatche? Let's leave the higher-level remedies to our disagreement for later if they are indeed necessary. Does that sound good? -Thibbs (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully support bringing it to WP:VG; it is active enough that its usually a good place to get a consensus going. For the record, in my experience, I find Despatche's report very hard to believe. Thibbs has been a great editor, very helpful in discussions on source reliability. I've never seen him act incivil. Despatche, on the other hand, has been the one that's been abrasive to work with. (Though I think our paths have only crossed once.) Anyways, I absolutely think an RFC/U is not necessary for Thibbs, of all people. I think this is strictly a content/source issue. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closure

    Can an uninvolved admin close WT:ACCESS#Policy change or Clarification?? That discussion seems to have gotten more and more off-topic, and it wasn’t entirely clear which of multiple topics it was originally supposed to be about, so I think it would be best to just stop. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block for IP socks of indeffed user ExcuseMeNYC

    ExcuseMeNYC (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely (by me) for disruption of the article Princess Marcella Borghese to promote outside interests, but continues to edit from their IP 24.215.76. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 24.215.249.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). See expecially the IP's first edit, from before ExcuseMeNYC was blocked, to see conclusively that it's the same person. (Tone and style are pretty unmistakable too.) They continue to scold on the article talkpage, which doesn't matter so much, but have also inserted tendentious material in a related article, Georgette Mosbacher, to support one side in an ongoing RL legal conflict. They were blocked for doing this, compare my block rationale and here, second paragraph. IPs 24.215.249.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.215.248.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), also no doubt the same user (or, I suppose, possibly other company shills), were used to edit the article in April and others from the same range can no doubt be used again. These are all dynamic IPs. I don't know how to deal with them, and I don't want to block half New York. Always scared of doing that. Anybody? Bishonen | talk 09:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    Bishonen, you made some sort of mistake (didn't copy the whole IP address?); 24.215.76 has no edits, whether live or deleted. Do you mean this edit by 24.215.249.76 (talk · contribs)? It was made after the block, so I'm not sure, but it's the only IP in the history with a .76 in the number. Nyttend (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the one. Wonder how I managed to copypaste and leave out a bit in the middle? But apparently I did. And you're absolutely right Nyttend: it was a fourth IP, 24.215.249.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that edited just before the block. So it looks like they get new IPs pretty quickly. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC).Bishonen | talk 10:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    Repeated personal attacks after warnings-"Wikipediots" and "morons"

    Stenen Bijl (talk · contribs) See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Quite a few warnings have been given, some of them blanked. Another report was made by another editor (User:DVdm, the recipient of most of the attacks) at WP:AIV, although it probably should have been made here instead. Heiro 11:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 72 hrs for NPA violations. Feel free to archive this. Heiro 11:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Spoke too soon I guess. Can we get talkpage access removed? Per threats to "out" other users. Heiro 11:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, in the time it took to type that up, someone dealt with it. Heiro 11:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Block increased to indef, with talk page access removed, for threats to out - HOTHERE. GiantSnowman 11:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bgwhite

    Can we get some experienced eyes and/or admin intervention to help with User:Bgwhite? This user is doing nearly nothing else then clean up violation. Its a good thing to delet nonsense but i guess its not very good to have users here witch do nothing else then find something where they can delet and destroy something. pls look his edits - he is nearly doing nothing else then to "cleanup". i think he should been told to write a bit more himself then to delet all day. Oliveru1980 (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleaning up crappy articles is a perfectly valid way to spend time here. Whose sockpuppet are you? Heiro 11:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Its a good thing if you do this from time to time.

    If there is realy something to fix. If you just come here to play "Janitor" its not. Thats why there is also a point here its "cleanup violation". Some would call it profile neurosis. There are 2 good points to be here. To read a lot of articles and to write good yourself. But sure not to play the important "janitor". sad if you cant understand this. regards Oliveru1980 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I cant understand it because you can not write a coherent sentence. Heiro 12:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oliveru1980, when starting threads here you must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You can do this by placing {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their user talk page. I've done this for you in this case, but please remember this for future reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=558120594"