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 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 23:49, 3 June 2013 (→‎User:GagsGagsGags: closing). 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

    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 [1], he and Werieth are in an edit war: [2]. 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]

    Socking

    It looks like Expatkiwi (talk · contribs) is now socking with their IP 170.94.104.36. Werieth (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours block, for a start. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    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.[3] --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]
    In cases like this, I'd argue for revision deletion per WP:DENY, as "knowing it's there" is the point of the vandalism. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 3 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]
      • Another OR problem concerning Narssarssuaq can be found at this dif for Location hypotheses of Atlantis where he has twice added a section called 'Scientific background'. The first time it was reverted because it was sourced to a creationist site. Narssarssuaq then reworded his section (with the unacceptable edit summary "Re-added section, this time with links that conform to the last editor's religion") but none of his sources seem to mention Atlantis. It appears that Narssarssuaq either does not understand or does not accept our NOR policy. I haven't reverted it yet as I am trying hard to stay on a wikibreak for perhaps another fortnight (breaks are so refreshing!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:01, 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]
    • Yes and no. I started out on Wikipedia seven years ago. However, over time things change, and by now I do not share the passion for crowdsourcing any longer. Dougweller's edit above is only one example of why: he not only rejects, but even tries to ridicule that a (documented) sea level rise of 120 metres (in the relevant period) is appropriate background information for the Atlantis myth - so much for common sense. In the long run the required suspicion and carefulness is draining both for the readers and the editors. At some point enough is enough. The natural thing to do is to close my account and to support Wikipedia through donations rather than edits, leaving that job to you. Apparently, Wikipedia does not let me close my account (i.e. blank and lock the user page, its talk page and the user's login). The only reason I can see for this is that it is an attempt to trick me into editing more. If I cannot formally close my account, then I will use it from time to time, because I am likely to get frustrated if an article has severe faults or omissions - as Wikipedians, you know that feeling very well. If anyone knows where I can complain about Wikipedia's lack of option to close accounts, which must be an annoyance to a number of editors, I would be grateful. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    More importantly, them saying that they have no intention to follow Wikipedia's rules is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — Richard BB 15:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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

    User has been gagged warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]
    I'm still trying to recover from looking at Beyonce's website. Probably the only reason I've ever even heard of her is because of Wikipedia. I can only absorb so much new knowledge at one time. I'm still working on the stuff you try to feed me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 3 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]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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. [4] 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.[5] Here is an example of finding citations and developing a clear keep rationale. [6] 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.[7] 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 [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. 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 [14], [15], [16], 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 [17], 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]
    I'm sorry, but as much as I'd love to start an RFC/U, no one's going to bother honoring it, because apparently Thibbs is some kind of "trusted editor" and is free of all obligations. Time to run yet another lap around his little track... Despatche (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I would honor it. I'm not perfect and I admit that freely. But I'm not worried that I've done anything sanction-worthy, though. I think you'd be wasting your time with an RfC/U, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 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. 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]

    You are a liar! You have been deliberately ignoring many key and non-key points, all with a strangely arrogant flair that does not befit you. As much as I would like to know why, all I can really understand is that it's making you look like a horrible person who has some kind of cruel deficiency (I apologize a thousand times but what is that going to do). Now, I wanted to avoid content territory, but:

    I'm not sure I can trust anyone who thinks SPS has anything to do with the actual subject of the article (the television, the box it came in, the manual, etc); whether or not the product itself is an SPS is important here, when it's the only valid source to find a name from; "the world" doesn't care one whit what the thing is called. I've already explained a hundred times why "this is this and that is that" is more than simple conjecture, and why I'd still like more official material anyway. I've already said again and again that I don't object to this full title, because it's still correct in a sense (I would prefer ", fully known as <x>,"; mind that adding this descriptor makes the name a bit fancier than it might need to be, never mind that UCN is exactly why you want "C1 NES TV" so damned bad. And I've already said again and again why I object to that "C1 NES TV"; because it's wrong on a fundamental level, you know it's wrong, and the only reason you're giving it any thought is because one guy ran a story on it and the others bandwagoned way too hard. When things like that are found, shouldn't that start to make these sources a little less reliable, not more?

    Whatever. In any event, it wasn't until now you even tried being "civil" again, and the why to that is a mystery to me too! Why should I be civil to someone I see as a monster? Despatche (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    1. No personal attacks.
    2. Can you specifically provide some difs where Thibbs allegedly treated so poorly? Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, having read the talk page discussions it was Thibbs having to deal with your round and round points. Also, attacking the user you are aiming to report, calling them a "liar" and "monster", is going to result in a wicked boomerang. Blackmane (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is definitely coming from him. You only go round and round because someone else leads you in a circle.
    I've gone through all the labelled reliable sources, official or not, gone through all the valid info imaginable with a simple "this is here, how does it stand" and bringing in the necessary consistency checks to solve that. But I have come to the conclusion that there is a disconnect in the later unofficial sources as there always seems to be, because someone reported something wrong and we all get to deal with that. I have come up against a champion of such reporting, and he absolutely refuses to listen to reason to the point where he is outright ignoring anything, no matter where that info is coming from (he ignores key details of his own Google spamming, for Christ's sake).
    What else can you really do except continue and continue putting down what's "right" (as determined by reliable sources) until they either realize that there's a disconnect (good), give up and leave you alone (bad), or ignore everything and resort to trickery to "win" anyway (harmful)?
    Go ahead and cuff me for the "monster" comment, but how is calling someone a liar supposed to be a personal attack when you've come to the conclusion that this is what they're doing after careful deliberation and you're treating it as a fact? Despatche (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the flood gates seem to be open: "descriptor, logo, product code, and official name"? Where is all this coming from? Are you making things up now, no longer content to just ignore what you don't like? Sorry, but there's only one time where anyone "gets" to make stuff up at all, and it's done with an entirely different spirit that doesn't even really "ignore" anything.
    I have only mentioned "the name" and a so-called "descriptor"--a description located near that name that is a common part of '70s and '80s tech styling, which could easily be interpreted as part of the name. Here's an example of Sharp's descriptors in action (you can find tons more of "pasokonterebi x1" all over Google, it's the same scenario), here's another example from Sega... and here is what you actually want (inb4 you try to use it as proof of something). So, "My Computer TV C1" is as valid as "Perso-Com TV X1"; actually, good luck figuring out how to romanize that thing, because it's got to done!
    This is what I've been saying the whole time, I've had to say it in at least 3 different ways across 3 different pages at any one time, and you still choose to ignore most of it, even as I've kept up with every single word for the sake of discussion. Boggles the mind, it does. And for the last time, I'm fixing bad links to disambiguations, because they don't just fix themselves during petty squabbles. You can go on and on about how I'm trying to whitewash this and that, but you know as well as I do that fixing formatting circumstances from a recent rename are separate to any discussion on the actual rename. Despatche (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I'm not going to let you bait me into responding to your content-related arguments here. I've already told you that centralized article-talk-page discussions are the most helpful for content matters and AN/I is neither the time nor the place for carrying on a tempestuous content dispute. Remember why you came here: it was to get administrative action regarding my behavior. Cut and paste the above content-related paragraphs into article talk space if you want a response to them. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, here's what Thibbs really wants; let's say Kotaku or whoever made up a new name for the PlayStation 3, or even kept referring to the Wii as the "Revolution", and for whatever reason most of the other big names followed... yeah. Can't wait for someone to tell me just how valid that is anyway. Despatche (talk) 23:26, 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]
    24.215.248.0/23 - only 512 IPs would be blocked. Unfortunately the range contribs tool is 404 this morning so I can't determine if there's any useful edits coming from the range. But I have blocked the range for one week to start. -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. A week may even be enough. Longer is better, though. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Longer would be better, but I don't want to do that without reviewing other contribs from that range. We can start with a week and then see where we're at. -- Dianna (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    CU comment: It doesn't appear that there will be any collateral damage from the rangeblock, so feel free to extend it as necessary. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Case closed. -- Dianna (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]

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

    User:Bgwhite

    There's nothing wrong with "playing janitor"; that's why the admin role is referred to as a "mop". There's no valid complaint here, and thus no action to be taken. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]
    SPA is not a "crime"; if I spent all my days addressing the unreferenced article backlog, would that be a problem? SPA is intended for singular page interest or very narrow range to suggest COI or an agenda to push; not moving from article to article fixing problems, properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:AnotherPseudonym and Carl Hewitt

    Is AnotherPseudonym (talk · contribs) another sock of Carl Hewitt? Introducing "paraconsistency" in (the talk page) of an article (Material conditional) which doesn't relate to consistency or paraconsistency is problematic at best, and generally indicative of Carl's (students') activity on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure why someone experienced enough to be an admin is bringing an issue here without filing a Sock Puppet Report and without engaging with the editor on the talk page of the article concerned. AnotherPseudonym is a new user, from what I can see on the NLP page s/he is contributing from the basis of some knowledge of the field (I can't answer for Material conditional. There surely has to be some real offence and also some dialogue before an ANI report is made? ----Snowded TALK 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a matter for SPI; the Carl Hewitt sanctions explicitly apply to "meat-puppets". I just found an edit introduced papaconsistency, a Carl Hewitt concept, where it doesn't belong. However, I'm not sure it was AnotherPseudoym who introduced it. I'll have to check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If s/he did I can't see it and even so at least talk to them first? Coming to ANI without any engagement or checking seems wrong. ----Snowded TALK 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) AnotherPseudonym's edits mostly concern neuro-linguistic programming, a topic that has nothing to do with Hewitt, judging by his biography. Despite the word "programming" appearing in NLP, it has nothing to do with computer programming or computer science, which seems to be Hewitt's expertise. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Besides, Arthur Rubin seems to be crediting Hewitt with far too much when he writes that "papaconsistency" is "a Carl Hewitt concept". Looking at paraconsistency, it seems that Hewitt had no contribution the notion, but that he merely applied it to something in software engineering. In line with the ANI program of today, this is another mountain out of a molehill. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And finally, Arthur Rubin does not appear to have considered the substance of what AnotherPseudonym wrote [18]: "Also the failure to even mention propositional calculus -- which is the context in which someone is most likely to look up the meaning of the operator -- was an unacceptable omission. By the time someone reaches the study of paraconsistent logical systems they will likely have no need to look up what a material conditional is on Wikipedia. A novice is most likely to look up this entry in wikipedia and they will most likely have encountered the operator in the context of classical/Boolean propositional calculus." AnotherPseudonym merely gave "paraconsistent logical systems" as an example of advanced material in logic. He did not try to introduce it anywhere. He was actually arguing for something rather opposite, namely that page on the material conditional needs to be simplified and made more accessible for beginners in logic. Building a whole bang bang theory from that aside is rather worrisome when coming from an administrator like Arthur Rubin. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavior of User:Xenophrenic

    Two problems: 1) Top ban requests should originate at WP:AN, not WP:ANI. 2) There is an ongoing RFC/U and this is the same evidence being presented in the RFC/U, so this looks like forum shopping. As the behavior in question isn't after the start of the RFC/U, it is inappropriate for us to consider it in multiple forums. Closing without action. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ArbCom has recently suspended its inquiry into Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), hoping that the moderated discussion page is going to work out. But the ArbCom case has illuminated the behavior of one editor, Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · logs). His behavior stretches across several years and several articles related to U.S. politics, not just the TPm article. I first encountered this behavior at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and at articles related to Ward Churchill, in 2009. Generally speaking, he is a POV-pusher for a progressive POV. It is as though he's trying to remake Wikipedia into an opposition research database for Democratic Party political operatives to use, while preventing its usefulness for that purpose to members of other parties and political groups. He adds negative material to articles about conservative political figures and organizations, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it might be, or how much it employs fallacies such as guilt by association; and he removes negative content about progressive political figures and organizations. He achieves these goals by being tendentious, and by using editwarring to a limited extent (particularly the slow edit war technique, or tag teaming).

    This has resulted in an RfC/U for Xenophrenic. Evidence was presented here, and it is enormous. I focused on a recent 79-day period (March 9 to May 27), but it is merely representative since the misconduct goes back to at least 2009. At first, Xenophrenic tried several times to get the RfC/U deleted, rather than address the merits of the case, and was told by several previously uninvolved editors here at ANI that the deletion he sought wasn't going to happen. Finally, his response was that in the 16 articles I listed to illustrate that 79-day period of his editing behavior, he was the only one who was editing toward NPOV, and all those other editors the he was editwarring with were the ones who were POV-pushing.

    Editors who push the same POV as Xenophrenic, in a similarly tendentious manner, are very likely to claim he hasn't done anything wrong, and that nothing has been proven. In fact, the evidence against Xenophrenic is overwhelming. I said at the beginning of the RfC/U that it was being done for two purposes. The first purpose was to present evidence that Xenophrenic's behavior creates problems for the Community. That purpose has been fulfilled abundantly. The second purpose was to convince him that his behavior does cause these problems, and that he must resolve to change this behavior. And for the second purpose, this RfC/U has been a miserable failure. Considering the huge amount of evidence presented, it comes as no surprise that I made a mistake here and there. But it's clear that Xenophrenic got into more than a dozen content disputes with more than a dozen different people, on more than a dozen different articles, in about two and a half months; and that his habitual response to such situations was editwarring. Most damaging to Xenophrenic, all of this occurred when he knew there were two different spotlights pointed at him (ArbCom, and the community's via the February 26 ANI thread[19]), and anyone would expect him to be on his best behavior during this period.

    Even while we were discussing his tendentious behavior, Xenophrenic continued this behavior. At Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, he editwarred in the words "Bush defenders." [20] And even one of his defenders at RfC/U, TMCk, who is clearly no fan of mine, admitted that I was right, and that the words "Bush defenders" had no business being in that article and should be removed.[21]

    So what we have here is a tendentious editor who has been presented abundant evidence of his tendentious behavior, but refuses to acknowledge that he has a problem, and refuses to improve his behavior. I recommend a topic ban for all articles related to U.S. politics broadly construed. After 18 months of constructive editing on unrelated articles, he can ask for removal of the topic ban. This 18-month period would take us past the 2014 congressional elections, and is necessary for protection of these articles. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I think WP:Boomerang should apply here. You've forum shopped to try and get a resolution in your favour on one issue and any review of the article will show long and lengthy and mostly tendentious edits from you on the talk page as well as edit warring on the article before it was frozen. You came late to the discussion otherwise you would have been named in the ArbCom case. You now appear to be attempting to use ANI to remove an editor who disagrees with you and is prepared to engage in the face of you and a couple of other Tea Party editors (and please don't play the I support Obama, but want to see fair treatment to the Tea Party line: it lacks credibility). I gave up on the article as has at least one other editor given the polemical nature of the discussions and you are as much to blame as anyone else. ----Snowded TALK 15:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC has been an entirely partisan affair. The evidence presented has been less than compelling. Just today, User:Phoenix and Winslow linked to a talk page archive containing 271 comments as evidence of Xenophrenic's supposed disruptive editing, with no indication of which edits are supposed to have been disruptive.[22] But the lack of compelling evidence hasn't stopped the members of one side of the content dispute from lining up to certify the "evidence". The plan here is to have Xenophrenic topic-banned so that one side in the dispute can more easily dominate the article content. — goethean 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are two editors who line up on the same side as Xenophrenic in the content dispute. Nobody comes before the community with perfectly clean hands, but it's worth mentioning that even though both Xenophrenic and I were never named as parties at ArbCom, sanctions were contemplated against Xeno, but not against me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see the relevance of that observation. As Snowded just said above, if you had been editing the TPM article at the same time as the other parties, you almost certainly would also have been named as a party to the ARBCOM case. — goethean 15:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)The difference is that neither of the two editors are trying to use ANI to get you banned from editing. ----Snowded TALK 15:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the concerns expressed by P&L and others regarding Xenophrenic's actions (basically unusually relentless and extensive POV'ing work) are accurate and backed by immense evidence. But I would prefer to see this get more thoroughly developed at the RFC/U. I have little confidence in wp:an's and wp:ani's on topics of general behavior; they tend to go off in random nasty directions and produce random results. I would rather see more thorough work on development and analysis of evidence at RFC/U first. Such might even get Xenophrenic to self-modify their behavior. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Like I said, that was the result I was originally hoping for: an admission that he does have a problem, and a promise to change. Unfortunately, no matter how much the evidence is developed at RfC/U, and no matter how tall the pile of evidence grows, the likely result is that Xenophrenic will continue to deny that he has done anything wrong. He will continue to claim that he's the one editing toward NPOV, and all those other editors he's editwarring with are the real POV-pushers, on all those 16+ articles. This is me, giving up on an amicable solution. It's time to discuss a topic ban. RfC/U will continue to be useful, but as an evidence locker for the proceeding here, so that the evidence of his behavior doesn't cover this entire page. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the time and the place to discuss this. A RFC/U is ongoing. Xenophrenic is engaged at the RFC. You may not think it will amount to any improvement in editing practice or style. It may not. It should be allowed to play out. I'd suggest withdrawing this ANI report. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued Bias and Discrimination

    WP:FORUMSHOPPING. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Already being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Thomas Smith (author). GiantSnowman 16:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Thomas Smith (author) article which is properly supported and passes notability has been continually subjected to "Deletion", name changes, and disparaging comments. Please have an immediate response to cease these humiliating, biased, and discriminatory actions. The article is about a living person. See Articles for deletion and name changes to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Smith_%28author%29

    Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Prints of Whales

    I seem to remember there being some sockmaster whose MO is to change date formats all over the place, but I can't remember the sockmaster. Can someone help me out here? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=558206185"