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 94.228.193.11 (talk) at 18:59, 22 September 2013 (→‎Racism below: new section). 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

    Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus

    The move review discussion for 30 seconds to mars,was recently closed by User:Jreferee as no consensus despite only seven !votes being cast and of those only two were to endorse closure. Two editors including myself have requested an explanation with no result. Could someone please either get an explanation for their actions against consensus or reverse the disputed closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this ANI thread is a little early. Earthh asked the question and 8 hours later you took the issue to ANI. Give it 24 to 48 hours from Earthh's message and then come here.--v/r - TP 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Jreferee did respond;[1] PantherLeapord's own behavior is cause of the breakdown in communication.--Cúchullain t/c 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation: The problem is that the 2 overturn-pending-explanation votes were not adjusted after the explanation is given. However, even when you toss those 2 votes out, there are 2 endorse close, 4 overturn, 1 relist. That is still sufficient evidence that the move is not supported, and the MR should not have been closed as such. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jreferee just replied with the following:

    The move review close was based on the strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In other words, it was a review of whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, not whether the close was correct or incorrect. The iVotes that addressed the sufficiency of the close explanation were not directed to whether closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. SmokeyJoe only wanted an explanation, which BDD provided. SmokeyJoe did not provide much argument, so it seemed to be a week endorse. B2C appeared to indicated that B2C adopted BDD’s explanation, giving strength to B2C position as endorse. Cúchullain and BDD both had strong endorse arguments, with BDD close additionally benefitting from closer’s discretion. On the overturn side, there were strong arguments and additional comments which addressed whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly to varying degrees. BDDs additional details on his close (18:34, 28 August 2013) was there for twelve days, but did not significantly move the discussion one way or another. I did not see a general sense of agreement one way or another. Since BDDs additional details on his close seemed to quell general concern for his close and there appeared to be no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as endorse close, I close the review as endorse close.

    What confuses me is that this implies that votes not going either way were to be interpreted as "endorse". Is that how things are supposed to be done normally? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm interested to see how this turns out. I was initially alarmed when an administrator, Jreferee, was upset with PantherLeapord because, quite frankly, I don't want him to make any mistakes since I was his mentor a bit ago after he got into a bit of trouble and sought out the adopt-a-user program. However, quite frankly, there's no way this should have proceeded this way by my definition of "consensus." Though it may be wiki-career suicide, I, too, disagree with the actions of Jreferee. However, with that said, I'll stop short of accusing anything more than a hasty or accidental action. I've certainly made worse mistakes than this. I do think that the decision should be reversed, but Jreferee, who has a history of very positive contributions, should simply duly note this, and everyone should move on. --Jackson Peebles (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jreferee spoke about the endorses but not the overturs. The majority of the users expressed an overturn, so there's a consensus. Almost everyone in the move review wrote that at the requested move there was no consensus to move the page to the current title.--Earthh (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looking at the whole; even the comments presents the official name is "Thirty Seconds". I like how the argument against "Thirty Seconds" is the Allmusic usage of "30 seconds..."[2], but the title is "Thirty Seconds" and the url changes as well to match it.[3]. Further evidence comes from the "Awards" which all list "Thirty Seconds".[4] MTV also lists "Thirty Seconds".[5] The official website is "Thirty Seconds to Mars".[6] Now let's not get into the limitations of Twitter where the short-hand is adequate. BBC uses it, but here is the interesting thing, other websites use "Thirty Seconds" and aside from the Youtube, the major sites all use it.[7] If anything, the usage in authoritative (not short hand) form is for "Thirty Seconds" and Wikipedia is a professional-level encyclopedia and should reflect that in both prose and title. The prose says "Thirty Seconds" not "30 seconds" throughout and when weighing the factors, seems to be a clear choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should read my comments on the move review. AllMusic changed the name recently, it was 30 Seconds to Mars when I posted it, but if you read the biography, they still use 30 Seconds to Mars. This also underline the fact that the "Thirty Seconds" is a new name. Since 1998 the band has been using "30 Seconds" while "Thirty Seconds" is used from 2013 onwards, that's why "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect (read WP:COMMONNAME).--Earthh (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I just am pointing out what I see. For professionalism we should use the official name when it is recognized internationally as such, short or long form of "Thirty". Let's not get into the Manning issue, but this is not out of the Prince (musician) issue and its not like "Mammoth" to "Van Halen", but just whether or not you write out the number or don't. For appearances and professionalism combined with the adoption and official use of "Thirty" and not "30", the official use should trump over a shortening no matter how prevalent. Examples to this are rather rare, yes, but Wikipedia is the sole major site that doesn't use "Thirty". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They currently use both "30 Seconds" and "Thirty Seconds". 30 Seconds to Mars has been the official name since 1998, only in 2013 Thirty Seconds to Mars became the official name. 30 Seconds to Mars should remain the title of the article since it has been the official name for almost the entire band's career and we should write that more recently the band is also known as Thirty Seconds to Mars.--Earthh (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I failed to follow-up after posting this in the move review:

    • Pending explanation - This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn. --B2C 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

    However, the closer, BDD (talk · contribs) did provide a full explanation:

    • Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have.

    I disagree with BDD's finding; I think absent a policy based argument favoring the move, it was at best "no consensus". Finding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in favor for the move by finding a marginal majority of such a small self-selected sample through counting !votes is not a reasonable explanation. If I had followed up, I would not have endorsed (I wish someone would have notified me to follow up before closing the move review...). Overturn.

    What's relevant here is that my input should not have been viewed as an endorse in the closing of the move review. --B2C 23:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous. There's a 2.5-to-1 majority against endorsing the original closure, and this smacks as the SECOND !supervote in this case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You think closing "it" as no consensus is ridiculous? By "it" do you mean the original RM, or the RM review?

        You think "this" smacks as the SECOND !supervote in "this case"? What is the first "this" referring to? Does "this case" refer to the original RM, the RM review, or this ANI review of the RM review? --B2C 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • For fuck's sake, if you're going to make this pointless/stupid of a comment, then don't bother commenting at all. As a ten year old could tell, the move review closure is what was closed as no consensus (the RM wasn't closed as no consensus), both closures have been !supervote's, and you're wasting people's time when you attempt to distract from people's comments like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my comment I wrote that the original RM (BDD's finding) was "at best 'no consensus'". You replied to that saying you "think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous". There was no way to know you were referring to the no consensus result that actually occurred at the RM review, and not to the "at best" comment I made about the original RM. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. We agree the no consensus finding in the RM review is incorrect. --B2C 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also like to point out that during the requested move, the nominator had been canvassing, leaving a message on User:Noyes388 talk page to notify him of the requested move, which he supported (read this).--Earthh (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that we found a consensus. Could someone proceed and restore the original name?--Earthh (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The RM review and the original RM both need to be overturned. --B2C 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information page Wikipedia:Closing discussions provides process regarding Requested moves and reviewing requested moves. Consensus was decided at the Requested Move proposal and that close was reviewed at Move Review. Some of the same editors in the move request or move review discussions wanting to continue their move positions or move request positions in this AN thread. However, the discussion close and review of that close process provides for closure so that the community can move on. In regards to the request of this AN thread - "Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus" - I was happy to provided it. In further details of that, I do appreciate the above feedback, but my reasoning reposted 04:40, 10 September 2013 above from here is still valid. I close the Move Review based on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I considered, but gave less weight, to arguments that merely posted a conclusory statement or did not focus on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly on arguments. B2C posted, "This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn." BDD provided that explanation on 28 August 2013, B2C did not reply, and the discussion was closed 9 September 2013, so I think reasonable to have seen B2C's position as fully endorse and give it the weight I did (more than SmokeyJoe, less than Cúchullain and BDD), within the confines of that discussion. B2C's position in the move review does not make or break the close any more than any one position does. In looking at the discussion as a whole, the collective move review endorse and overturn arguments - which both fell in the spectrum of weak to strong arguments - resulted in both sides providing strong arguments in their reasoning of whether BDD's interpreted the requested move proposal consensus incorrectly. There was no general sense of agreement one way or another. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And the community has disagreed with that reading. Please do the right thing and undo your closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    When I wrote my comment at the RM review saying I endorsed pending a reasonable explanation from BDD, I fully expected BDD to provide a reasonable explanation. I was so sure about that, I neglected to come back and check until I was notified about this ANI discussion on my user talk page. My bad. Surprisingly, the explanation provided by BDD on 28 August 2013 was, frankly, borderline pathetic. Certainly not reasonable:

    Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

    "No real policy-based arguments to weigh". And, yet, BDD found consensus? That's reasonable?

    "So I went with a headcount...I went with a majority decision". That's reasonable?

    Finding consensus in such a vacuum is exactly the kind of RM decision that needs to be reversed, and your RM review failing to see that is exactly the kind of RM Review decision that needs to be reversed. For the record, I have no position on the original RM question. I have no personal preference (never heard of the topic before), and don't know which meets COMMONNAME better. --B2C 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am seriously considering taking this to arbcom unless the closure is reversed even if it is only so the community's will can be enacted. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thirty Seconds to Mars (also commonly stylized as 30 Seconds to Mars) is an American rock band from Los Angeles, formed in 1998

    On a re-reading of the above discussions I see: RM1 was clear. RM2 was a stretch to close this way, and definitely so if RM1 is considered. MR is a cautious "no consensus" that another admin may have read a rough consensus for Overturn or Relist.

    • Is Jreferee at fault?
    1. Could another another admin agree with the close? Yes Jreferee's close is defensible, and well defensible in isolation.
    2. Did the closer have a COI or was he otherwise INVOLVED? No
    3. Is there now so great a problem that it can't be worked on? No

    No, Jreferee is not at fault. This discussion does not really belong at ANI. But where? So, ways forward?

    (1) Jreferee could unclose the MR so that it might receive further attention.
    (2) A fresh RM could be intiated to reverse the close on the basis that there was never a consensus to move (undermining the standing of the MR process and returning to the old endless "If you don't like the RM result, start a new one").
    (3) Do nothing (offensive to an ordinary editor who believes that both BDD and Jreferee erred).
    (4) Initiate #2 as an RfC.
    (5) Go to Arb Com (my view: in the absence of even an allegation of poor conduct by any user, they should see no role for arb com in this question).

    I recommend #1, failing that then #4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. In fact, I suggested (1) on Jreferee's talk page[8]. I suggest others encourage him as well. If he refuses to comply with our requests, I agree #4 is the best course of action. --B2C 23:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No response, yet. --B2C 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jreferee (talk · contribs)... we're waiting for your response to my question on your talk page[9]. Thanks. --B2C 23:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is no comment within 48 hours of this comment then I may take action to overturn the closure and allow another admin to review it. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as long as they do not revert the reversal of the closure then things should be fine. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious and disruptive editing by user:Czixhc at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

    Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Acceptable self-published source?. For over two weeks now, user:Czixhc has been arguing for a map of 'human skin colour' to be accepted as a reliable source, in spite of being repeatedly (and unanimously) told that it isn't by User:Tobus2, User: Dougweller, User:Orangemike, User:Capitalismojo and myself (User:AndyTheGrump). We have been repeatedly told by Czixhc that only he/she understands policy, that we are all wrong, and that Czixhc is right. Czixhc has accused others of lying [10], and has point-blank refused to accept anyone's judgement but his/her own. It is clearly ridiculous that a dispute like this should be allowed to go on so long where there is an overwhelming consensus, and since it is evident that Czixhc is unwilling to accept the decision of others, I have to suggest that this contributor has acted in a manner which can only be seen as disruptive - and accordingly I suggest that Czixhc be blocked from editing until s/he makes it entirely clear that such behaviour will not be repeated. The reliable sources noticeboard is intended as a means to obtain outside input regarding the reliability of sources - it is not a platform for endless tedious and repetitive promotion of a source against the clear consensus of experienced editors. If Czixhc is unwilling to accept this, I'm sure we will manage fine without his/her contributions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with and endorse Andy's report. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As a completely uninvolved editor, I also concur with and endorse Andy's report. GregJackP Boomer! 03:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that andy have (nedlessly) brought the discussion to this board, well, i will explain my point here too: thus far, there have been a discussion regarding certain image (a map that i want to include on wikipedia). The problem here basically lies on me holding that the map is reliable because it fully meets the criteria for self published sources (as i explain here [11] the exact diff is here [12]) while the users on opposition, mainly the user who started this discussion, assert that my map is not reliable because there is 3 users that activelly oppose to it (despite that my map in fact fulfillis the criteria) to which I cited to him that consensus is not a matter of votes, but is defined by the user who have sources and adhere to wikipedia's policies i'll cite it textually here: "Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." this is why i reject that my map is not situable. The user to which i accused of lying is an user that has a particular habit of extending discussion without adhering to any policy, and to be precise i called him so because he has the tendency of ignore all my responses and just repeat the same argument again and again, he also intentionally misinterprets all my responses. I also have to note that the user andythegrump insulted me in the reliable sources noticeboard [13]. That's all, i really haven't violated any rule or policy, neither incurred on disruptive editing, thus far i've only adhered to wikipedia's policies. finally while this is not the appropiate board, any sugestions about how to reach a consensus that leaves every party satisfied are welcome. Czixhc (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    user:Czixhc continues to bluster meaninglessly to disguise the underlying issue: he wishes to use a self-published source from an artist, a production designer, as an "expert" on human skin color distribution, based on the fact that the guy is one of a myriad instructors at an obscure school of architecture. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OrangeMike, the Oxford Brookes University is not an obscure school at all, by the way, here is one of my sources [14]. Czixhc (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not brought 'the discussion' to this noticeboard. I have brought your behaviour here. If you think that you are going to be permitted to use WP:ANI as another platform for the same tendentious behaviour, I suggest you think again. And yes, I referred to your tedious repetitive bollocks as bollocks - which I'm sure will be the consensus of all those willing to read through the whole dreary thread. Please do yourself a favour and accept, just this once, that you are wrong, and save us all the tedious necessity of coming to the same obvious conclusion that everyone else has already... AndyTheGrump (talk)
    You shouldn't have done it, i haven't violated any rule, i just defend my posture based on sources, adhering to policies and because i believe that wikipedia must be impartial and not follow the interests or opinions of particular editors. Right now you've violated more guidelines than me. Czixhc (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    More tendentious bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right now breaking WP:CIVIL are you aware of that? You also can't request to block other users just because they disagree with you, that's not how it works. Czixhc (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have proposed you be blocked because of your disruptive behaviour. The same behaviour that you seem keen to continue here. I'll ask one last time: are you going to accept the clear consensus at WP:RSN, or are you prepared to accept the consequences if you don't? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To discuss something adhering to policies is not a disruptive behavoir, you clearly need to read more about wikipedia's policies, in fact, what actually makes an adiministrator to block an user is a conduct such as the one you've been showing with you insulting me. Czixhc (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Will those reading this thread please note that Czixhc has been contributing to Wikipedia for less than three months. And then compare that to the editing histories of those who have disagreed with Czixhc concerning the reliability of the source. And then consider who is more likely to be familiar with policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As an almost completely uninvolved editor, I read through the entire RSN and the linked material. And I was trying to figure out how to close the discussion as a non-admin, or at least push it towards closure. (I do admit that I have two RSNs pending that I wish would get more attention.) But then this ANI has popped up. AndyTheGrump is completely correct. Consensus on the RSN is against Czixhc, and Czixhc patently refuses to accept what the community has said. The responses here echo that WP:TE approach and spirit. Please block Czixhc in order to provide time for reflection and to allow the RSN to close. – S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC) ADDENDUM re strikeout. Czixhc seems to have accepted community consensus (with reluctance and reservations) and the RSN is closed. If Czixhc will refrain from further comment here and on the RSN, I recommend closing this ANI as well with no further action. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On sight of the direction this discussion has taken, i believe that it's the best for me to desist for now, I'll wait until an administrator revises my case to keep discussing this. Right now there is a huge amount of editors against me and this has boiled up, I have no problem with doing so, though i really didn't though that wikipedia worked this way on reality. I also have to point out that Andy the grump have been blocked many times before, with the reason for various of these being personal attacks: [15]. Czixhc (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. It appears that, contrary to the impression that the post above may have given, Czixhc has not accepted the overwhelming consensus both here and at WP:RSN regarding the non-RS nature of the disputed source, and apparently intends to continue the same tendentious behaviour. [16] Accordingly, I repeat my call that Czixhc be blocked for disruption until such time as s/he agrees to conform with normal standards of behaviour, and to accept that s/he alone is not the final arbiter regarding such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can calm down already, as i told above, i desist for now. I'll wait to see what an uninvolved administrators think, whatever that administrators says i'm ok with it because i'm not a disruptive editor. Czixhc (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in spades. You've continued to insist that someone's university profile where the person himself has written that "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." is an indication of expertise in migration. You even suggested at the article talk page that the discussion might be going your way. You are now suggesting so far as I can see that it requires an Administrator to review the issue of reliability to convince you to drop it - this isn't true, we have no special authority when it comes to content. If you don't agree to drop the issue entirely and agree that consensus is that the author of the map and the map itself is not reliable then it's my opinion you should be blocked. And frankly I wouldn't blame anyone for saying 'tendentious bollocks' after the time that's been wasting trying to show you the obvious. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I though that administrators had special authority on this kind of issues. Anyway, as i told above i desisted already, though i really don't think that uncivil behavoir is justified on any mean, specially with that user being involved on this discussion for like two days only. Czixhc (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you thought that administrators had special authority on this kind of issue, then you should have been listening to Orangemike, who is an admin. But, no, Admins do not have any special authority; they have a WP:MOP that allows them to clean up messes. And in order to receive the mop, they went through a process that showed the community that they have an understanding of processes and policies that will guide them to using the mop in a way that generally meets the communities desires. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • TheRedPenOfDoom I know that Orange mike is an administrator, but, for example, here [17] he calls the Oxford Brookes University an "obscure" school, when the institution itself have been around for more than 100 years and has considerable prestige. I don't know if it's for a real bias or because editors like Orange Mike are very bussy and work on multiple articles, thus not having time to check the full case on detail. The users that i've got the impression to really want to help in the discussion were Dougweller and Atethnekos, However, the former usually absented for long periods of time when i asked him something regarding wikipedia's policies, there was a moment in the discussion on which he and everybody else stopped replying for 4 days (from september 9 [18] to september 14 [19]). While Atethnekos started discussing the day that andy brought the discussion here, so this couldn't be discussed further. Now, something that haven't been mentioned here is that there have been users that have agreed with me, like this three users who wanted to add the map [20], [21], [22], and then in the RSNoticeboard an user called Barnabypage considered the map to be very well done but wasn't sure if the map would be appropiated in the topic in question: [23] to which i asked if he considered the map to be situable on other topics: [24] but didn't appeared again, On that diff i also explain to Dougweller that the wikipedia policy for self-published sources state that an expert is reliable if is working in the relevant field, and in overall what he thinks about that, but ignored the question. This is like a summatory of the key points of the discussion until now. Czixhc (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit of shame it had to come this far, but good to see this might be finally coming to an end. I agree that there's no need for a ban or other sanction if Czixhc is genuine about accepting the community consensus. While he is aggressive, stubborn and has a "unique" interpretation of what both policy and sources say, to his credit the few times he came close to breaking WP:CIVIL in my discussions with him he backed off when asked to. He's a new editor here and I WP:Assume good faith that this was a genuine lack of understanding of what makes a WP:RS rather than him deliberately trying to be disruptive - hopefully he's been pointed to a bunch of policy he wasn't previously aware of and has become a better wikipedian by going through this process (I note that he appears to be contributing positively to other articles and has added another image, this time with a reliable source). Hopefully the conduct that resulted in his behaviour being raised here is just part of the learning curve of a new editor and there won't be a need to bring this up again. Tobus2 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like everybody went silent again with my question, well, here is a different one: The map, with the sources presented as of now stills doubious, right? However, If Hagos (the creator of the map) is cited by a publication such as national geographic or an academic book, about topics that are either, human skin color or migration in general, the map will be confirmed as reliable for these topics, right? Czixhc (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking advantage of this discussiong continuing unarchived i will advise this here: By the insight brought by other editors (see my edit on September-19-2013) the use of the file in question as a cartographic work inside cartography-related fields can be acceptable, for Hagos having multiple publications on the cartography field, a list of publications can be seen here [25]. I bring this up here rater than to open a new section to save space and time. Thank you all. Czixhc (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't RSN and this has nothing to do with ANI. I'm disappointed that you haven't dropped this, particularly as it isn't clear that any of those are related to the issue which is migration and clearly none are in academic publications. Please drop it now. If you find the map being used favorably in academic publications on migration, go back to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that the issue was migration or skin color or anything, and i recognize my mystake on this, however, for that same reason, while giving a look to my sources i found Hagos to be very well credited on cartography fields, I really don't want the file to be dropped, i worked much on it and i'd like to use it where it can be used, and as i said above, i ask here because it's easier for the issue being fresh right now. Czixhc (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass rollbacks required

    We've been hit pretty heavily by a spambot. I know some admins have scripts for mass rollback (believe it or not, as many of them as I do, I don't have a script). This is bigger than manual techniques can handle.

    —Kww(talk) 16:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    add

    —Kww(talk) 16:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    add

    —Kww(talk) 17:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Archive.is actually is a web service for archiving URLs. See Talk:Archive.is. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So under what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to anonymously run a bot over open proxies?—Kww(talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that RotlinkBot (talk · contribs) was not approved, and the history of the site, I think blacklisting and mass removal is appropriate. Werieth (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to hear it, since I personally undid about twenty of the edits before going out (they appear all done now?). Cheers! Basket Feudalist 18:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link: that's clearly what this is. Rotlink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is bypassing the block on his unapproved bot by using anonymous proxies for the edits.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now using open proxies to direct traffic to your site is problematic. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    They aren't "all done", You Can Act Like A Man. I've blocked all the above IPs for three months. The edit filter keeps reporting new ones trying. It occurs to me that this may be a gadget of some kind (as opposed to proxies), as Rotlink has apparently released one on Romanian Wikipedia. That doesn't seem likely, though.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, Kww(talk)- I'll get back on the case? No probs. I just checked the next few from where I left it (an hour before) and didn't see any current edits from the bot. Makes sense? Basket Feudalist 18:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kww et al.: To check my understanding: the problem here is that these links are being added by some sort of unauthorized bot and/or blocked user, not that the archive.is links are inherently bad? If so, I assume there's no objection to manually restoring some of these links after manually verifying that they're correct and suitable? —me_and 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have a problem with that, but I'd wait a bit before I got started in case somebody finds something out about archive.is that isn't obvious to me.—Kww(talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I think as well. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed this link addition happening during RC patrol and wasn't sure what to think. I tested a random link and found that the old version was broken, but the new archive.is version worked. After that, I didn't interfere. I did another test just now from the list above, and again the archive.is change made a broken link functional. As the scale has certainly been disconcerting, though, I'm glad you folks are looking into it. From what's said above, I assume that massive linking to a single site should be reported, whether or not the results are apparently benign. Is that right? DoorsAjar (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, if I see fresh archive.is links being added, what action would you like me to take? Should I revert the changes or not? Should I report the IP making the changes, and if so, should I do it here or at AIV? DoorsAjar (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been noticed on a lot of aircraft articles - on the ones I've seen, it's always been replacing a USAF Factsheet that was on af.mil with the archive.is version. The catch is that the factsheets actually still exist, just moved to a different address - more constructive would be repairing the link instead of bypassing it with an archive. Regardless of whether or not archive.is is a valid archive, though, the scope and means of this merit a nuking and re-doing from scratch, I think. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A more constructive approach would be to a) hunt for and find the webpage's new address hosted by the same publisher, then b) hunt for an archived version on the Wayback Machine or similar, then finally c) see if archive.is has the page archived. Otherwise the automatic activity smacks of promotion of archive.is. Unfortunately, the process I describe must be undertaken manually. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to point out that archive.is is not brand new, it has been in WP:Linkrot#Internet Archives, WP:Citing sources/Further_considerations#Pre-emptive_archiving, and discussed at WT:LINKROT#Archive.is for about a year. It's familiar to editors with long involvement in deadlink rescue. I suggested a "use but go slow" approach in 2012. It needs some track record behind it. As time goes on, and the developer/owner grows more comfortable "owning" it in public, its bona fides will improve. There are three pluses to archive.is: better HTML/CSS rendering, page image archiving, and ignoring robots.txt. Robots.txt can kill an entire archive.org site history, because it's a crawler. Archive.is is not a crawler. However, I still agree with the current consensus: use archive.org and webcitation.org archiving since they now both offer archiving on demand, and suggest archive.is as a respectable backup (but primary for those sites which don't or can't archive or render with the first two). --Lexein (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    —rybec 22:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked and reverted the three IPs. Not convinced on Quebec99 at all: that looks to be an editor that his actually correcting web references and describes that with an edit summary of "corrected web reference".—Kww(talk) 22:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a bot! I am using this [29] page to see what is broke, finding the correct reference if it exists, and fixing it. Is that somehow wrong? Quebec99 (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. You just happened to be using the same edit summary as a bot, and someone pointed that out for investigation. As you can see above, I figured out that it was a coincidence.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of the merits or demerits of "archive.is", proxies are being used. This is not an above board and honest method. It is flagrant sockpuppetry and gaming the system. Such massive edits should be approved beforehand. Blacklisting URLs, even good ones, is the conventional way to deal with linkspam. It forces the person behind this to seek to whitelist the URL, and then they can be instructed to describe what and why they are doing this and to seek permission to do it on such a large scale. Whitelisting can then occur if an agreement is reached. Of course they should be blocked for engaging in such flagrant sockpuppetry and block evasion in the first place. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the point? We block the user responsible, but when he can use such a wide range of IP addresses, there's no real point to blocking any of them; we'd have to rangeblock the whole Internet in order to prevent him editing entirely. Much better to use the spam blacklist against the edits and the block tool against the human, as it's much simpler than telling the network to refuse traffic from the whole world and getting sent to the village stocks as a result. Nyttend (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It never hurts to block a proxy. Right now, edit filter 559 is preventing the spam runs, and it looks like his proxy list is exhausted. The problem with popping it straight onto the spam blacklist is that it prevents articles that have the link from being edited easily by anyone, even editors that aren't adding the link and have no clue about this problem.If we decide to blacklist the archive for regular editors, we need a cleanup bot. It looks to me like we have tens of thousands of articles with links right now. It's going to take a bot to extract them all, and then we can use the spam blacklist.—Kww(talk) 06:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:115.78.233.245 is doing the same thing. RNealK (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose rollbacks. No such "mass rollbacks" are needed, nor are they on policy. And, there's no spam in that "spambot". Such zealous rollbacks will directly damage verifiability, and are therefore absolutely not supported by policy. Policy is now yanking back on your leashes, so heel. As an advocate for protection against WP:Linkrot, I want valid archive.is, web.archive.org, and webcitation.org links to remain, no matter how they got there. The apparent attitude that archive.is links must be removed is appalling, and is directly destructive to the verifiability of the encyclopedia. User:Kww, I need you to carefully examine your motives, and those of anyone and everyone advocating removal of archive.is links: does such action help the encyclopedia, or, more obviously harm verifiability? In my opinion, verifiability is far more important than any alleged use of proxies, or bots.
    Block the IPs, bring the responsible editor(s) to DR or AN for appropriate education and training in proper behavior, and let's get on with building and protecting the encyclopedia and its verifiability. Blocking User:Rotlink without attempts to discuss is not on, in my opinion. And stop this horrid aggro for bot-based removal of archive.is links. Verifiability is more important than any such crusade. Admins, I expect a higher standard of behavior, and expect you to focus more on long-term benefit to the encyclopedia per policy (verifiability), than short term difficulties with apparently one editor whose behavior (but not results) goes against guidelines.
    I've said this elsewhere: we need to exhibit respect for someone who has shown considerable dedication to meeting and exceeding the archival abilities of both archive.org and webcitation.org mainly for Wikipedia's use: clean HTML (cleaner than either archive.org or webcitation.org), and page images (the others don't do that at all). All that's missing from archive.is's CV is longevity. Let's not stab the wild gift horse in the heart, thanks. Let's instead bring in the horse whisperer. --Lexein (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC) (Expanded list of archivers in 5th sentence. --Lexein (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    Whoever did the bot edits appears to have used more IPs for edits after the mass rollback:

    He/she has done archivings using IPs before, though on a small scale consistent with manual edits or tests of the bot:

    --Toddy1 (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Caught you dead to rights, User:Toddy1 - are you calling legit archive.org links, replacing fragile Google cache links, spam? Ridiculous! Are you calling your reversion of those edits legit? You're in the wrong here. Archive.org isn't Archive.is, but still, all this trigger-happy revert madness, just because somebody's doing a man's work of archive soon-to-be-dead links. Ridiculous. --Lexein (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On the original subject: For what it's worth, 78.45.112.198 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is also adding archive.is links right now. DoorsAjar (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think that mass rollback is appropriate. Archive.is is a perfectly valid archiving site, and one I've used myself on multiple occasions. I agree with the indefinite block on Rotlink; they've violated plenty of policies, by using open proxies and unapproved bots. However, the edits are generally a net positive, and I've seen RotlinkBot come up on my watchlist, with good edits. As a result, blanket reverting is bad. Blanket reverting edits made after the indefinite block, however, is definitely appropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another case of shooting off our own toes. We've known for a long time that we need to provide archival services for linked sources, yet we keep trying to fob it off on outsiders. Even relying on archive.org is questionable, but going to commercial archives is really shoddy.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Commercial"? I don't see ads at archive.is, archive.org or webcitation.org. Perhaps you meant "private"? If your point is that we could/should bring archiving in house, I approve, but that's not the issue here at the moment. I just want correct archive links, however they got here, to be left alone. --Lexein (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you stand on leaving valid archive links alone, regardless of provenance? --Lexein (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive revert errors

    User:Drmies [30] and User:Toddy1 [31] have seriously massively, multiply erred in their reversions. They've taken stable archive links to archive.ORG (not .is), and reverted to stupid, fragile Google Cache links. OMFG! Stop this stupid war on archive.is! At least keep it away from perfectly valid archive.org links! This damage to verifiability is crushingly stupid. At least see that. Be fair. --Lexein (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lexein, I understand your point about the need for verifiability, and I have nothing against archive.is, but the method used is totally wrong. Block evasion and linkspamming is the wrong way. You're defending a block evading bot using massive numbers of proxies. That's totally wrong and such blatent dishonesty and policy violations raises all kinds of redflags. Please help to find a solution to get what you want without defending socking and block evasion. See my comment below. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In your recent contributions, I do not see edits at User talk:Drmies, and two edits at User talk:Toddy1 were made minutes ago, and the user did not have any chance to respond. Whereas most likely you are making a valid point, this is not how disputes are resolved here. Would you please open the talk page discussions and wait until the users respond.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    144.76.45.18 (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ymblanter, in their (Kww, Drmies and Toddy1) recent edits, I don't see discussion at User:Rotlink before condemnation, blocking, blind reverting without looking at the validity of the edit performed. Are you saying I should be SILENT here while this smallminded overreaction is being overtly campaigned for and performed by an admin whom I consider to be way off the appropriate-admin-action reservation? --Lexein (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am saying WP:ANI is NOT the first dispute resolution venue. As simple as this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me see if I understand this logic:from all appearances, the owner of archive.is has used an illegal botnet to place links to his site into Wikipedia, but you have no problem trusting the veracity and safety of the archive. What am I missing?—Kww(talk) 14:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You do not understand. Your claim of "illegal botnet" assumes facts not in evidence. You condemn and block without process. Your false de minimus phrase "placing links to his site", deliberately falsifies the larger, and more important, truth of archiving sources with broken links, or with fragile Google cache links, to both archive.ORG and archive.IS . You improperly elevate the action of a constructive (if unauthorized) alleged bot to seem more important than the deliberate destruction of reliable links, in favor of unreliable or broken ones.
    Let me be clear: the reversion of valid reliable archive links back to broken or unreliable or fragile links is a direct assault on the verifiability of Wikipedia articles, and directly against the Five Pillars. If I did those reverts you've done, I'd be up at ANI for blocking and banning in an instant, and you'd be the one putting me there. At least admit that.
    Let me be even more clear: You're one of those editors acting destructively to the goals of the encyclopedia, even while you think you're defending some minor guideline point. Verifiability POLICY trumps bot GUIDELINES.
    And now you dare to impugn MY integrity: "you have no problem trusting"? I've spot checked hundreds of archive.is entries (as many as an unassisted human might be expected to perform), and compared them against archive.org snapshots and webcitation.org snaps I tripped myself, and found NO errors, and NO degradation of archive entries, NO ads. The only thing archive.is lacks now, for my full approval, is longevity. So yes, if I were asked to choose between you, User:Kww, and archive.is, I'd choose archive.is, and ask that you hand in your admin tools. Because as long as you misuse your admin powers and tools to bully valuable resources, and directly and literally damage article verifiability, you're doing it wrong. Period. --Lexein (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I eagerly await your alternate explanation of a world-wide set of IP addresses performing multiple parallel and nearly identical edits. I didn't impugn your integrity. I simply don't trust a site owner that seems to be using an illegal botnet. The links may be fine now, but that doesn't say that they won't be used for malware distribution or other similar activity in the future, after we have thirty or forty thousand links. That's the problem with illegal activity: it tends to make me distrust the people that do it.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A) You're forgetting that I wouldn't care if Mengele himself rose from the grave to add valid archive.org and archive.is links, I'd still want them kept. B) Paranoia gets us nowhere. Your purely rhetorical, groundless assertion of "illegal" activity puts you squarely in the category of unreasonable persons, undeserving of admin rights. And acting against the letter and principle of the Five Pillars, to wit: build an encyclopedia, and there are no rules. Your hysterical screaming of "illegal" has no place in the vocabulary of any responsible Wikipedia administrator. If there were a botnet, (and not merely an ad hoc manual rotation through pool IP addresses) there would be millions of edits done, not dozens. Get real, get reasonable, and start supporting Wikipedia rather than being a petty destroyer of correct work. No, I don't approve of unapproved bots. Yes, I want open active discussions to build good relations with archive.is for the long term. Block all you want! Discuss all you want! Just stop advocating the wholesale destruction of verifiable improvements to long term verifiability. --Lexein (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My hysterical screaming?—Kww(talk) 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lying about events, misquoting me, attributing false motives to me. Yes, your hysteria: using exaggeration of facts to persuade others to support ghastly counter-Wikipedia overreactions. --Lexein (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replied on your talk page. If you wish to accuse me of lying or attribution of false motives, I assume that you will be able to provide evidence of that in a private conversation.—Kww(talk) 06:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for "private conversation", I've already addressed those matters quite clearly here in text already written, if you would just read it. (And let's keep the off-topic snark and non-discussion by involved editors out of the conversation, if you don't mind.) --Lexein (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And thus was the discussion Godwin-ed, good job. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there have no doubt been some errors in the good faith reverting of the massive edits of this block evading bot using huge numbers of proxies. What is our normal method for dealing with such violations of policy? It is the method used by the blocked bot, not the archive.is URL, that's the problem here, and counteracting such wrong methods is an act of good faith by loyal editors.
    This type of thing (adding links using a bot) needs to be done above board and by approval from the community. Policy violations on such a large scale cannot be tolerated. It also has the unfortunate effect of bringing archive.is into ill repute. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your use of "some errors" is inaccurate; the truth is "many errors". That said, I thoroughly agree that alleged bots doing on-policy work, but which are unauthorized, should be stopped and/or blocked, but that their edits (which were otherwise consonant with verifiability) should not be reverted. Period. I strongly encourage everyone to remember that the links being reverted are for archive.ORG as well as archive.IS. Verifiability policy trumps pretty much everything else being discussed here, in my opinion. And yes, I read WP:TIGERS again. --Lexein 15:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    Even if they were archive.heaven, if they were added by a block-evading botnet, WP:DENY applies. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But, to quote a more pro-building editor below at #triage:
    -- WP:EVADE notes "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)," (emphasis original).
    DENY is about aggrandizement: there is none when linking to a site other than one's own, such as archive.org --Lexein (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think it is correct to characterize these changes as "obviously helpful", at least until archive.is has the same status and recognition as archive.org and webcitation.org. —me_and 10:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I resent the implications and the tone of your comment, Ryan Vesey. If you knew the full story, you would have known that Swartz did something absolutely illegal with the most noble of intentions, to open a pathway to readily-available free knowledge. That's all I meant to say, and that's where the similarities end. Poeticbent talk 17:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the indefinite block; Rotlink violated the policies surrounding bot usage and proxy servers. What I strongly object to is Kww's proposal that we blacklist the site. I have often used Archive.is myself, as it has some things archived that other places don't; also, users can get pages archived without much hassle themselves, and THAT is a big advantage. I don't see where the commercial aspect is relevant. Blanket reverting the edits prior to Rotlink's indef is not helpful; those made after the indef obviously should be reverted. Also, referencing Aaron Swartz is quite uncalled for, utterly irrelevant, and borderline offensive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • RotlinkBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefed on August 18, and this appears to have been RotlinkBot running anonymously on a distributed botnet. I haven't campaigned for blacklisting archive.is. If you read carefully above, you will see that I have argued against placing it on the spam blacklist. I consider that question to still be open. I admit, I do have serious reservations about it, because I worry about having links to a site controlled by someone that is willing to use botnets.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A note to those that say that I can't prove it's an illegal botnet: it's possible that he recruited a legal set of proxies from all over the world in some kind of discussion forum. I would argue that's like waving a plastic gun at a cop: you couldn't have performed a better simulation of an illegal botnet if you tried.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think whoever is behind the botnet is using a sledgehammer to fix everything it possibly can when sometimes it's not the best approach. As noted above, some of the changes were to various Air Force articles where the problem wasn't that the information was removed but that the information had moved. The sledgehammer approach was to use the archive. The better approach would have been to update the link to the corrected location. From a few I've checked, the changes have been consistent and a bot could have scanned through to correct the links. That's probably still possible but it's now overshadowed.
    • The larger question that's been raised (but no real answer on it that I can see) is if archive.is can be considered a trusted archive site. If it is, IAR and allow current edits but get the person(s) behind the archive to use an authorized bot. If it's not, handle as needed. Ravensfire (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody forces you to make a decision to trust or not to trust a given site. You can download all the interesting pages (both archive.is and arhive.org as well as many other archives support the same API) and keep them on your laptop, on Wikimedia's toolserver or even in your bank deposit box. If something would happen, whether archive dies or the goverment erects a new Great Firewall, you will be able to take the files and re-publish them using that day's technologies. 77.255.95.230 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, if it's not reliable, then it should be removed. Period. Same as any other unreliable source. Archive.org is trusted to accurately archive pages, hence it's accepted. Again, the question is if archive.is has that same level of trust. If it doesn't, or can't, then it should not be used here to archive sources. Ravensfire (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly the opposite. Archive.org is not reliable by its design. It obeys robots.txt. That means that the person who control the domain (who can upload /robots.txt to the site) can remove the archived pages from archive.org. It could be an advertisement company after domain expiration, and they usually do it. Another example: pages deleted from Livejournal.com became forbidden in its robots.txt in order to be deleted from archive.org as well [36]. If you would rely only on archive.org you will eventually lose access to the content. Additional backup (on archive.is, webcitation.org or at home) is required. 77.77.11.251 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable in this context basically means that it's trusted to make faithful copies of the archived page. Ravensfire (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; "reliable" doesn't mean "it is there and will always be there", it means "the page is a faithful copy of the original without changes". - The Bushranger One ping only 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    triage

    The immediate undoing of a bad thing isn't always the best approach. For example, if a person is impaled with a steel rod, you don't just go jerk it out, and some poisons due more damage if vomiting is induced. So while it's good the massive unauthorized edits were detected, and blocking the IPs is an appropriate first step, willy nilly reverting edits that aren't doing harm to WP isn't the best approach. This is even policy -- WP:EVADE notes "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)," (emphasis original). So, in the lack of evidence of immediate harm to Wikipedia, there should be a non-hasty discussion (entmoot) about whether dead links or links to a archive site of unknown provenance is better. Additionally, after conclusion of such discussion it would probably be best to get the wiki-geeks over in bot-land put together a fixer bot to ensure orderly removal of the the inappropriate links. NE Ent 03:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this. As I've stated, IMHO archive.is needs longevity: its accuracy and reliability are IMHO without obvious flaw so far. Web.archive.org links are good to go: reliability is good (subject to future robots.txt exclusions, which sometimes happen), and accuracy only suffers from occasional CSS/JS issues which archive.org has always had. The issue here of whether the "bot"-made links should be mass reverted, reverted in some cases, or reverted not at all, may be a matter for an actual RFC. --Lexein (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarless of the right way to go about adding a new archiving service we have multiple issues here
    1. The user behind the mass addition was caught running an unapproved bot (User:RotlinkBot) once already (Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved.3F)
    2. The user filed a Bot Request for Approval (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot) after they were caught.
    3. The user withdrew the bot request for approval
    4. The bloom of IP addresses editing at high rates across the board and making the same procedural change suggests some sort of automated process that looks and feels like the Bot's handywork.
    For these reasons, Archive.is has burned almost all of their good will in terms of Wikipedia accepting them as an alternative archiving service. Furthermore your behavior Lexein gives the impression that you are a deep cover sockpuppet Proxy editing on behalf of Rotlink. Let the usage of Archive.is grow organically, not burned in by a large dervish swinging a very large and fast sword. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hasteur: - you have accused Lexein of being a sockpuppet of Rotlink. Please either evidence your accusation (i.e. SPI) or please retract it. GiantSnowman 16:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Read the text very carefully, because I did not accuse Lexin of being a sockpuppet. I said "your behavior gives the impression that your are a deep cover sockpuppet". I have refactored my comment under duress as I do not think that the original comment was not a outright accusation, but rather a suggestion to the user that their behavior is percieved (at least by me) as being peculiar. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hasteur, my article edit history speaks for itself and refutes every hint of your WP:LAME accusation, and unbelievably stupid suspicions. I have never sockpuppeted for anyone, you WP:DICK. Take me to any DR or disciplinary procedure you like. Seriously, go for it. Your attempt to distract these proceedings from the important topic of destruction of verifiability due to overreaction to alleged bot editing is transparent. I've repeatedly stated that I don't care at all how the archive.org (rendering DENY moot) or archive.is citations got here. Now that they're here, they should stay. --Lexein (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please mind WP:NPA. And regardless of what the .extension is, if they were added by this group of proxys, they need to go. "They should stay" is rewarding violation of policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I agree, Bushranger, User:Hasteur should definitely mind WP:NPA, and should read WP:DICK.
    2. Bushranger, you're still confusing guidelines with policy. WP:Verifiability is bedrock, foundational, WP:Five pillars policy. No-proxy guidelines and community consensus about it are not core to the functioning or building of Wikipedia, and are therefore secondary. No way around it. Nobody likes unapproved bots, but I see beyond that narrow offence, and see the beneficial edits performed. I hope that you have not grown to hate the Five Pillars, like User:Kww. --Lexein (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's enough. Time to stop with the accusations and insults, Lexein.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt you can even perceive the irony in that statement. Once again, you've willfully ignored the substantive issue, and kept nattering and whinging about how offended you are. Weak. Address the charge, supported by several editors here that you're willingly damaging verifiability by reverting to broken links, and that that contravenes the Five Pillars and policy against deliberately falsifying content on Wikipedia. Soon, I will copy my Talk page discussion with you here, for all to see. --Lexein (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, since you say you're thick-skinned re: WP:SPADE, let's apply it here: the suggestion that following WP:DEADLINK "deliberately falsifies" anything is laughable. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, it's interesting that WP:V does not require that sources to verify be in the article at all, only that they exist. See also WP:DEADLINK. As for your accusation of bad faith, I find it slightly amusing given how often I refer to the Five Pillars to bolster my Keep arguments at AfD...less amusing and more disturbing is your refusal or inability to understand that the person making personal attacks here, and the subject of my warning above, is you. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    First, practically speaking, articles go to AfD for lacking clear and present verifiability to support WP:N, and they never escape deletion until someone (never ever the nominator) adds inline citations of WP:RS. So, there's a sad inconsistency of V vs N about that little inline detail, but we both know verifiability is a requirement. More importantly, one thing that WP:V doesn't mean is falsifying it by reverting to ephemeral(doomed), damaged, or broken links. To falsify the work of others is totally anti-5P. I'm glad you at least say you support the Five Pillars, let's see that in action here, and I'll tend to believe it. In re NPA, you can be as hypersensitive as you like, but I will boldly call bad actions as I see them (WP:SPADE and WP:DUCK). Wikipedians aren't supposed to have thin wimpy skins, especially when they execute radical misinterpretations of policy, and arrogantly invert guideline over policy. A bit disengenuous, at best. --Lexein (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:duck? NE Ent 21:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact you refer to "reverting to epheremal, damaged, or broken links" as "falsifying" WP:V, in contridiction of WP:DEADLINK and WP:CONSENSUS, indicates clearly that you have made up your mind and refuse to be confused by the facts; this conversation is over. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with rewarding bad behaviour, whether it is sock puppet bots editing as IP-editors or uncivil postings on talk pages, is that if you reward it, you are more or less guaranteed to get more of it. The bad behaviour then comes both from the original offenders, and others who observe them, and see that they too can get their way by copying it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reward, and no copycatting. At least, there's been no evidence linked to here. I have sincere doubts that any such evidence has ever been found. Sorry. I get that you don't like unauthorized bots. I don't like them either. But I know the difference between beneficial edits and harmful ones, which is a difference you, Kww, Bushranger are bound and determined to simply ignore, having had some sort of adolescent botrage aroused. Be a Wikipedian, not a friggin' torch-bearing mob. It's pathetic. --Lexein (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing helpful changes is violation of existing policy (see beginning of thread). If editors want to start a new policy -- "we revert all changes made in violation of de rulz, just to show them, regardless of how stupid such revision may be" -- start a discussion. NE Ent 01:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not a policy violation. It says "can be allowed to stand". Not "must be allowed to stand" or even "should be allowed to stand.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    113.165.6.164 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) —rybec 02:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Intentionally inserting deadlinks into articles is disruptive, pointy behavior, which is against policy. NE Ent 10:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC opened

    Consensus on how to proceed from this point forward sought at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. May I suggest that everyone focus on what the best way forward is, and not what you might think of various people's motives in the past?—Kww(talk) 20:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Meanwhile in Wikipedia namespace, a new user User3323 has created Wikipedia:Using Archive.is. While there are other manuals of this kind I'm not sure we need this specific page while there is an ongoing RFC. De728631 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant barrage of harrassment on my talk page despite requests not to.

    I attempted editing back in 2010 but was quickly jumped on by a few editors and gave up attempts to further edit.

    This year I attempted to edit some articles. I placed a redirect on my old IP page[[37]] to indicate that I was not attempting to be deceptive in any way. Shortly after I placed the notice on the previous talk page a fellow editor User:BullRangifer place notifications in several locations, my user page, my talk page[[38]], his hitlist[[39]] page that I was a sockpuppet for hundreds of other editors.[[40]] I removed the notice and asked him to refrain from posted what I considered harassment on my talk page. I thought I could just ignore it.

    He returned and placed the same sockpuppet nonsense harassment on my talk page again. I removed the notice and posted a second warning[[41]] on his IP talk page with a second warning not to continue.[[42]]

    Now he has ignored my requests again to post more aggressive messages on my talk page. To further this another editor has place warning about ad hominem attacks on my talk page.[[43]]

    This all just seems to be attacks on IP editors.[[44]] I see no support in any Wikipedia policy indicating that IP edits are not allowed despite the constant barrage of "sign up or get out" messages posted by this aggressive editor.

    I have reported this here[[45]] but it was ignored it while I took more abuse and accusations from BullRangifer[[46]].

    I have reported this here[[47]] but it was ignored it while I took more abuse accusations from BullRangifer.

    It should be noted I participated briefly on a talk page for an article in a subject matter that Bullrangifer participates quite strongly with.[[48]]

    I thought I may contribute to improving the encyclopedia but it is hard to see a reason to want an account for editing here after the abuse this editor and pals seem to be well practiced with. The prejudice and hatred against some editors seems out of control. Show me a difference of attitude, please. Let's see if I live to report back. :)

    174.118.141.197 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There appears to be some serious WP:BATTLE issues being exhibited by this OP and WP:COMPETENCE issues. Note that this IP has been warned about WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE before posting here. Also of note is this editor chose not to notify me or Branrangifer about this discussion despite the brilliant orange edit notice and that the user clearly has been around long enough to reach out to Bwilkins. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be quite a stretch of imagination here. It would seem, yes, you posted the information I asked for between 3 and 4 minutes before my post time here but while I was composing my text here and researching links. I was attempting to get this posted before you indef my account for anything else you could dig up, after I saw your last chance warning. Your complaints on my talk page are quite puzzling after another editor attacked me very shortly after I first posted here in three years, stating I was sockpuppet of over 30 60 other users?? Now you accuse me of personal attacks for defending myself against these lies and that makes me guilty of WP:BATTLE?? So defending myself against these over aggressive attacks violates this?. Is it OK to be called "sockpuppet", "lack ability or maturity"[[49]] by Bullrangifer, but when I ask him to stop harassing me I am violating some policy, attacking people and demonstrating WP:BATTLE?. What is next? I can type certain words correctly so I must be an administrator? How do you actually justify this logical nonsense? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly certain on one has actually died do to editing, or attempting to edit, Wikipedia. That said, "sock" badges of shame are best left to SPI clerks and/or blocking admins in the case of "duck" blocks. (Even then, they're probably unnecessary but I know I ain't gonna get consensus or that). NE Ent 02:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Once you are indeffed your account is dead. Once you are labeled a sockpuppet you have a target on your back for the next careless admin to indef you for even content disputes. These aggressive editors know this. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently the editor maintaining this hitlist[[50]] is not even aware of the sockpuppet definition, as defined for Wikipedia purposes.

    The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.

    I have attempted to identify all other accounts (from 2010) I have used and have not violated any policies, as quoted, and therefore the sockpuppet label is incorrectly used and unjustified for this harassing editor to use on my account. Cripes I have hardly had a chance to edit an article yet! 174.118.141.197 (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    It should be noted that original editor User:KBlott, in this confusion, and the original excuse for bocking all these IP editors, is now doubted[[51]] in his/her connection to the rest of this list. This appears like quite a sham for blocking IP editors. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Kblott only came into the picture much later, as I have explained later. It was because one of the IPs actually edited Kblott's personal material that suspicion was raised that the IP was actually Kblott. How else would the IP know about Kblott?
    No again. Most of these IPs are not blocked. No one as taken action on them. Only a few have been blocked, but the other IPs seem to be related to them. Since most of them are stale or not causing trouble, I have not pressed the issue and have rarely looked at the list. I think some other sock hunters have been active at times and gotten some of them blocked for disruption. That's because they don't normally edit the same topic areas I do. Therefore I don't notice them very often, but others do. Admins have blocked them, not me. Why not ask the admins why they blocked them? You are really assuming bad faith against many experienced editors and admins.
    That's why this sudden interest in me, coming as a sudden and unprovoked attack by an IP against me while there was peace and nothing that could be misconstrued as harassment by me, came as a surprise and was labeled as battlefield behavior. An IP editor decided to start a war. I had not attacked first. This was an unprovoked attack upon me in peace time. This is another one of the tells of this IP and his many IP socks. They are here to do battle by attacking me and other editors. They rarely do any good editing. You can ask GabeMC about getting attacked by these IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BullRangifer seems to go by different account names, also as Brangifer. Does this make him a sockpuppet by his own self-styled rules and policies? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have only the one account. Brangifer is what appears (as a nickname), but the link is to my full user name, which is BullRangifer, something too long for some editors to bother with. Here it comes. Try clicking it and you'll see. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder how many others have been fooled by this lack of explanation. If I wasn't being stalked with harassment and had to do so much research instead of article editing I would have assumed this was another editor. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know of others. It's mostly internet newbies who make that kind of mistake. Many other editors have signatures which are not identical with their actual user name. I'm not unique by any means. Brangifer is just an easy nickname. As an IP you likely do not have access to many of the tools available to registered users. I can hover over any signature and get a whole lot of information immediately, among them the full user name, number of edits, when the account was registered, what status and user rights the editor has, access to their edit history, diffs, block history, and a whole lot of other things, without ever clicking the mouse button. If you registered an account these powers and tools could be yours. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got to add to this that I'm confused that Toddst1 has defended BullRangifer in such a manner. Neither editor has produced diffs or taken the IP to SPI. Bullrangifer refers to the IP as a "block evading sock" without any proof to his assertion. If this is indeed the case, Toddst1 should have blocked the IP for block evasion. If this is not the case, BullRangifer should probably be blocked for stating "Just do what everyone has told you to do (create ONE account) and edit collaboratively, and you'll be just fine. You have a lot to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. Just cooperate. No man is an island here. If you won't cooperate, you don't belong here". Right now, I am under the assumption that the IP editor is completely in the right, if the IP editor was a sockpuppet, BullRangifer should not be advising him to create an account. Ryan Vesey 05:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa there, Ryan, I never commented on BullRangifer's behavior. You should be much more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if I made it sound as if you did. More accurately, you deflected a legitimate concern raised by an editor, in a manner that could have steered the conversation towards the original poster by pointing out WP:BATTLE and WP:COMPETENCE. I see both of those concerns as baseless. The NPA issue actually existed, but was understandable. The much more important issue to discuss here is BullRangifer's mistreatment of anonymous editors. Consider User:174.118.149.54, where BullRangifer states "You are laboring under the false assumption that you are allowed to edit here. You are a blocked user who refuses to create an account (although numerous editors and admins have told you to do so to solve your socking problem), uses various IPs (that's sock puppetry), and refuses to stand up for your edits and behavior. That's not allowed here. You need to create ONE account, always log in, and get ALL your editing into ONE contribution history. That's how it's done here, with few exception" The first statement "You are laboring under the false assumption that you are allowed to edit here" is completely disconnected with our policies. It is qualified by the second statement "You are a blocked user who refuses to create an account", an unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry. His penultimate statement "You need to create ONE account, always log in, and get ALL your editing into ONE contribution history" is untrue. I couldn't count on my hands the number of edits I've made while not signed in, but none of those edits violated our sockpuppetry policy. Ryan Vesey 15:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Accidentally editing while logged out isn't included in this situation. I've done it too while traveling and using a host's PC. I have then claimed the edit by signing it properly to make sure no one could assume there were two people. That's what we're supposed to do. The situation here is quite different. It is about deliberately maintaining many different identities. One account per person is the rule. An account is an identity, and registered accounts and IPs serve as identity markers. IPs are "unregistered" accounts, in contrast to "registered" accounts. I don't know if English is your primary language, but that's implicit in the language. If a "registered account" exists, that implies the possibility for "unregistered accounts", which would be all IPs. One person isn't allowed to have many identities here. Using a dynamic IP makes them appear to be different people, regardless of their intention, and that enables those who are or become disruptive to game the system with impunity, and we don't allow that possibility to even exist, hence the one person one account rule, that always applies with only a few exceptions. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Comment) In this edit here BullRangifer states "One account per person is the rule. An account is an identity, and registered accounts and IPs serve as identity markers. IPs are "unregistered" accounts, in contrast to "registered" accounts. I don't know if English is your primary language, but that's implicit in the language. One person isn't allowed to have many identities here. Using a dynamic IP makes them appear to be different people, regardless of their intention, and that enables those who are or become disruptive to game the system with impunity, and we don't allow that possibility to even exist, hence the one person one account rule."
    That's a fairly large quote to reproduce, but it shows a lack of understanding regarding IP editors to me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that your dislike of IP editing is so great that you have found a page to associate IP editors with some old blocked account User:KBlott, an editor that was indeffed for an excuse totally unrelated to his editing history. After using this sockpuppet excuse for 80 or more possibly unrelated IP editors as all related to KBlott, now you find yourself and another editor User:GabeMc doubting any connection of these IPs to KBlott.[[53]] I haven't done that extensive research required, yet but I would be willing to bet that most of these IP editors were blocked after sockpuppets of KBlott accusations also. hmmmmm... One has to wonder why you are still here while maintaining your attack list on Wikipedia. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You really shouldn't take quotes out of context. The whole quote reveals much more about my understanding, and even that is only part of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've taken it of context any more than you have yourself when you essentially replicate it in your own post here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of points here:
    1. There is no policy, guideline or otherwise saying that users must register an account. Yes, many people prefer that users have registered accounts, but it's not a requirement.
    2. Anonymous users with dynamically-allocated IP addresses are not violating policy unless they are evading a block or otherwise attempting to mislead the community.
    Now, if there is some evidence that this anon is evading a block or is some blocked or banned user, please present it or start an SPI. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In the same edit excerpted and linked to above, User:BullRangifer writes: "Using a dynamic IP makes them appear to be different people, regardless of their intention, and that enables those who are or become disruptive to game the system with impunity, and we don't allow that possibility to even exist, hence the one person one account rule."
    This is incorrect both as a matter of policy and practice. I personally have made hundreds of edits while not logged in, from many IP addresses, over a period of years, and generally i have not gone back and 'claimed' them. Many other respected editors have acted similarly. Unless done to with an intent to deceive, or to evade a block or restriction, or otherwise to disrupt the project, this is not socking, nor is it in any forbidden. Unless we drastically change policy and practice and require that a user be logged in to edit, IP editors may edit from dynamic IPs or from multiple computers or networks with different IPs. They may edit from any IP they wish (except perhaps an open proxy or a blocked or range-blocked IP). There is also no requirement, nor even a generally accepted best-practice, that all of a given user's contributions be included in a single history. User:BullRangifer may prefer that users should edit so that their contributiosn fall under a singel history, but User:BullRangifer should not advise users that this is required when it is not, and should not imply that such users are violating ruels or have bad intent. ("Block-evading sockpuppets" does not seem to me to WP:AGF unless there is clear evidence, which i have not seen cired in this discussion.) DES (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @DESiegel:, if you will search for this phrase ("It's time to look at the block log") below, you will find material to begin research. The editors in the category are related to that IP, the IP who started this attack on me is also related, and some editors and admins in this thread who recognize the situation better than I, say they are both the banned editor User:KBlott. We're apparently letting a banned editor, using an IP in a socklike manner, start a thread at AN/I. That's pretty odd. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You just don't get that you shouldn't make up your own rules on Wikipedia, do you? Has nothing said here made any difference in the way you will behave in the future? This constant barrage of attacks on IP editors (including myself), without any basis whatsoever, may have gotten you this far in support of your prejudices (see your continued assumptions immediately above) but needs to stop for Wikipedia's sake. I tried to assume good faith about your actions, placing sockpuppet flags on every IP editor that supports alternative health concepts, but you keep making it clear you intend to disregard WP:Policies like WP:HSOCK and what editors have been telling you here. It would seem stronger action is required to make messages clearer, and Wikpedia less intimidating for new editors, anywhere in North America, unfortunately. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    related policy issues

    Problematic template wording

    I think a major problem is {{ipsock}}: "An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by Username." A single editor having suspicions about another, including and IP, should not be a valid reason to tag a user page (not even talk page) with that kind of scarlet letter. Such investigations should be conducted at WP:SPI, not by defacing more or less unsuspecting user pages. The WP:PROTECTED template encourages zealotry and antagonism, for example by the suggestion "If there is any evidence, you can use the following code, confirmed or not." Any evidence can be a very slim standard. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the wording on the template is unfortunate, because it is also used for other purposes. I wish it were tweaked. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The tag has been used often by many editors to keep track of IP editors who are using multiple accounts, even when they may no longer be editing disruptively, because at one time they did, and their behavior is still being watched, even though no harassment or interference with their current editing is occurring. They don't like to see a "sock" tag attached to their user page, and I can understand that. Some editors do "grow out of" their earlier disruptive ways and become good editors, but their continued use of IPs makes them seem suspicious, and the question then becomes: "At what point does one stop watching such editors?" I have found the categories to be useful for such purposes, whether they have been created by myself or others. "Watching" does not mean harassing or interfering with edits which are good, just keeping a close eye for a resumption of old, disruptive ways. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to split up the socking policy and create a new one for multiple identities used peacefully

    To solve much of this problem, the template and policy needs to be split up. The policy forbidding sockpuppetry needs to be separated from the "one account per editor" wording, which is a very old policy here. Likewise we need to eliminate the prohibition against "evading the scrutiny of other editors." That would of course mean the end of collaboration, trust, openness, AGF, etc., but that seems to be the wish of many here, who have edited here far less than myself and the admins who support me. Maybe it's time for Wikipedia to turn into a free-for-all where gaming the system is allowed.

    This means we need a "multiple identities" policy which is not connected to sockpuppetry, since this seems to be much of the problem here.

    The disconnect occurs because there are parts of the sockpuppetry policy which are internally inconsistent, and newer editors don't know the old ways which I still operate under, where one was required to claim accidental edits if it could cause confusion to not do so

    Here are the conflicts:

    A1. One account per person, with some exceptions is the current rule. Good enough, but this conflicts with A2:

    A2. Socks are also defined as those who use more than one account "for disruptive purposes," which implies that it's possible to use more than one account for nondisruptive purposes, and some interpret this as meaning that such accounts are not socks, but that's a matter of interpretation which the community is not united upon. It's not a matter of bad faith. We're discussing this and trying to figure it out.

    B1. The longstanding prohibition against "evading the scrutiny of other editors," which implies, and has been interpreted often by many admins, including them blocking IPs, as forbidding the use of multiple IPs. This is nothing new, but apparently newer editors aren't aware of this, but oldtimers like myself remember this well. This conflicts with B2:

    B2. The proposal to allow multiple IPs for peaceful reasons, "without calling them socks," which obviously means that these editors can effectively "evade the scrutiny of other editors." That evasion is directly related to the ability or lack of ability of other editors to examine their contribution history, and really nothing else, and everything else springs from that ability. If editors are allowed to split up their contribution histories, then they cannot be held accountable for occasional or systematic gaming of the system. They are refusing to operate by the openness we have always required and expected. "Collaboration" becomes a useless concept.

    Does anyone understand the problems we have here? There is an internal inconsistency in the socking policy. Either we tighten the interpretation, or we allow a free-for-all, IMHO. I'd sure like to hear others' opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The current policy is adequate if you understand that IP addresses are not considered accounts. The policy is meant to apply to the person behind the account or IP address. In other words, when an ISP assigns someone a new address, the new IP is in no way a sockpuppet of the previous address unless the person is already considered to be blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal regarding BullRangifer

    I would like to propose that BullRangifer be banned from tagging the pages of IP editors as sockpuppets and be banned from telling any IP editor that he must create an account. If BullRangifer believes that an IP editor is a sockpuppet, he must raise the issue at SPI and is allowed to notify the IP editor that the issue has been raised. Ryan Vesey 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. My reading of this is that BullRangifer is on something of a campaign to rid Wikipedia of IP's he believes are troublesome (and to be troublesome, an IP appears to need to do little more than be from Rogers Cable in Canada). BullRangifer exibits a clear lack of understanding of the sockpuppetry policy, and appears to be acting on his own person definition of a user account: that which identifies a user, including an IP. Thus, in his view, one IP to a user, something that resides nowhere in standing policy. I find his hitlist troubling as well, particularly absent any apparent evidence that any of the sizable number of IP's actually is a sockpuppet. Instead, BullRangifer seems to have let a grudge against one indeffed registered user, User:KBlott, run away with him, and is interpreting the refusal of any IP on Rogers Cable to register as defacto admission they are a sock of KBlott. --Drmargi (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have just displayed the same cyclic nonsense logic BullRangifer uses. You associated over 80 IP editors (or IP addresses) with KBlott saying they are all offending sockpuppets based on that assumption. The association proof is that the original editor was an offending editor too so they must be all the same editor. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you have such an obscene amount of IP addresses being used by the user, anyone else running on the same network, particularly those who demonstrate a clear knowledge of Wikipedia knowledge, will raise suspicion. Associating 80 IP addresses with one person is far from nonsense; it happens often with IP hopping vandals who engage in long-term abuse. It's justifiable to think that people on your network are socks; I didn't say that it was necessarily correct to do so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, guilty until proven innocent if you use Rogers Cable, a major cable company in Canada with hundreds of thousands of subscribers, plus a free pass to any editor who wants to harangue an IP on the supposition (sans evidence) they might be "Rogers Cable Troll"? Sorry, no dice. Make a case and take it to SPI or leave Rogers IP users alone. Brangifer can shout his definition of an account until he's blue in the face, but it doesn't alter the fact an IP is not an account. He needs to knock of harassing any IP he thinks is the RCT on the thinnest of evidence, and stop justifying his actions by trying to reinvent the policies for sockpuppetry and IP users. If he's not prepared to do it voluntarily, which apparently is the case, that leaves the community no alternative but to stop him. --Drmargi (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The aggressive tone is unnecessary as I have made it clear I will abide by the community's decision. I was not harassing anyone. The IP made the attack out of the blue, which is one of his tells. He rarely makes constructive edits, but attacks other editors. It has been on disruptive behavior that anything has been done. Disruptive behavior always draws attention. You should know that we cannot take these IPs to SPI and get any help. CUs are forbidden from connecting the dots, so admins have blocked based on behavior alone, unconnected with any ties to some unknown blocked account. I have nearly 40,000 edits, but I can't block anyone, so ask the admins why they have blocked any of these unregistered accounts. That may enlighten you. Attacking me without doing your homework isn't wise and an assumption of bad faith. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of aggressive tone; Asking somebody to leave you alone is an attack? I gave you two previous warnings on my talk page and some on yours to leave me alone and yet you ignored them and continued with your disruptive behavior. Sorry. It doesn't fly. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing some digging through your "hitlist" and saw a few other demonstrations of non-AGF. This poor IP editor was never blocked or even had a sockpuppet issue raised AFAICT, but you followed up at talk pages where they were discussing issues and stroked out any text making it visible (and nasty in appearance) with an aggressive note for others not to defend or side with the IP editor.[[54]][[55]] (corrected link) as well as reverted their actual edit, despite other editors complaining[[56]]. It seems I am not the only one that has been treated to this self-styled non-AGF harassment without policy backing. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two diffs are to the exact same edit, so we're talking about the one diff. This has been a common practice. We ignore edits by blocked editors (and IPs used by them) by reverting them, and if an editor in good standing wishes to accept the edit, that's fine. "...despite other editors complaining" makes it sound like I did that over the objections of another editor, but that's not what happened. They simply stated that the edit by the IP was correct and restored it. That's exactly how it's supposed to happen and their edit was not contested. End of story. Please don't be deceptive. Use more careful wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the link duplication. I have corrected that. Please don't attempt to confuse or sidetrack the issue with opinions on my intent such as "deceptive". I see no deception in my post. It would seem that all these other IP editors just took the harassment and went home crying (quit). This should have been stopped many editors ago, as it appears to have driven many potential good editors away. It would appear more research from your handy list may be necessary. Confusing the issues at hand with needless "you said, I said", generating a wall of confusion text needs to be somewhere else. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it as justifiable either, particularly given the lack of transparency I see in the process by which he has constructed his so-called hit-list. Perhaps it's because I came into this with an outsider's point of view in the sense that I've had no dealings with this particular troll (my experience being mostly with IP trolls of the Antipodean stripe), but I see this as an end not justifying the means situation. Rather, this is an attempt to get around SPI and issue a little community justice on the basis of an alleged, but undisclosed "tell". I get that we've got problems with IP trolls; that's never going to change. We've all had interactions with them. But it doesn't justify this kind of manipulation of policy, nor the maintenance of so comprehensive a list, nor especially the massive assumption of bad faith I see on Brangifer's part and the corresponding over/mis-use of the sockpuppet tag. --Drmargi (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • These failures to AGF in my motives are a bit tiring. There has been no issuing of "a little community justice" here at all. I haven't done much with this for some time and rarely even have looked at the category, except when disruptive behavior occurred. It's always been the behavior that got my attention, and even then it's only been a list, likely only used by myself most of the time. There has been no harassment or bitter exchanges from my part. I have always been civil and encouraged the editor to do what will cause them the least trouble. I haven't taken them to AN/I, since I only use that for more serious matters which can't be settled otherwise. Taking this to SPI would be fruitless. I know that from experience. When things are stale, nothing can happen.
      You admit you don't know the history of this blocked editor, and yet you assume bad faith about me. That's pretty damning. Why don't you just ask me and I can walk you through it when I have more time? Unfortunately I really don't have time for this crap right now as I have to prepare material for my class. Students are waiting. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ryan, you have failed to investigate this matter. The socks have indeed been connected to blocked IPs by their disruptive and/or other behavioral tells, per duck. Since SPI fails to connect IPs to their registered accounts, we are left with using duck and location to identify the same person who continues to edit using other IPs after they have been blocked. There are some good reasons for not allowing fishing expeditions to connect IPs with registered accounts, but this creates a safe haven for disruptive editors whose main accounts have been blocked. There should be a behind the scenes CU connection made and a discrete block should follow. That doesn't happen now. Blocked users use dynamic IPs to continue editing here, and that's not allowed. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If one doesn't know the original blocked username, it's usually a waste of time to start an SPI with only an IP. IPs then get blocked on their behavior alone, or because it's obvious they are the same blocked person evading their block. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that good example. I'll have to go this route more often. I suspect that some of the "suspect" categories get started by just tagging other suspected IPs after the initial SPI, but that the newer ones never end up back at SPI. That's been accepted practice for a long time. It's important to be quite certain that one has evidence that would stand up at SPI if one got back there. That's what policy states ("sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny"). -- Brangifer (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There is no basis in policy for BullRangifer's actions, and his personal preferences regarding registered editors vs. IP accounts do not justify his actions. I see nothing that would indicate a socking problem from the IP, at least not from his contribution history. GregJackP Boomer! 23:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Further action, such as blocking may be punitive for Bullrangifer and not required at this time. It seems some editors, after years of practicing editing in a certain manner, come to believe that their methods are the correct methods and justified since the crowd seems to "approve". I feel this has been the case here with this editor. Preventative and corrective action seems necessary since BullRangifer accepts no responsibility for his actions indicating this syndrome is active here. He certainly doesn't seem guilty of malice in his intent. However, I believe he has hurt Wikipedia greatly by these misconceived notions. BullRangifer's hitlist needs to also be deleted as it violates the WP:HSOCK policy in principle. It demonstrates severe bad faith, assuming editors are evil by weak association, nothing short of imagination in some cases. He, himself and another user have already stated doubts that any of the IP editors are even related to the original KBlott account. This hasn't stopped them from attacking other IP editors by associating more and more possible future editors with KBlott. I would be sure some may be duplicate editors but many will have moved on with a bad taste in their mouths from their unfriendly Wikipedia experiences, lost as future contributors. Being associated with a labelled bad user and then blamed for their behavior has been a trying exhaustive encounter. That cyclic logic is ridiculously flawed. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an explanatory note about any IP connection to Kblott. I was totally unaware of Kblott's existence until one of the Wasaga Beach/Collingwood region's IPs directly edited Kblott material. Note that the IP's location AND behavior was already consistent with this being the same ONE human being behind most of the IPs, several of which were blocked editors. That they themselves decided to edit Kblott stuff was very suspicious, and only then was any association made, and that very late in the game. The connection was noted to keep track of whether Kblott was again active using these IPs. How else would the IPs even know about Kblott's existence? Whether Kblott is the same person is uncertain to me, but those who were familiar with Kblott would know better. IPs who edit the material of a registered account (in this case a blocked one) in a manner that raises suspicion that they are that same person, are bringing suspicion on their own head. It's their own fault. That's all. I note that you are to some degree AGF about my actions, and I do appreciate that, because I intend to follow any policy change or official interpretation if that happens. I won't act against the larger community's wishes, but it needs to be based on a very clear interpretation of policy, which is explicitly stated in the policy. Right now we're dealing with interpretations. Please continue to AGF. Some others here, especially relative newbies, are not doing so.
    While this happens to be a small kangaroo court proceeding led by a relative newbie, this is a discussion related to policy, and as such it should actually happen at the Sockpuppetry policy talk page, and should be a large scale RfC. This type of thing, done away from the principle players who deal with this subject, is not proper. They don't know that policy decisions are being made here by a small group with a bent for allowing multiple identities with no controls or accountability. This opens the floodgates for gaming the system, with no recourse for sanctioning it. Only those who have been following this limited and local campaign by a newbie out to get me have come here, and I feel this is unfair to me and to the policy. This should be taken to the proper venue and made an official discussion of how to interpret this policy, because I'm not the only one who feels this way. Many IPs have been blocked through the years for using multiple IPs, because such IPs were and are considered socks by many sysops. They are the ones who have done the blocking, and I have let their actions guide me in my interpretation of policy.
    The idea of allowing multiple identities with no controls is a newer, ad hoc, unofficial, interpretation of policy that is not explicit in the policy. It's an interpretation that lightly jumps over the very first words in the policy (one account per editor), and interprets the rest of the policy by ignoring that principle, when the opposite should be the case. That's the way language and logic work. All else in the policy should be interpreted with those first words in mind. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, IP addresses are not accounts, and multiple dynamic IP addresses cannot be considered "multiple identities". At any rate, this is not the place to discuss WP:SOCK - that would be WT:SOCK or WP:VPP. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We obviously disagree about that issue, but the fact that we have registered accounts clearly implies that we also have unregistered accounts. We just call them IPs (we have no other choice), but they do represent a human being, and sometimes different persons at different times. So "identities" is probably the best way to describe them. They are what we see here. This is their "face", regardless of whether it's a registered user name or an IP. For all practical purposes, they are all accounts.
    I agree that this is not the place to deal with the policy issue. The policy issue should be dealt with at that talk page and settled before an RfC/U (which this seems to be, without the proper RfC notifications being made) takes place. As I wrote above, I am willing to abide by the community's decision. I'd just like a clarification of the policy, not the restatement of editors' opinions which I see above, which happens to be at odds with other editors' and admins' opinions and historic practice and interpretation here. This issue is far too important to deal with here, since it has greater potential consequences than just how we deal with suspicious IPs. It strikes right at the heart of collaboration, evasion, AGF, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what we are dealing with here is what appears to be a complete misapplication of policy as regards IP editors. The statements that you have made on this, both on the talk pages and here, demonstrate that you don't have a grasp on the policy. That makes it a conduct issue, not a policy issue, unless you can point to some policy that supports what you have done and said. This is where conduct issues are dealt with. If you think the policy should be changed, that's fine, it can be discussed at the other locations, but we need to resolve the conduct issue too. GregJackP Boomer! 02:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have pointed to the sock policy itself. The wording is internally inconsistent and there are varying interpretations. My interpretation is an old one which has been in use for a very long time, and the policy hasn't been changed enough to change that interpretation, but there are some here who lightly jump over the initial words of the policy and interpret the rest in isolation, in violation of those first words. I use those first words to help me understand what comes later in the policy. We have a difference of opinion, and aggression isn't necessary. I am taking no action regarding IPs or categories, have not been harassing this IP editor, and am awaiting a clarification of the interpretation of the policy. I have previously acted in good faith according to established practice, backed up by admins who felt the same way. Apparently in other corners of Wikipedia some other editors have been applying policy in a different manner.
    The policy's wording needs to be tweaked to be internally consistent. I'm addressing one part of the issue on that talk page, a part which isn't directly related to this issue, but is a matter of inconsistent and contradictory language. When that is fixed, we'll be able to better figure out what to do to improve the rest of the policy, the part applicable here, so it cannot be misunderstood, one way or the other. Whatever the community decides, I'll abide by the decision. That's the way I've always worked here. I'm willing to cooperate. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That interpretation was repudiated by ArbCom about three years ago. GregJackP Boomer! 13:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @GregJackP: please provide some links, and my exact words you're referring to by "That interpretation", so I can see what you're talking about. I don't want to be doing something against ArbCom's wishes. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's time to look at the block log of the IP editor which happened to be chosen for the Category page. It's obviously not the first IP they used, but it's often impossible to establish when the IP-hopping started, so we sometimes just choose one of the most active disruptive IPs and use it. As other IPs with all the tell tale signs start popping up, they get added to the "suspects" category. That's how the category has always been used, so I haven't been doing anything unusual.
    That IP's contribution history is also very instructive. It contains many of the articles edited by the various IPs that person also used, and it contains a very unique tell. No, I'm not revealing it here, but many of their other IPs had that same very unique tell, which, together with identical editing patterns, made their lies about not being the same person very amusing. Their attack style is also demonstrated, even on Jimbo's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I support BullRangifer's work to minimize the damage done by vandals and socks of blocked editors. I see untoward IP interest in the KBlott sockpuppet case such as this one by Canada-based IP, reformatting a discussion entry by Yoenit. There are many more such examples. Bravo BullRangifer for trying to root these out and identify them. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree this IP editor was clearly a sockpuppet of KBlott (the IP basically admitted it) User:BullRangifer did not "root these out" or "identify them" in this case. He was not involved at all in this SPI investigation. BullRangifer's hitlist was not initiated until two years later. This policy-followed SPI may demonstrate how things should be done when done properly but is clearly not what BullRangifer has been doing, unrelated to this case, and muddies the waters. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support it (minimizing damage) too. The point is that AIV & SPI & maybe (but I'd prefer not) ANI "duck" reports are the appropriate effective means to do so. 17:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)
    Interesting timing[[57]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.141.197 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What a stupendously uninteresting diff you have linked to. GabeMc and I had an email conversation in which I discouraged him from a course of action. Nothing to see here. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't stopped this one. SPI isn't fond of behavioral evidence in complex sutuations. This is clearly KBlott to anyone who has been paying attention. Toddst1 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, KBlott for sure. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I reviewed the last mainspace::talk space contributions of 174 and KBlott and do not see behavior similarities. (Then again, hunting socks is not actually something I'm particularly interested in.) With the time spent on this ANI thread an SPI report with lots and lots of diffs could have been prepared. Toddst1, you statement appears self-contradictory, in that you seem to be saying the behavior evidence is concurrently too complex for SPI and at the same time clear to anyone. NE Ent 17:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No you made my point. You don't pay attention to socks. Some of us do, some of us heckle. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Per Binksternet. BullRangifer may or may not have erred in use of the template this time but that, in no way shape or form, means that B should not use the template in the future. IP hopping to vandalize is pernicious around here and some people have used this method to damage our articles for years. This is only one of numerous examples of what we deal with weekly if not daily. Slap with a trout if needed but B's actions do not even come close to requiring a ban. MarnetteD | Talk 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. If a person whose IP address changes every day, a mine does, chooses to edit anonymously, and is editing constructively, he or she should not be harassed by another editor simply for this anonymous editing. Either Bullrangifer, with good intentions, doesn't understand Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, or he is disregarding it. If he works through SPI for a while, either (1) he'll get a better handle on it, and can ask for the ban to be lifted, or (2) it will become apparent that he's ignoring it deliberately, and the ban should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 13:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Unregistered editors has been a staple and mainstay of the Wikipedia community since literally the very first day it went live as a website. The contributions made by these users, including many who have never registered for a great many reasons I care not to go into right now, has been crucial and we need to assume good faith with these participants on this project like any other. User:BullRangifer needs to take a chill pill for awhile in terms of dealing with these kind of accounts and be strongly encouraged to drop this crusade against this particular class of users. Demanding that others follow policy he has made up out of whole cloth is certainly reason enough for sanctions, even if temporary. If he wants to engage in a policy discussion to try and rid Wikipedia of unregistered users, that is his prerogative, or at least try to get his ideas made into policy first before he strong arms what may be brand new users to Wikipedia into doing something that isn't policy in the first place. There are other areas of Wikipedia he could certainly be working on, and I see that this user is otherwise a solid contributor and somebody who should also be encouraged to stay on with helping Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Anne Delong and Robert Horning. -A1candidate (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're totally misunderstanding this issue. I am not demanding that all IPs register, only that blocked editors not edit, in this case using IPs as socks. Period. That's very old policy, and not my interpretation. We're dealing with an old case where a blocked editor decided to start using IPs. That's block evasion. As far as taking a chill pill, that's not necessary. I'm not doing much of anything on this front, and haven't been for some time. It's actually pretty rare, and usually in response to one of these IP's attacking me or "seeking to evade the scrutiny of other editors."
      I have made it clear that I will abide by any community decision. Bans are unnecessary. I have been acting in the interests of the community by very quietly keeping tabs on a blocked user. This has never been a big deal anyway. Occasionally an IP being used disruptively by this blocked user would show up. Their behavior caught my attention and I'd tag them, and that was all.
      It is that blocked editor, using an IP, who has suddenly gone on an attack here and started this AN/I process because they don't like to be tagged. SPI would be nice, but things are stale, and they know that they can push this without anything happening, as long as they don't get too shrill. They usually do when pushed by admins, and then they get blocked, whereupon they just change IPs and return.
      So, Robert, you've misunderstood my intentions. I do appreciate that you recognize me as a faithful and experienced editor who otherwise does good work, and I thank you for that. BTW, just to do a little advertising for my latest work, take a look at Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think editors understand the situation quite clearly by just reading your display of attitude in your replies here. You only want abusive sockpuppets blocked, sure. The trouble is 'YOU have been taking this decision upon yourself using your secret "tells" method[[58]][[59]] only known to yourself to determine guilt with no AGF or consideration for other editors feelings. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TTN

    An editor previously sanctioned for indiscriminate deletion nominations in running amok with copy and paste nominations of everything fiction related. Seriously, his "rationales" are virtually the same for just about every nomination, whether he's talking about a toy, a character in a film, or something else. Why is a guy who was sanctioned for this in the past once again diving into the same? His comments moreover make no sense. To suggest that something from Transformers or Lord of the Rings has "no real-world notability" is patently absurd. These are billion dollar world franchises with toys, books, films, comics, and games that have endured for decades now. They are not merely relevant to "fan boys", but to writers, artists, toy makers, voice actors, and the others in these multi-million dollar entertainment industries that do indeed have real world relevance to scores of such employees around the world and will continue to have relevance as these are not exactly dead franchises. Even if one does not think we need an article on every character, TTN offers no real justification against merging/redirecting rather than deleting and again, his non-arguments that these things are irrelevant to the real world is just indiscriminately copy and pasted across article after article carelessly. He provides no evidence that he actually checked for sources or has an familiarity with the subject or seriously considered redirecting/merging first for many of his nominations. His discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Drago is particularly distressing as the others in the discussion indicated. Perhaps the most notable roll by a major actor in a major film that is frequently considered as indicative of Cold War stereotyping is called for deletion, and yet TTN's own nomination even indicates that an alternate solution (covering this in the film's article) also exists rather than deletion. Yet, despite what therefore should have at worst been an article's talk page discussion that is going on now anyway, gets taken to AfD instead. I just don't get how it could possibly be acceptable for someone who previously seems to have left under a cloud to just come back to his old form. You'd think he would at least maybe make some effort to show he can also add sources, improve writing, etc. If he can't, then he should at least write specific explanations for articles concerning different things that he nominates rather than just copy and pasting the same thing across all of them. Finally, he should certainly not dismiss stuff that doesn't matter to him but that indeed has economic and cultural significance to others. --199.123.13.158 (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, he is apparently not open to discussion. --199.123.13.158 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because he removed your comment on his talk page doesn't mean he's not open for discussion (he's not just dropping the AFD and letting it run, he's participating in those). As for what he's AFD'ing, these are articles on fictional elements that lack any real-world, out-of-universe sourcing, and fail our notability guidelines; if they are truly "economic and cultural significance to others", there needs to be sourcing to show that to keep the article at a minimum. I will agree that some of these, after some thought, are better to be discussed as merges rather than deletions if only because they are reasonable search terms, and it would help if TTN chooses the merge option over AFD for these. But the bulk of his other AFDs are appropriate deletion candidates per our notability guidelines and he's in his right to start them. It is important to note that his block was based on violating a 6 month restriction from ArbCom back in 2008, which of course has long since expired. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've disagreed with the user about his deletion nominations and took issue with the redirecting of past "merges" without bringing the content over, but I'm going to speak up in his defense over this. TTN seems to have a scattered shot gun approach, he'll AFD some problem article and than do completely unrelated ones despite 20+ similar articles not having a chance of N or GNG only to loop back and hit something days later. Does it make sense to me, no, but it doesn't have to. While I am not a fan of the methods, TTN does show that the decisions are usually well under the threshold before nominating like List of Universal Century superweapons, Boss Borot and Overlord (Transformers). While I may have some minor issues with TTN, he is well within his right to make these AFDs and they are not problematic - TTN even states that he'd withdraw the AFD if someone is going to commit to working on most of these long abandoned pages that were in violation of N/GNG when already made. If you want to argue of Gundam and Transformers you will need the books and most of those would be perfect for a combined article instead of individual pages, but even still these nominations are made in good faith and likely with an informed search on the subjects. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The fact that TNN can use the same cut and paste nominations on dozens of articles says more about the appallingly sorry states of dozens (well actually hundreds and potentially thousands) of articles than it does about the nominator. And I will note that merges and redirects done on their own on these articles are fully restored to their previous unsourced state. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    comment actually I see his "cut and paste" approach to be more indicative that he has not actually read the article in question but is nominating it because he doesn't like the article. Web Warlock (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    do you have anything to support your assumptions about his processes and actions? like any of the articles becoming well sourced from easy google searches? .... Bueler? ..... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot checking and following what TTN's nominated, I've not seen a case of an article that in its present condition that is not woefully failing sourcing and notability issues nor where appropriate sourcing was easily found via google (which should be a reasonable expectation due to the contemporary nature of these topics). If anything, its more the ILIKEIT attitude of those trying to keep these articles without showing new sourcing (like the IP's complaint above) that is the problem. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with TRPOD and Maasem here, the problem isn't so much TTN as the fact that he's going after well-entrenched long-term articles on wholly unnotable subjects that date back to the dreaded "an article for every evolution of Pokemon" days, but that didn't suffer the fate of those at the time because they didn't attract the same attention then. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is at least partially my fault. TTN was previously using non-formulaic deletion nominations, and the wording on those nominations was... poor. I asked him to change his wording so that read as a statement on policy rather than a statement on subjective opinion, and since then he has been using these formulaic deletion rationales. I am of the opinion that both in wording and in tone, these are perfectly valid nominations and have, thus far, been properly applied. AfD can be a contentious place, with some contributors seemingly going out of their way to be bombastic. Clearly worded, policy grounded nominations should be appreciated, not condemned, even if one is used repeatedly. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I the only one who thinks this IP sounds like User:A Nobody? ThemFromSpace 17:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the IP's complaint is a bit over the top, they do make some good points – the copy and paste nomination rationales, going to AFD first in lieu of any discussion or merge proposals, no indication of first checking for sources, flooding deletion discussions with several daily nominations – these things may not necessarily violate any policies, but to me they do speak of a general lack of courtesy to other editors. I have not voiced any opinion on this previously, but I have seen it from several other editors in other AFD discussions. While there may not be anything actionable as a result of this AN/I complaint, there are definitely some valid concerns about his approach that need to be examined. BOZ (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the same time, these are the same articles on fictional elements that have been in question since before the TTN Arbcom case, and yet haven't shown attempts to improve sourcing to address notability issues since 2008. And given that the community has rejected special notability criteria for fictional elements (defaulting to the GNG), these articles need improvement or should be merged/redirected or deleted. Again, I agree TTN probably needs to consider that if the article title is a non-disambiguated title that is a possible search term and that the content is not otherwise a copyvio or problematic, merge/redirect is the better option which should take place on talk pages. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This was opened by an IP from Ashland University and you wonder whether it is A Nobody? Rangeblock applied. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, that plan sure did backfire, didn't it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Irregardless, (and I hope TTN is reading), there is something to be said about being aware of when to AFD (when there's no reason to merge/redirect) and when to go to a merge/redirect discussion on the article talk page, or even better, if looking at a large swath of articles that apply to the same Wikiproject, to get input there. TTN hasn't done anything "wrong" (requiring admin action) but these is the same path that did lead to the past Arbcom case, and the same advice from Kww applies here. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an obvious contradiction between our policies allowing, and in fact openly encouraging merge discussions at AfD, and the fact that merge and AfD are two different processes. This should not be about TTN's nominations, which are all within consensual practices, but about the creation of Article for Discussion. As a user frequently dealing with fictional elements at AfD, my view is that notability discussions relegated to a mere article talk page section, run the risk of being very much restricted in scope and limited to the regular editors of the page in question, who may not always be sufficiently distanced from the topic they're writing about, ready to see their work questioned, or experienced enough to deal with notability questions. In most cases, WP:NOTPLOT is at stake, so is it reasonable to condemn policy discussions to confidentiality ? Limiting the visibility of such debates will result in lower participation, with either very weak consensuses, or unsolvable deadlocks. Competent editors need a way to centralize discussions, and I don't care whether it's at AfD or AfDiscussion, but until WP can solve this identity crisis for good, it's pointless to place the blame on good faithed, individual editors like TTN.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    TTN's behavior is simply repeating his past course of action and dancing on the edge of outright defiance of the Arbcom ruling. As his reponse here[61] to me indicates, he is not complying with WP:BEFORE and presumes articles on fictional topics are not notable, without attempting to actually assess notability. The pace with which he is nominating articles on diverse topics is a very strong implication of fait accompli behavior, which was particularly condemned by Arbcom ("Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change". His statement in the AFD I cite, " I would ask that you instead focus on the status of the article", is an almost unmistakeable signal of his intentions to use AFD as a cudgel to drive article cleanup, an action that is by consensus forbidden as disruption. He was previously urged, as Arbcom notes, to "[work] collaboratively and constructively with the broader community"; his refusal to do so was a key element in the topic ban Arbcom imposed. He is repeating the same unacceptable behavior on a related topic now, and his deliberate noncompliance should be seen as grounds for similar limitation of editing privileges, which I hope will come swiftly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In the Lucas Garner AfD you refer to, you wrote a very passionate "keep" comment, arguing "no significant effort to assess the subject's notability" and an "unconvincing and unsupported" AfD rationale. Yet, Lucas Garner remains unsources, (itself a valid rationale for deletion), and I note you have failed to edit the article to provide reliable secondary sources, now 11 days after your comment in which you seemed so convinced of their existence. All I can see here is rather an issue of WP:ILIKEIT mixed with blatant assumptions of bad faith, rather than any fault on TTN's part. I note, however, that WP:AFDFORMAT considers that "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive". Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it you can produce no substantive refutation regarding TTN's refusal to conform to the standards prescribed by Arbcom, so you're casting aspersions against me for pointing out his noncompliance. And if you think that "There is an extensive body of critical work concerning Niven's writings; he has been a leading SF writer for nearly fifty years" is "passionate", well . . . . Merely knowing who he is hardly proves I'm a fan of his writing. Seems to me that you're the one assuming bad faith, especially you've now accused me of disruption for claims that are at least as true of TTN as of me. And "unsourced" is a rationale for BLP deletion; otherwise it's "unsourceable" -- and the works themselves provide implicit sourcing, of course. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since TTN's nomination are appropriate deletion candidates per our notability guideline, and that's also the case with Lucas Garner, then I see no reason to refer to the Arbcom ruling. However, I note that in your AfD comment, you were quick to accuse TTN of violating WP:BEFORE, while "Lucas Launcelot Garner" doesn't get any hit either on GBooks or GScholar besides primary sources, therefore TTN's rationale was perfectly valid. So yes, I maintain that your intervention doesn't provide any ground to claims of "unacceptable behavior" from TTN, if anything, you've shot yourself in the foot.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you joking? Searching under a nonstandard form of a fictional character's name is, of course, going to produce few if any hits. Using "Lucas Garner" as the search term generates more substantial results, unsurprisingly, and as is often evident, very little of the substantive discussion and commentary regarding genre fiction is available or indexed online. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lucas Garner" is not extraordinary enough as to ensure that all results will be relevant to the fictional character. And quite frankly I don't see more relevant hits than before. If you yourself acknowledge that "very little of the substantive discussion and commentary regarding genre fiction is available or indexed online", then accusing TTN of violating WP:BEFORE was blatant assumption of bad faith, because the minimal requirement of WP:BEFORE is an online search. And if the so-called substantive discussion is that confidential, then the subject is unlikely to be notable anyway. Again, besides the fact that you didn't like that the article was questioned at AfD, I don't see any proof of "unacceptable behavior" from TTN.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Placeholder for more substantial comment later, but I believe that TTN's nominations violate 1) best practice as codified inWP:BEFORE, as there is no attempt to find content, 2) WP:ATD in that there is no attempt to merge or redirect articles with absolutely clear merge targets, and 3) WP:POINT or WP:DE violation, in that he persists in nominating articles in the face of a preponderance of keep, merge, or redirect outcomes. There's no question that most of this content could stand improvement, and merging, trimming, and sourcing are entirely appropriate, encyclopedic ways to deal with such content, but TTN's blanket attempts to delete everything not only doesn't improve that coverage, but if implemented as per his expressed desire would have the effecct of prohibiting non-admin improvement of deficient articles by deleting them. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Your 1) violates WP:AGF, as seen in the case of Lucas Garner above, TTN nominated articles for which notability was clearly in doubt and search engines yielded no result. Your 2) is irrelevant given how long bold merges or redirects usually last (as The Bushranger pointed out, AfDs are unavoidable), and I have explained above the limits of article talk page merge discussions. Your 3) cancels out your 2), and again per WP:AFDFORMAT and WP:MERGE, there's no fundamental contradiction between AfD and merging/redirecting. I also don't think you're depicting "merge" and "redirect" comments in his AfDs accurately: I myself only propose merging as a compromise but I would have had no problem in seeing the content gone for good, and I don't see merging and redirecting as strictly speaking "improvement", merely the acknowledgment the articles were not notable in the first place. Thus, I also completely disagree with your assessment that "sourcing" was ever a possibility for the content that TTN nominated. Some editors sure seem unhappy that some articles went up for deletion and were deleted/merged, but that's not a valid reason to drag TTN to WP:ANI.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:ATD is policy; your !votes which opined 'merge' or 'redirect' for fictional topics were policy-based. TTN's AfD nomination of mergeable and redirectable content which is non-problematic except for notability concerns, is not. That is the issue here: Too much is being said "but this is sub-standard", which is irrelevant. As a volunteer, collaborative project, we work to use whatever people have contributed in the best and most suitable encyclopedic fashion, and TTNs actions have not been consistent with either the spirit or letter of that goal. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      So TTN should be free to boldly redirect non-notable topics and bypass AFD completely which ATD promotes. I don't have my head in the sand to know how much that will rile those that want to keep those articles, and leave the only option to a talk page discussion which of course will be extremely biased. This is a strong example of why we really need an "Articles for Discussion" to augment the normal AFD so that issues like merges and redirects can attract larger audiences than just the talk page alone. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh good, my time-machine worked. The main issue here is, as it always was, not about the content. Rather it is about the methods by which TTN chooses to go about his crusade. Nominating dozens upon dozens of articles for deletion (well over 100 afds in less than a month) and redirecting even more at the same time makes attempts to improve this content a daunting task for anyone, made worse by the stubborn nature of his editing and communication (what little there is) and his lack of effort in attempting to improve content before removing it. All of this goes against the collaborative nature of the project, TTN seems less interested in collaborating to make the project better than he is in meeting his own personal objectives--Jac16888 Talk 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • at least within the D&D space, the projects have had YEARS of time in which they knew there was a great concern about the sourcing of the articles to find and produce sourcing for the unsourced/improperly articles. That they have chosen instead to allow a proliferation of MORE unsourced/improperly sourced articles is not the fault of TNN. If they had taken any responsibility for the quality of their articles they would not need to be " defending" a dozen indefensible articles in a month. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, most of the articles nominated were created as far back as 2008, so users had enough time to improve content if that could really be done. That you have a different definition of what "collaborating" and "improving" means isn't a reason to drag TTN here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DEADLINE applies. It would be faster to improve the content if everyone would pitch in and do so collaboratively--I daresay that poor and non-collegial behavior has made the entire topic more hostile than it needs to be. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes the assumption that they can be improved. To take one of the current batch of AfDs as an example, I sincerely doubt that hook horror has sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to come anywhere near notability; while it is indeed true that there is no deadline, using WP:DEADLINE to keep stuff that can't be improved because "it might one day" only does the encyclopedia a disservice. As for those that can be improved because there is sufficient third-party reliable sourcing available to demonstrate genuine notability, why wait? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • TTN is doing great work. His nominations appear to be within policy and he is helping us get our act together in some of our weakest areas. He seems to nominate on average less than 10 articles a day, across multiple fandoms, so the argument that he is "flooding AfD" just doesn't fly. That this complaint was brought on by one of our most disruptive editors, who has been banned for several years now, also says a lot. TTN should continue his work and feel free to report back here if he feels any sort of further harrassment. ThemFromSpace 21:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lord of the Rings? If they tag Fangorn there are going to be serious issues... NE Ent 22:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I was wondering why TTN wasn't responding to the comments here so I went to TTN's Talk Page and he wasn't notified of this AN/I. There was this bare link posted:

    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TTN

    (which has since been removed) but not the standard notification which provides a fuller explanation of the discussion that is occurring. It hardly seems fair to be talking about someone without letting them know. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I know, but there really isn't much to add. It's just the usual divide of people who fully agree with me, people who agree with my methodology and not my methods, and those who completely disagree. I believe I am within acceptable limits of policy with only around five AfDs per day that have mostly ended with the articles being removed in some way, so I don't plan to change too much unless someone thinks it proves to be a larger issue. TTN (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Just thought I'd place it here, though it has absolutely nothing to do with this particular thread: Liz, in my view the standard template "Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you." is useless too. The message includes no link to the particular discussion, and "may have been involved" is just weasely. There. Load off my chest. (Yes, I know it doesn't belong here). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It does include a link to the particular discussion if you use the |thread= parameter. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of TTN's AFDs were, and are, valid. Wikipedia embarrasses itself with the amount of trivial crap that we allow to pollute what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, such AfDs attract little interest except those editors interested in keeping such trivia (Colonel Warden, Cavarrone, etc.) By the way, the OP is a sock of a banned editor. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Kite, after checking the interection analyzer I can say I voted "keep" in just two AfD started by TTN. I voted in other 7 AfD started by TTN, always as "redirect" and/or "merge" and all these votes are in accordance with the final outcome of those discussions, something quite common in respect to my work at AfD. Your referring to me as someone "interested in keeping trivia", besides totally ignoring the specific arguments I raised in those two afd, smells in its wording of a personal attack and implies some bad faith by you while frankly I do not even know why I was involved in this discussion, I voted these discussions because I have the relevant delsort in my watchlist, not because I am interested in the AfD started by a specific editor. Cavarrone 05:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So do you think WP:ATD should be deprecated as no longer policy? Or do you think it's OK for editors to nominate things for deletion despite policies which explicitly prefer merge or redirection outcomes? Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody has proposed deprecating WP:ATD. While it does suggest merging non-notable fictional elements, editors are not obligated to do so when they find the content unencyclopedic. If TTN were proposing the deletion of Superman, Drizzt, or Son Goku, I could see this kind of outrage and AN/I discussion taking place, but the vast majority of his nominations have been articles that demonstrate absolutely no notability. Some of his nominations have been controversial, but I think he's learned from those experiences. Most of his nominations could have been boldly merged or redirected, but they would have been instantly reverted by hardcore inclusionists. Perhaps it would be more diplomatic to propose these topics for merging (and I have voted to merge many of them), but nominating them for deletion is perfectly within policy. His work cleaning up the disruptive editing of a banned sockmaster in the Ultra Series has been especially helpful to Wikipedia, as this user created dozens (if not hundreds) of articles and categories on trivial subjects. Maybe this has increased the workload of admins, but it's a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. I agree with Sven Manguard and others who say that it's about time that this fancruft finally got cleaned up. I might have done things a bit differently (merger discussions, bulk nominations, coordination with appropriate WikiProjects, etc), but I approve of TTN's campaign against cruft. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of TTN's nominations are actually valid, because he never addresses the possibility of merging or redirecting. At the very worst, the material should be redirected, not deleted. I accept that in some case as deletion nomination may be the only way of getting an article effectually merged or redirected-- and I have made a few such nomination to solve an impasses at an article talk page. But almost all of these are cases where it is a matter of degree for the extent of content that we should have, and either TTN does not realize this or he intends to ignore it.
    The problem is that he assumes a policy that when the article on a franchise or major complex work is split, none of the parts of it may be devoted primarily to plot. Now, it is true, and I think everyone here agrees that the WP coverage of a work should not be entirely devoted to plot. But in an article some part of it must cover the plot, and consequently when an article is split, some separate article or articles that are the resultant parts of that split must cover the plot.
    The actual problem is not that WP articles covered plot, but that many of the older articles on works fof fiction and related topics covered only the plot, and covered it in a very immature fashion. There's an obvious reason--the articles were written by those with a lack of understanding of how much there is to say about fiction, and how much is actually published in terms of analysis and relationships to other works. Most plots in WP articles are absurdly sketchy and incomplete. The basic question that someone comes here about a work of fiction is to find out what happens in it. Plot is the very basis of fiction and an article that does not cover it fully might be about the publishing of fiction, or the reception of fiction, but it will not be about fiction itself. Almost all of our articles need a proper reanalysis of the plot based upon a careful reading or watching of the primary source, informed by published analyses of it when available--presentations that make the story line and the role of the characters clear. About half the existing ones are the sort of thing that appears on amazon or goodreads or primary school book reports: an list of everything in the beginning, which an elementary student can write without having read more than the first chapter, and then a failure to tell how the story develops and ends. Doing it properly takes effort--first careful reading, then careful thinking,and finally clear and organized writing, all of which are in short supply among WP contributors.
    To be sure, a few such articles are in excessive detail. People here have not yet gotten the idea of proportionate coverage--that major works deserve detailed analysis, and minor ones needs more cursory treatment. In particular, TTN does not appear to have gotten the idea: he demonstrates this by his identical nominations of important characters in important works, and trivial plot elements in very minor material. If he really wanted to effectually improve WP coverage of fiction, the most useful thing he could do is to start with the least important works, and reduce the coverage to half the length while at the same time making it clearer. To do this reasonably, there would be a lot of merges, and many redirects. But he's out to make a point, and the proof of that is that he insists on nominating not just the sort of thing that nobody much cares about, but significant elements in works that many people here know and care about deeply. In other words, he;s out to make trouble--or at the least, indifferent to the trouble that he makes.
    These deletion nomination exemplify the worst fears of those of us who want a rational treatment: unless we keep individual articles, merged content will be gradually eliminated and not even redirects will be left. So even those who, like myself, think the treatment should in many cases be much reduced, find ourselves defending everything we have, because we know by experience--experience now being confirmed by TTN--that unless we do so, even the important parts will disappear from WP.
    WP is not a paper encyclopedia--it does not primarily care about the intrinsic importance of things, but pf providing information about anything which is of possible general interest that can be written in English based upon reliable sources. Even the sort of fiction I consider junk is of this sort of general interest-even Transformers, to pick what is probably in to many of us a pretty extreme example. If people care about it , and if we can present the information, we should have it.
    TNN's approach will destroy the encyclopedia. If he removes material which he thinks is so unimportant as not to be worth the coverage, some of us will want to remove material we think equally foolish: professional wrestling and pornographic performers are two areas where there;'s been considerable sympathy for this approach. And in each case it's been provoked by the very low quality of much of our existing coverage. But this differs for everyone. Some people think industrial products aren't worth covering, some high schools, some college football, some state or provincial politicians. And so it goes until we're left with a condensed encyclopedia suitable for the school curriculum in 1900.
    This isn't personal--I'm using "TTN" as a shortcut; it should be read as "fiction minimalists" which for the moment happen to be most prominent as a particular individual. Minimalists of any sort have no place in a comprehensive encyclopedia. The two concepts are antithetical. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I disagree, but that shouldn't be much of a surprise given that I describe myself as a minimalist. What about the WP:GNG? I assume you think that we should give these articles a free pass? I fail to see why people act like deleting an article from Wikipedia is like burning down the Library of Alexandria all over again. Wikia exists solely to catalog obsessive fancruft, and we do not need to do so here. Note that minimalism isn't about going crazy with a red pen and deleting everything; rather, it advocates removing only that which is unnecessary. And, before you ask, consensus determines what is unnecessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but based on all the failed attempts I've tried to get a fictional element guideline passed (with many different iterations), the community requires fictional elements to meet the GNG, meaning out-of-universe discussion from secondary sources. Arguing that we are a comprehensive encyclopedia is antithetical to the fact that we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. We could document everything, but we have chosen not to, and in terms of fiction, we have chosen to avoid the fan-level type of cover that some would like to see but that is much better suited to other wikis. TTN's action are not out of line with any policy or guideline, only those that can't accept that we're not a fansite for one's favorite work of fiction. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your logic misses one important point: material that refers only to plot should never be split into a separate article. All articles, fiction and non-fiction alike, are supposed to be based on material in independent, reliable sources, not primary sources. That's what WP:V demands, and it shouldn't be weakened for any area. When these articles are deleted, anything that actually needs to be kept is generally in the superordinate articles.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG wrote above: "WP is not a paper encyclopedia--it does not primarily care about the intrinsic importance of things, but pf providing information about anything which is of possible general interest that can be written in English based upon reliable sources."
    I disagree with this, at least if taken literally. This seems to deny our insistence on notability, the WP:GNG, and indeed WP:NOT (the indiscriminate collection of information section). I do not think I am a"fiction minimalist" -- I have surely contributed to a number of articles about works of fiction over the years. But I do think the tendency, especially in some popular genres, to have articles on every major (and sometimes minor) character in a work of fiction, and every plot element or artifact, to be overdone and more appropriate to a specialist wiki. Most fictional characters, even in a major work of fiction, are not independently notable, IMO. Yes surely some are Sherlock Holmes or Frodo Baggins, for example, ought to have separate articles. But when independent, secondary reliable sources cannot be found (after a reasonable search) for a character or an element of a work of fiction, then that article ought to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
    DGG writes of what happens when an article is split. Well, if an individual element does not have the sources, the secondary coverage, to make it

    independently notable, then is shouldn't be split out, (nor written about at such length as to require a split) and if it is, it should be re-meerged.

    I have not read most of the specific AfD nominations and discussions referenced above, ans so have no opinion on their specific merits. But we do have many articles about non-notable fictional characters, objects, and other elements of particular fictional works (or groups of works), An effort to remove some of these strikes me as a good think, so long as it is not done in a manner likely to overwhelm AfD or those who might wish to argue different points of view. DES (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, to add to what the others have pointed out, fictional characters do not gain notability from being in a notable, or even famous, work. They gain notability, and therefore the ability to have valid articles, by being discussed themselves - I don't think anyone would suggest that Star Wars is anything other than one of the seminal works of fiction of our time, but that doesn't mean that, say, Nahdonnis Praji is notable because he was a character in the movie; he goes in List of Star Wars characters, where, as part of the group, he is worthy of mention, and if that page gets too large List of Imperial characters in Star Wars would be an appropriate split. But Nahdonnis Praji itself should at best be a redirect, because he does not get coverage on his own to meet the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by what I have said. The only practical meaning of "Notability" at WP, is what is considered of sufficient importance to have a separate WP{ article. We normally judge that by the GNG. The GNG is considered here a generally applicable guide, to be used when possible--when it yields results in conformity from common sense, like everything else here. It's application in disputed cases, including disputes in this field, tends to depend on quibbles about the interpretation of the key words, "significant" and "independent"; I could generally construct an equally plausible argument about these in either direction, and the arguments that people make are not based upon abstract considerations, but on whether they holistically want the article to stay or remain. Every major character in a major work of fiction is discussed in outside sources to some degree, But the reason why are they discussed is because they are major characters in major fiction, and any of our rules about it are merely approximations to determine this.
    Much more important than whether we have a separate article is whether we have content. Whether we have substantial content about something does not depend upon notability. It depends on verifiability and proportionate importance to the subject. Nobody could rationally defend the giving of equal importance to the major and minor characters of a work, or to the characters or episodes of major and minor works. Lack of notability (in the sense we use it here) of the actually important characters or episodes of aspects of setting is not reason for deletion, but for merging--provided we keep the merged material. The campaign for deletion of this material is therefore inappropriate and destructive, We should instead be focussing of=n including it--including it properly. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • DGG's point should not be overlooked: Lack of notability is a justification for not having an article on a topic, not a justification for removing that topic from the encyclopedia. In some cases, non-notable articles should be removed, because they don't fit anywhere, but that's not the case here. Every single one of TTN's AfD's that I've ever looked at has a valid, easy-to-find, and essentially uncontroversial merge or redirect target. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a completely valid point, and I don't disagree that some of the AFD TTN's is information that could be covered elsewhere -- but first cutting down on the tons of in-universe information that doesn't belong in WP per WP:NOT#PLOT. And many of these AFD's already have the appropriate trimmed information in the larger merge target. But ignoring that factor, the problem of walled gardens still persists: per ATD, TTN should be able boldly and freely able to merge/redirect these without first garnering, but dollars to donuts that the changes would be reverted within days, and/or his edits complained about just as they are now. And if he either started or followed up with merge discussions, which currently are required to take place on the talk pages of these articles, there would be no traction at all. As I mention later, this highlights the problem that we have no means of discussing non-administrative actions (what AFD is limited to) in a venue desinged to garner cross-WP input, nothing intrinsically wrong with TTN's actions. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're justifying asking for non-policy-based deletion discussions on two faulty premises: 1) WP:ABFing about the possible actions of fiction-topic fans, and 2) Postulating that AFD is a valid place to start merge discussions. It's not, per Wikipedia:PEREN#Rename AFD. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Assume" means to act as if something is true without prior knowledge. In this case, we have years of experience that gives us prior knowledge: in general, when an article about a fictional character or television episode is redirected to a parent article, a fan of that character will undo the redirection. A simple look at A Nobody's current ban-evasion here and here show that there's no reason to think that problem has gone away. It's reasonable to argue about philosophies and goals, but to deny that that cycle exists is simply denying the existence of history.—Kww(talk) 07:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yea, I'm working on the fact that this has happened, repeatedly, in the past (Heck, I'm having problems right now suggesting a merge of a one-off movie character Ivan Drago into the parent film because of the inclusion-minded editors that are calling the merge "deletion"). Talk pages of fiction articles are well-established walled gardens that fight to keep their content that they know they can't find true secondary sources for. We've tried developing special guidelines for fiction notability but the community has decided there are no special ones (and in fact we strive towards a specific type of out-of-universe coverage for fictional elements) so it is not like. And I'm well aware AFD as "AFDiscussion" is a PEREN, but there's no reason there can't be parallel processes that take advantage of deletion sorting for merges, redirects, and moves to have these discussions visible to a larger audience. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Tangent: AfD is not Wikipedia:Merge This For Me

    To approach this from another direction, I tend to agree with ~90% of TTN's noms, but don't consider them a productive contribution in spite of that. The primary flaw in TTN's method is that he puts a ton of stuff up for AFD that should just be straight-up merged or redirected. This results in a lot of parasitic bureaucracy and diverts Project editors from other tasks they'd rather be doing, which is "disruptive" by dicdef if not in Wikipedese. Yes, doing the work yourself may take you longer and certainly exposes you to more criticism, but it takes Wikipedia as a whole less time.
    In short: try to merge first, only go to AfD if there's a dispute over it. --erachima talk 07:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree. These topics have historically been run by "fanboy"-type editors, often with limited experience, and they will revert any redirecting of these articles. Particularly when many of these articles are poorly sourced (or unsourced), AfD is a perfectly valid venue, and too many people here are making a mountain out of a molehill to create teh dramahz. I think this thread should be closed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    been there done that. the content is restored as it was without any additional sourcing and then been accused of "merging content against process and without consensus". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Counterpoint. This AfD was utterly unnecessary and simply resulted in a 9-day delay before redirection. --erachima talk 10:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it wasn't utterly unnecessary. There is a clear redirect consensus; no editor can wander in on their own and revert the redirect, claiming a lack of consensus. As frequently happens with similar things. The same issue exists with songs, which clearly fail WP:NSONG, and yet some editors will ignore that and try to keep them for WP:ILIKEIT reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lukeno94, I both disagree with your statements and find them insulting. You are broadly categorizing the sort of people who are interested in these articles as being inexperienced and acting against policy, when in many cases that simply isn't true. I know there are quite a few experienced editors here who are interested in articles on the subjects TTN has been nominating (myself included, for anime and manga articles). I certainly agree that almost everything TTN has been nominating should either be deleted or redirected, and think there are a lot of likeminded editors who are interested in those subjects. Some of those articles are things that clearly should be redirected, and I think TTN should be trying to redirect those before nominating them for deletion. To use the example of Akane Higurashi, that article was created by someone who hasn't edited in 5 years, and hasn't had many substantive edits since. I personally was surprised that such an article was still around, as I would have expected articles like that to have been redirected long ago. That kind of thing that appears to be a forgotten old article that no one seems to care about anymore and has an obvious redirect target is exactly the sort of thing that should just be redirected rather than being taken to AFD. While it is possible that someone would have come along and undone the redirect, I don't think it was likely. I've been seeing a lot of articles nominated by TTN that I have a similar opinion of (i.e., they should have just been redirected), and think he should try just redirecting those. Calathan (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    i would suggest you pick 10 articles in the same state as the ones TNN has nominated, redirect them and then time how long it takes for them to be restored to their previous state without the inclusion of any additional sources. You might get one that will stay as a redirect for as long as a month, but that that would be the limit before the crap was reinstated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are too many articles. If I go on to redirect every single one, it's just going to be more of this like in the past. There are zealous fans, people who disagree with redirecting without discussion (even when there is no discussion to be had) and revert only for that reason, and other such people who may randomly revert later. If I feel a topic can actually be improved, I'll start a merge discussion, but all of these plot-only articles are fine AfD candidates. People keep bringing up BEFORE, but it's not like I'm doing this to force them to be merged. I'm fine with a merge/redirect verdict, but I am aiming for deletion over anything else. AfD is something with a wide view, open to discussion, and not able to be overly influenced by personal factors. It's the best forum to discuss these as far as I can tell, and bold redirects would end up there more often than not anyway. TTN (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you don't like those comments, Calathan, but we're simply describing what we have observed through past experience: WP:BOLD redirections/merges get undone posthaste because "of course it's notable!". - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the problem is the exact opposite of what the two comments above have just said. The reason we need to keep separate articles for significant fictional topics, is that when they are merged it is the start of an quiet but effective process of destroying the material altogether. First as little is merged as possible, and then the the amount gradually reduced, until it becomes just an item on a list. Eventually, even the redirect is removed on the basis the article contains no significant information.
    But when we cannot keep separate articles asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. The nominations give no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Anything someone might want to look up, for which there's relevant content in Wikipedia, should have a redirect. What the fiction minimalists are trying to ideally do is remove all mention of fictional characters and settings from WP, and will use whatever route suits their purpose. WP is meant as a comprehensive encyclopedia, and comprehensive has a actual meaning. The only way to keep it so is to maintain in this field every possibly justifiable separate article, and all merged informative sourceable content, and , as a last ditch effort, at least the redirects. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, of course, that these editors that desperately want separate articles consider merging or redirection equivalent to deletion, and avoid all attempts to merge or redirect when done on talk pages. I agree that at minimum, if its a searchable term (a non-disambiguated name of a character for example), a redirect to the larger work or list is completely appropriate, even leaving behind the entire edit history of the article so that anyone can bring appropriate content to the target, but when editors that have created and maintained these pages reject these options calling it equal to "deletion", we can't let that stagnant on talk pages. Again, I think this is a symptom of the larger problem that efforts to expand or augment AFD for any type of article discussion that needs wider interest (as to take advantage of the deletion sorting efforts to categorize those better) is what the issue is, TTN's actions only highlight that problem. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, you seem like a reasonable and intelligent editor, but I think you're beginning to develop a battleground mentality on this subject. I disagree with you philosophically on many points, but I would not say that your views or actions have no valid basis. You're ignoring policies that contradict your interpretation of common sense (which is why relying on common sense is so flawed – "common sense" is noting but a set of biases that we refuse to admit exist), using slippery slope arguments, and assuming bad faith. I think you need to realize that we're all here to make a better encyclopedia. If some information is lost as a result of it, no big deal. People still have Google. They can find out what style of underwear Superman prefers from Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find your lack of good faith disturbing. Now, I'll be the first to admit that there are some subjects where WP:GNG falters due to a lack of coverage for fair reasons or foul in "regular media" (webcomics, for instance), but accusations that there is a cabal that is attempting to "remove all mention of fictional characters and settings from WP" is, to call a spade a spade, patently absurd. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but you're the only one talking about cabals here. There's nothing about like-minded people attempting to influence Wikipedia in their preferred direction that requires any secret collaboration. However, just because these various defenders of TTN don't need to be in a cabal doesn't mean their interpretation of policies actually follows the spirit of Wikipedia: people contributing to a single, free, knowledge repository, which will naturally tend to increase coverage of topics the authors care about. DGG is absolutely correct about the merge->trim into oblivion citing WP:DUE cycle: I ran into it just this week on an unrelated topic. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then that needs to be dealt with, but "keep all the things whether they're notable or not" is not the way to do it. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you looked at TTN's notability thresholds? He's not satisfied that the GNG is met, that multiple independent reliable sources have covered a topic in a non-trivial manner--he wants real world impact. That is, as far as I can tell, a belief that unless something about the fictional element has changed the mainstream world, the amount of independent RS coverage isn't relevant. TTN's desired notability thresholds are not policy based, in that he appears to mandate an SNG level of coverage when the GNG is already met, yet he gets a pass from you and many others despite a plethora of such non-policy-arguments. His hyper-narrowed personal beliefs are at least as disruptive to the consensus-based collaborative improvement process as any of they hyper-inclusionists' ever were. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • And that's what my attempts at making a fictional element notability guideline have generally results - consensus want fictional element articles that are covered in an out-of-universe manner, meaning development and reception, which is met by meeting the GNG. This includes understanding that many sources that those that want to keep these articles are primary in nature or simply don't provide significant coverage as required by the GNG. By having "significant coverage in independent secondary sources", a fictional element is assured of having some out-of-universe aspects. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the topic title somewhat. This is the same kind of stuff we went through with user "Mathewignash" and Transformers articles a year or two ago. Article after article after article of in-universe fiction and fancruft...99% of which were sourced to toy catalogs and guides. We redirected/merged several dozens of these things, and they had to go through AfD because this user and 1-2 others at the time would just revert away. So yea, sometimes AfD is needed to enforce a merge, as it gives opponents less wiggle room to counter it. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:L'Origine du monde

    L'Origine du monde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    On their talkpage, this user has shown a fundamental misunderstanding for the CheckUser policies, an inability to drop the stick and move on, a misunderstanding of harassment, and an inability to refrain from personal attacks on other editors (in this case User:Reaper Eternal). Furthermore, L'Origin du monde continues either blatantly ignoring the facts or deliberately misrepresenting them in an attempt to frame Reaper Eternal as a bad person. They have been warned about this multiple times before here, and on their talkpage after that ANI.

    I feel that this user is exhibiting a battleground behavior overall, and if someone uninvolved could look and remind the user about talkpage guidelines with regards to other persons' comments, as well as about dropping the stick and stopping to demand apologies from people for a "bad" block (which is arguably just a misunderstanding), I'd appreciate it. I am unable to notify L'Origine du monde as they have requested I not post on their talkpage further, and as such I am honoring that. I will notify Reaper shortly. Thanks ~Charmlet -talk- 01:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I question either the competency or the sincerity of User:Reaper Eternal, and would like him to understand how checkuser works, what an ip adress is, and what he is allowed to do in terms of blocking usernames he dislikes, and even have some understanding of how long it takes to get an email about checkuser answered (2 weeks+). I think he should make a proper apology, and put a note on my block record explaining that the block was without merit. At the moment people keep assuming that I got blocked because I did something wrong, and invoke the holy word Checkuser to signify inability to understand and I am getting hassled because of this block thing.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 02:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @ L'Odm: you're obviously familiar with the works of Gustave Courbet. Perhaps you might consider replacing all on-wiki penis pictures with this image, which explicitly depicts M. Courbet and male friends removing items of clothing to reveal hard, pink and hairy parts of their bodies.
    @ Everyone else: y'all know what not to feed.
    --Shirt58 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reaper Eternal blocked me for evading a checkuser block placed by a check user on an IP due to logged in use a year after I used that IP. He did not ask the checkuser if there was any connection between us, and repeatedly told me my name and paintings were vandalism. Checkuser should not stifle discussion or understanding. One thing that is very irritating, is the number of ill informed people who seek to interupt my attempts to discuss this with Reaper Eternal.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 11:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, someone got blocked over an 1866 painting? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam - No, they got blocked by a checkuser based on evidence that, quite frankly, I don't wish to detail to the world what it includes. L'Origine du monde needs to just drop it. At an AN/I thread about their failure to move on and drop it, they keep failing to move on and not dropping it. This needs to stop. ~Charmlet -talk- 12:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously time for a WP:NOTHERE block, IMO. Drama-mongering can be tempered by being at least a somewhat positive contributor elsewhere...to articles, to policy discussions, to DYKs, etc... That seems to be absent here. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block for the combative accusations of harassment against users who politely point out talk page guidelines. Harassment is a serious issue and the way this user casually throws out accusations diminishes the seriousness of actual harassment.--v/r - TP 14:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block per WP:CIR as User is clearly showing lack of competence and quite clearly continuously showing battleground behaviour, Plus as mentioned above she won't drop it & move on!. Davey2010Talk 14:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've asked L'Origine to drop the stick and move on but most of his/her edits have been attempts to obtain apologies for a mistaken 2 week block (where they were confused with User:93.96.148.42) and to penalize the Admins who participated in it.
    While I sympathize that it must have been tough to be blocked unfairly from editing Wikipedia for two weeks, the block wasn't personal and when addressed, it was lifted. Also, L'Origine is a new account (created August 16, 2013) and I think this was a mistake that will not happen twice. To ask for Reaper to be desysop'd for this error is unreasonable and looks like payback more than anything else.
    I think administering another block for L'Origine is just continuing this dispute when what needs to happen is for all parties to move on and get back to editing Wikipedia. I support whatever actions will bring this about. Liz Read! Talk! 16:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Except L'Origine du monde doesn't move on (See here) which is why she's here once again,-
    If she dropped it in the first place we obviously wouldn't be here. Davey2010Talk 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    She/He has been unblocked for less than two weeks (since Sept. 8th) and so far, most of her/his activity has focused on addressing their block. I say, give her/him a warning and a little more time to get over this. To follow a mistaken block with another block 10 days later will just make this situation worse. Let L'Origine see the impact of her/his behavior and a chance to respond before considering another block. Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz's (grammar check) opinion makes sense if you consider WP:ROPE. If everyone just left L'O's talk page, we'd have a clearer view of this issue.--v/r - TP 18:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, did I make a grammar blunder, TP? My mistake.
    While there is truth to WP:ROPE and I think that is an approach that can make ambiguous behavior more clear, I was really just thinking that what set L'Origine off was an unfair block and now, less than two weeks later, some Editors are calling for a real block. It just adds fuel to the fire. While I've found her/his attitude belligerent at times, I'd like to see what she/he has to contribute once this old block is no longer paramount.
    But, to be honest, I think that the quick call for blocks (Off with his head!) just because someone is irritating isn't a good enough reason. People seem to leap very quickly to "indefinite block" rather than a 24-hour, 36-hour, 1 week or 1 month block, just because they want to make some users go away. It seems very selectively applied. Plus, there are Editors here that I use to find annoying whom now I work well with...10 days of edits don't tell you everything you need to know about a person!
    Instead of jumping from 0->Indefinite block in 60 seconds, how about a higher level warning, first, ideally from an Admin who has had no previous contact with L'Origine? Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that "indefinite" does not equal "infinite" - it means "until the community is convinced that the behaviour will not recur". What good will yet another uninvolved admin trying to reason with them do? They have proven that ANYONE who doesn't see things their way will immediately be both stonewalled/filibustered and attacked. Every so often I need to yank the stick out of my dog's mouth when she refuses to drop it - there's no difference here (note: I am not referring to anyone as a dog) ES&L 13:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, ES&L is not saying anyone is a dog, just there is no difference between how we should treat dogs and Wikipedia editors. The evidence does not support the contention: see User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_55; LOdm last posted on 10 Sep and, following JBW's patient, polite, and thorough explanation on 11 Sep, has not posted there again, and, as far as I know, not mentioned JBW again. LOdm's last post to Reaper Eternal's talk page was 17 Sep. Both Liz and myself have posted suggestions on LOdm's talk page and neither been attacked nor filibustered. She took exception to Uncle Milty's reversion of her edit on RE's talk page, registered a complaint: following Milty's reply she has no reposted nor (as far I know) mentioned him again. Therefore I submit that dog don't bark. NE Ent 14:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's more her continued (on her talkpage, I give) demands for apologies, and personally attacking Reaper, calling him incompetent, when she herself has absolutely no clue how the CheckUser tool actually works. WP:KETTLE would apply here, except Reaper isn't incompetent, so it's more the kettle falsely calling people black. ~Charmlet -talk- 14:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block I spent nearly an hour reading this editor's talk page and reviewing their contributions, and while they have a lovely signature, I don't think they're a net positive to the project. Their editing patterns seem tendentious, their conduct toward other users is hostile, their article edits (32 of them in total out of 287 edits - mostly in the usertalkspace) aren't nearly constructive enough for the sheer amount of drama they create. Granted, they had a rough start with the block, but that's not a big enough excuse for the way they're currently treating other users. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ... they're still going on about this? --Rschen7754 18:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I have mixed feeling about this. On the one hand, our treatment of the editor has left a lot to be desired. They were blocked in error, and had the image on their userpage added to the Bad Image list without adequate support in policy, and so far no one has been willing to remove it, again, despite the fact that the editor is right on policy. That said, the editor has been making WP:POINTY edits ever since creating the account. If it weren't for our mistreatment, I'd be ready to get on board with a WP:NOTHERE block, and we can't go on overlooking the ongoing conduct out of concern over the earlier treatment forever. In the end, I just don't know if its time for as block yet. Monty845 19:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support They've been given the rules, but don't like them; they've been advised to drop the stick, but won't; they've even been told than a single block event is not the end of the world, but they've certainly been acting like it is; anyone who steps in to help is immediately attacked. Their continued harassment due to their absolutely incredible misunderstanding of the policies they've been told about and absolute BEGGING for an apology (which wouldn't mean much when it's begged for anyway) is ridiculous. They have had multiple warnings of this indefinite (not infinite) block for 2 weeks ... it's time ES&L 19:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per my comments elsewhere. I'm still to see any convincing evidence the checkuser block was in error, let alone any evidence this user can be constructive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block, one admin mistake and the account essentially became a drama-only account. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. The drama mongers are the people bringing this to ANI repeatedly, which doesn't include User:L'Origine du monde. Most of his or her recent edits are about sex topics [62] [63] [64], but they seem in good faith. Older edits were about other topics [65] [66], but don't seem problematic either. Also he or she made about 3,000 edits [67] as Special:Contributions/93.96.148.42 since 2008 (with only one 24hrs ARBPIA block), before someone else took over that IP, creating the unfortunate check-user incident. Also another 1,000 edits [68] as User:Research Method before that. Claims of "NOTHERE" thus seems rather spurious. Long-term editors should be treated with a bit more deference if "editor retention" means more than "admin retention [even when they make mistakes]". Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnuniq Claiming NOTFORUM while standing on a SOAPBOX - Talk:Penis#Removal_of_inappropriate_image_from_the_article

    Non-human_penises_Iceland_Phallological_Museum.jpg

    I objected to this contribution self described as NOTFORUM to Talk:Penis#Removal_of_inappropriate_image_from_the_article as breaching policy.

    Please do not use Wikipedia for any sort of campaign—some may be pro, and some may be anti censorship, but no editor should use an article or talk page as a forum to promote their personal views. Any proposal regarding the encyclopedic topic of this article needs to focus on benefits to the encyclopedia, without an editorial on "censors". Anyone with access to the Internet will have no trouble finding enough human penis pictures to satiate any appetite—in fact, this article has the handy Penis#Humans section which links, naturally enough, to Human penis. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 19 September

    [edit] Johnuniq is pushing a SOAPBOX over WP:Civil and is in danger of hypocracy. I undid this inflamatory comment, and sought discussion at User_talk:Johnuniq#Your_recent_contribution_to_Penis_Talk. User:NeilN and User:Charmlet started to misexplain things on my page and wouldn't go away. In short, the discussion at Talk:Penis#Removal_of_inappropriate_image_from_the_article needs new blood.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 02:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies to the ANI regulars that I suggested raising this matter here (see my talk). This is my explanation, but I'm hoping others will comment and that I can do some other things.
    I have the bad image list on my watchlist, and noticed this discussion where L'Origine du monde sought to have this image (NSFW) delisted, apparently because it was wanted for their user page. I also noticed some back-and-forth at Penis where people periodically put their view that there should be more pictures featuring the human penis, particularly in the lead. Given the comments at Talk:Penis, I thought my comment was reasonable, and welcome feedback. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are currently NO pictures featuring the human penis at Penis.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 02:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is rather a bizarre content issue. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ is right, but all they've suggested is replacing the current lead picture with this. --NeilN talk to me 02:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody has stolen or hidden the images. How on earth can we talk about images without seeing them? Is there any reason why thumbnail images should not accompany this discussion?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 02:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I converted the image to a link. AN/I is for discussing conduct, not content. The contents of the image itself is tangentially relevant at best for the discussion here. Those interested in seeing it are welcome to click the thumbnail link. Monty845 02:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Stolen"? Must be Carmen Sandiego...but as Monty points out ANI does not discuss content issues, we are not "talking about images". - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sticks have two ends. Perhaps if Charmlet & NeilN would just stay off LOdm's talk page (or just let them have the last word on their {LOdms} own page)? NE Ent 02:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm happy to (and already have) desisted from posting on L'Origine du monde's talkpage. I'd appreciate looking at their defensive, borderline battleground, mentality when confronted about removing another editor's post off of the talkpage in question, as well as the issues I present in the original posting above. Please also note that the timing of this second post makes me think it is quite retaliatory in nature, and is truly about a content issue, thus shouldn't be handled here. The first report still needs looking, however. ~Charmlet -talk- 02:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Already had done so. Please see [69]. --NeilN talk to me 02:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • L'Origine, for goodness sake, will you stop this crusade against Reaper Eternal? He cannot explain to you how CU works, because the majority of that process is known to CUs only; otherwise, anyone could work out how to get around it and sock freely, without detection. You were caught socking, end of. If you want to know what an IP address is, look it up on Google, or on Wikipedia. Your block was valid, based on the CU evidence; stop making personal attacks every time you type. I think you need to read WP:CIR, because at the moment, and this has been pointed out before, you're showing an amazing lack of competence... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On top of that, L'Origine, you deserve a couple of fish slaps for messing about with another editor's posts. There was nothing out of place with Johnuniq's reply to you, where you made a WP:NOTFORUM post. If anything, it is your post that should have been removed for NOTFORUM.
    To further strengthen Lukeno94's point, CU's legally cannot reveal what data is obtained using their tools as that would infringe on a user's privacy. If a CheckUser has deemed that there is technical evidence of socking, those of us without those privileges must assume good faith that they know what they are doing. Blackmane (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lukeno94 and Blackmane, I think you meant to post your comments about L'Origine's conduct in the thread above this one. Liz Read! Talk! 16:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Who, and why, has messed around with my post again, so two different issues are confused. It says at the top "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editor". If incidents are to be discussed without images, or content is not to be mentioned here, please direct me to the relevant policies, and preferably include reference to such policies on this page. I have restored the image, as it is directly relevant, and is an integral part of my post. It contextualises this SOAPBOX personal attack

    Please do not use Wikipedia for any sort of campaign—some may be pro, and some may be anti censorship, but no editor should use an article or talk page as a forum to promote their personal views. Any proposal regarding the encyclopedic topic of this article needs to focus on benefits to the encyclopedia, without an editorial on "censors". Anyone with access to the Internet will have no trouble finding enough human penis pictures to satiate any appetite—in fact, this article has the handy Penis#Humans section which links, naturally enough, to Human penis. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 19 September

    ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 11:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is quite clear that Johnuniq is using the talk page as a forum to promote his personal views. When he chooses to do this while accusing me of doing the same, he is wrong.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 12:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the link to the image and set it out above your initial post. No one here needs to look at the image to discuss user conduct with regard to it. Further, you've already reverted one admin who did the same, and I'm asking you now to stop. If your intent is to raise issues of content, do it elsewhere. If you truly intend to focus on user conduct, then what the image shows doesn't matter. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am monitoring this user (and in particular I am waiting to see their response to Liz's recent, very reasonable advice). However, I intend to issue an indefinite block if there is not an immediate improvement in their behaviour. AGK [•] 22:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reminds me of an old US Navy joke: the beatings will improve continue until morale improves.
    • How would reducing the number active editors by one improve Wikipedia?
    • LOdm is a newbie, with around 300 edits.
    • LOdm did not accidentally block herself. Someone else did, and that has been acknowleged.
    • LOdm is not all over Charmlet & NeilN's talk page, throwing the "D" word around. They are all over hers.
    • The removal of Johnuniq's talk page comment was done once [70] (remember bold?) and accompanied by a polite explanatory note [71] which is plausibly in accordance with WP:TPG (removal of personal attacks). She did not edit war over the reversion but commenced discussion.
    • LOdm did not start the ANI thread above.
    • LOdm was given very poor advice by Johnuniq to start this ANI thread. As five year, 25,000 edit with (as his user page states "dramaboard" experience), this is entrapment or attractive nuisance or simply really bad advice.
    • The editor who currently the alleged "victim" of LOdm (Reaper Eternal) has been notified [72] of this discussion but seems to have more important things to do (Special:Contributions/Reaper_Eternal ). I suggest we all find all other things to do and leave LOdm alone for a few days or weeks. NE Ent 23:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, whoa, kindly don't exaggerate when defending this user. One edit telling them the removal was Johnuniq's comment was wrong, worded to take into account they were well aware of our guidelines based on prior discussions on their page and before I saw their comment on Johnuniq's page. One edit explaining why they may feel wikihounded and advising them to focus on working in article space. One edit concluding with dropping the stick. And what's the "D" word? --NeilN talk to me 23:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid point, corrected. D -> "drama" NE Ent 01:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    LOdm has been editing with other accounts and IPs (disclosed on his or her talk page) since 2008, and has made at least 4,000 edits. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    unrelated to the discussion: L'Origine du monde, please fix your signature so it is the correct size. --Onorem (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct size???? Or simply annoying? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's only a guideline, not a policy...WP:SIGAPP. --Onorem (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be to everyone's liking but a user's signature is the not the biggest issue on the table here! And thanks for the alternative perspective, NE Ent. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said it was? --Onorem (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NE Ent: Calming everyone down is often good, but it can have unfortunate consequences, namely that by sending conflicting messages a recipient may seize on the messages they like and take them as evidence that their actions have merit, and that they have support, and that they can disregard other advice. If you check my contribs at the time my notifications thingy was lighting up, you will see that I was involved in some tricky stuff and I was looking for a quick way to stop the back-and-forth on my talk. I would have just removed the section but I didn't want to do something that might have given the impression that NeilN's comments were unwelcome. Therefore I hatted the discussion with my "take it to ANI" mention—not my finest moment, but after two other editors had explained their view regarding the minuscule fuss at Talk:Penis, there was nothing further that I could say. I have spent hours providing advice to some new editors, but experience shows that it is not possible or desirable to provide ongoing support for all users that one encounters. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, the Penis article is proof that some articles on Wikipedia will always be crap. Why is it ok to have an image of a dog penis there but the section on human penis just has a link to Commons is beyond my common sense. I suggest closing this thread with WP:FAIL. Alternatively, Johnuniq and L'Origine du monde can share a WP:MINNOW; the former for suggesting that this be brought to ANI and the latter for accepting said suggestion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed against User:Fareed30

    Hi i have just noticed this User:Fareed30 has been complaining against my edits and he without any stops edits every article according to his sources and completely neglects my sources. I have tried to notify him on talk page but he just ignores my sources, There is a big conflict on the ethnicity of Prithviraj kapoor but he instead of leaving the ethnicity out of the article he keeps on putting his sources and his own versions of the articles which is completely against wikipedia rules. Also i placed a very authentic source in Anil kapoor article which is stated by his daughter that they are ethnically punjabi but he keeps on reverting the edits. I have reverted the edit to the right version but he seems to not accept my sources or the sources that are correct but just writes his own versions. If you see on his talk page i have stopped editing Prithviraj kapoor but he is just pushing it too far in terms of ethnicity. Now he is just changing every article according to prithviraj kapoor article. I would appreciate if you could look into the matter and if you could please let him know that if he doesnt keep the conflicted ethnicty out of the article there will be wrong information on the articles. Also i am just going to notify on wiki india to regarding his edits. If you can see hsi edits that he is reverted from my sources edits [73] [74]

    I would appreciate if you could let him know that his contributions are not just limited to ethnicities of people Thankyou Saladin1987 13:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

    FTFY, also, I notified Fareed30 since you did not. Ishdarian 13:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also i have just noticed that Fareed30 had edited an article Kapoor Family and he himself stated that in the below link that "Rewording it: Let's not mention the ethnicity claims on this page because the sources mention that the original Kapoors were "Pathans" but the young Kapoors claim to be Punjabi, and all of this creates edit-wars here" [[75]] the link where is said it

    Now just today he has started mentioning the ethnic origin again when the ethnicity is completely in conflict with the sources where most of their family claim to be punjabi but some claim to be pathan. I would really appreciate i have tried to talk to him on talk page but he is not ready to accept it and he just keeps on reverting the articles which is edit warring.I am notifying you so that you can talk right action towards him. I just dont want to get myself banned as i have accepted his article Prithviraj kapoor but the articles like Raj kapoor, Shammi kapoor, Anil kapoor, Surinder kapoor, Kapoor Family should not mention his views but they should go according the sources and if sources are in conflict then there should not be ethnic terms written. thankyou for reading. the articles that he has changed are linked below [[76]] [[77]]. Saladin1987 13:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

    if you look at the following Talk pages , you will notice that there were conflicts regarding their ethnicty and finnaly no result was achieved so its better if we just dont include the ethnicity in the articles like Prithviraj Kapoor Kapoor Family etc

    [[78]] ""Prithviraj Kapoor, the first of the family to pursue acting, was born in 1906 in the town of Samundri near Lyallpur, in the Punjab province of Pakistan.[1] Prithviraj's grandfather, Dewan Keshavmal Kapoor, worked as a Tehsildar in Samundri[2] and his father, Dewan Basheswarnath Kapoor, was a sub-inspector of police stationed at Peshawar.[3][4] In 1928 Prithviraj left Peshawar for Mumbai to become an actor.[5][6] He worked as an extra for the first few days in the silent film Challenge (1929). Later during an audition, he was selected to play the male lead in the film Cinema Girl.[7]""

    This is the proposal but Fareed30 added his Ethnicity term in the article too.

    Second Talk pages of Prithviraj Kapoor [[79]] Here aswell Fareed30 Doesnot accept other people opinions and doesnt accept the idea of leaving ethnicity out of the articlle as it is conflicted

    thirdly talk pages of Anil Kapoor [[80]]

    fourth talk pages for Raj Kapoor [[81]]

    All the above state that there is conflict in his ethnicity so ethnic origin should not be included in the articles . Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Saladin1987 14:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here i have tried to talk to him and i am fine if the ethnicity terms are removed but he just denies all the sources it seems like [14:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)][reply]

    Saladin1987 should be re-blocked

    I recommend that POV-pushing Saladin1987 be re-blocked for a longer period because he's intentionally vandalizing multiple pages. [82] For example, Anil Kapoor in an exclusive interview tells a major Pakistani news station (Dawn News) that: "I'm a Pathan's son... my father, my grandfather they were all Pathans from Peshawar..." [83] and then Saladin1987, with fraudulent intent, changes the Pathan to "Punjabi", a different ethnic group. He is purposely doing similar vandalism to many other pages, and also posting unreliable websites and clouding up discussions by talking about irrelevant people in order to confuse readers. On top of all this, Saladin1987 is likely a single purpose account of another editor. He's pretending to be a new user but he's not, if someone can do a CU this is likely to be discovered.--Fareed30 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Youtube is not a source that i s RS
    2. ANI is not for content disputes.
    3. You shouldn't be advocating/telling admins what to dol. Justpresent your case for others to evaluate.Lihaas (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have nothing important to write it's better that you don't write anything. I cited "Dawn News", not Youtube. This is obviously not content dispute but reporting Saladin1987's wrongful actions, which you shouldn't be ignoring. You're not an admin so you shouldn't speak for them.--Fareed30 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    I just want to contribute that he is saying youtube is not a reliable source but his source in the same article is youtube source i.e in Anil Kapoor is [[84]] if you click on it .. Now if you can understand he doesnt want to use the talk pages and he is continously reverting the edits and is starting edit wars in Anil kapoor and all the article i have mentioned before. Why is my youtube source wrong when he considers his youtube source to be correct and he asks for me to be banned. I have not placed punjabi in any article now , i have just removed the ethnicity and if you could look at my history of edits i have just removed ethnciity as it is in conflict as i have placed sources on talk pages of Prithviraj Kapoor that prove his ethnicity to be Punjabi. If you could ban him from editing these articles and just remove the ethnciity. I would appreciate it Saladin1987 00:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

    Hi if you look at this link you will see that he is starting edit wars as he is continoulsy reverting the edits and what i edited was just removed ethnicty as it is in conflict [[85]]. Now i am sure he will revert all the articles where i have removed ethncity and have tried to communicate on talk pages like in this Anil Kapoor article but he has failed to respond there and just reverted the edits according to his soutrces. In talk page he says the women said she is punjabi but she is not actually punjabi as stated by Fareed30 [[86]]Saladin1987 00:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

    Also in the history pages of one of the articles Fareed30 is using that sort of language which is not acceptable i.e 'Saladin1987, you were warned against POV-pushing and other disruptive acts so please stop your anti-Pathan and pro Punjabi ethnocentic nonsense, and stop removing sourced information from pages' [[87]]. Thankyou and if you could ask him that he is not the Admin as he is always talking about banning me and i am doing edit wars etc. Thankyou Saladin1987 05:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

    I was asked to weigh in here by Fareed because I blocked Saladin for disruptive POV-pushing behavior twice for arguably similar behavior recently, once on July 28 for 48 hours and again on August 6 for one week. I'd like to first try to focus on the Anil Kapoor article. Before Saladin's change, there was an interview of Kapoor in English. As Fareed correctly quotes, Kapoor says he's a Pathan. However, if I understood properly just before he said that, referring to his moustache, he said it's a "very Punjabi thing", which even if true, doesn't alter what he said about being a Pathan (I know nothing about these Indian ethnic things, by the way). Saladin removed that YouTube source and replaced it with his own. It was a commentary on Sonam Kapoor, Anil's sister. Most of it was in Indian, which I don't understand, but at one point she said in English that she was Punjabi. That seems like a sneaky source to me. It's about her, not about the article subject, and to the extent it means anything about Anil, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. It's also an irrelevant source, although I can't understand the Indian commentary, so there might be some relevance I'm missing.
    Saladin's main point now is that he's no longer adding Punjabi to articles. Instead, he's removing ethnic labels completely, ostensibly because they are disputed, but I don't get the sense that they are disputed. I haven't looked at all the articles (please don't make me), but removing a label that is accurate just because one editor disputes it is still disruptive. In any event, it's not actually true. For example, on August 31 (not recent but subsequent to the last block), Saladin replaced Pathan with Peshawari here. When reverted more recently by Fareed, he repeated the edit in abbreviated form on September 20 here. As I understand it, Pathan is an ethnicity, whereas Peshawar is a place. The source for this material is the same YouTube interview of Anil where the talks about his father Surinder Kapoor and says is father is Pathani from Peshawar. So, both are true, but it begs the question why Saladin removed the Pathani part. The article already says he is from Peshawar. In removing the Pathani, Saladin made that sentence almost redundant (it now says "minority Hindu family from Peshawar" instead of "minority Hindu Pathan", even though the preceding material already says he's from Peshawar). That, to me, still shows an agenda on Saladin's part.
    I have therefore blocked Saladin for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Let me explain something you had difficulty understanding because I'm very familiar with this area. Anil Kapoor doesn't say in the interview "very Punjabi thing", he actually states "very Peshawari thing", referring to the city of Peshawar. The term "Peshawari" simply means someone or something relating to the city of Peshawar. In USA, Americans would say something like Philly, New Yorker, or Cali thing. This has no relation to ethnicity at all. About Sonam Kapoor, she is referring to Punjabi culture when she says "I'm Punjabi" because she's talking about Punjabi food, which is mostly fried hot stuff and tastes very good, especially to those who live in Punjab.--Fareed30 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Background:

    In 2012, Jdflyer removed some overly promotional content about Angel MedFlight. He then received a cease-and-desist letter containing, among other things, the following:

    It has also come to my attention that under the username "jdlfyer" [sic] you, or someone on (Redacted) has removed Wikipedia contributions by AWC. You have also attempted to remove Wikipedia contributions related to other competitors. This conduct is contrary to the rules and conduct expected by Wikipedia contributors and continued interference with AWC's attempts to make legitimate contributions to Wikipedia will not be tolerated.

    At the time, this was unknown to anyone on Wikipedia. This year, Jdflyer opened an SPI involving Aviation geek and Banksy truth. Following the SPI, a WP:BOOMERANG CU found that Jdflyer was socking himself, as Icarus1980. In defending himself, he posted the above cease-and-desist letter he received on The Bushranger's talk page. Angel MedFlight/AWC has clearly made legal threats over a Wikipedia dispute. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you highlight the portion which is a legal threat? Because I just see the words of someone who is annoyed, I don't see the threat of legal action. If there is that kind of talk ("I'm talking to an attorney, "we'll be seeking legal redress", "I'll see you in court", etc.), I think the appropriate action is to alert WMF. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jdflyer posted the entire thing here. Note that I personally haven't had a chance to look through that yet due to technical issues. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That link doesn't work for me. Apparently the document has been removed. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a 24-hour link, I think. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I saved a copy of it. I don't think he wants it to remain public forever, but if an admin or someone else trusted wants it, I'll send it privately to them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Block who? The letter implies AMF/AWC has been editing Wikipedia, but I'm not sure under what username or IP. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the catch - we're not sure who the editor(s) in question is/are. The accounts involved in the SPI mentioned at the top of the discussion here appear to be a sockfarm/meatpuppetry group editing for or on behalf of the group in question (technical evidence is confused but behavioral evidence is the largest of all possible ducks), but I'm not sure they can be connected NLT-wise (and they're all already indef'd for the sock/meatpuppetry anyway). As a note for the record I've offered to unblockunblocked the Icarus1980 account ifas Jdflyer wishes to switch to a new username due to this, on the condition he follow WP:SOCK#LEGIT. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the accounts are already indef-ed... --Rschen7754 19:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request admin presence at Birthplace of Gautama Buddha

    The page Birthplace of Gautama Buddha originated as a subpage off Gautama Buddha simply for references/sources to be used in discussion and along the way was moved to being an actual article. Due to discussions at User talk:Jimbo Wales and on talk:Birthplace of Gautama Buddha it seems that consensus is that it should move back to being out of the "public" view. I was hoping for an admin to look, and if agree, to do the move.Camelbinky (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The bureaucracy which Wikipedia is not would have you post this request at WP:RM NE Ent 11:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Promo, AFD and off-WP canvassing

    A few days ago, the leader of a particular "brand" of Kung Fu (Shaolin Wahnam Institute) recreated an article for the institute over a redirect that had been determined by AFD. The article is full of references to the "homepage" of the brand's founder Wong Kiew Kit (www.shaolin.org). I've removed some particularly unecessary stuff but that homepage still remains the most cited reference for the article.

    The new article was taken to AFD here.

    The leader Mark Blohm (who edits here as Markblohm) then posted this note to the front page of the site referenced in the article urging adherents to "SHOW THE GREATNESS AND WORLDWIDE REACH OF SHAOLIN WAHNAM" because "I think it's long overdue that we add contributions on Wikipedia to show the greatness and worldwide reach of our school.". Since then, a string of new accounts has appeared to revert the re-establishment of the redirect, add unsourced claims to the article and article at the AFD that the article should be kept.

    Beyond the obvious conflict of interest, the new article seems to exist for two reasons - to drive traffic to the institute's hompage and (before I removed most of it) provide a how to guide for students in violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Then there's the canvassing and subsequent meat-puppetry. There's not much about this that seems like a good faith effort to build Wikipedia. Stalwart111 01:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll notify the editor named above and I'll put a note on the article talk page. Stalwart111 01:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    I've semi-protected the AFD. It would appear that all current !voters are students, and there's no reason to let it get out of hand.—Kww(talk) 05:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You may as well quote the entire message:
    "Dear Brothers and Sisters,
    I think it's long overdue that we add contributions on Wikipedia to show the greatness and worldwide reach of our school. What other Kung Fu or Chi Kung school has our kind of spread and depth?
    Go Here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Main+Page&type=signup
    Create an account on Wikipedia so that you may contribute to the Shaolin Wahnam Page and other pages.
    Some of the editors on Wikipedia believe that the Shaolin Wahnam Page should not exist. We are a global school. If you believe that our school is noteworthy, make your voice heard.
    At
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaolin_Wahnam_Institute#Article_recreation_over_AFD_mandated_redirect you can see many of the comments in this link say that the Shaolin Wahnam page should not exist. You can add your comments in whatever way you feel.
    Mark Blohm
    Shaolin Wahnam Taiwan
    Facebook
    "Then how could chi kung overcome diseases where the cause is unknown or when there is no cure? The question is actually incorrect. The expressions "the cause is unknown" and "there is no cure" are applicable only in the Western medical paradigm. The expressions no longer hold true in the chi kung paradigm. In the chi kung paradigm the cause is known, and there is a cure." - Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit"
    M (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    apparent sock

    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IPD Historian (talk · contribs)

    appears to be quacking pretty loudly as the blocked Theairport12 (talk · contribs) and/or operating as a role account for the inglewood police dept per edit summary of first edit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for block evasion and article semi-protected due to amount of new COI socks appearing on it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New user issue

    User involved: Farsheed96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • First, check his contributions, all most all his edits got reverted. here
    • He has been imposing his preferred introduction part on Andheri article. [88] He has been asked to stop many times. The editor seems to do little or nothing else beyond these lame and unhelpful edits.
    • Farsheed96 also made his promotional page on Wikipedia, which was SPEEDY DELETE, see Farsheed Cooper
    • Today he has made racist (regional) remarks on my user page, wrote
    1. r u a migrant staying in mumbai? [89] (well i'm not)
    2. Dont make my city Bombay heritage and tradition less. I think there is lots to share in its introduction which you will never understand because you are not from this place. We just accept you all with open hearts but dont forget the original and the indigenous of a place always remain. [90] added When a person reads the introduction world wide he or she should get 75% knowledge of that particular article just by reading the introduction which makes it more attractive. You are hiding everything though it has lots. Dosn't make it wise & if u think Mumbai is for all Indians, it may be; but we remain where we are so do not argue with us. Keep quite and stay calm.Let the introduction be as it is.[91]
    • Promoting his religion/community,
    1. See [92] Line 70 replaced Hinduism with Irani. (Bandra is a neighbourhood in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Hinduism is India's, Maharashtra's and Mumbai's most popular religion, i.e. in majority)
    2. Further evidence, [93]

    All above, Racism is not acceptable.-- S SET (U-T-C-E) 17:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like a mixture of incompetence, language issues, and addition of personal commentary. The user hasn't edited in about 10 hours. I've left a notice of this discussion (you should have) on their talk page. There's enough here already for a block, but I haven't done so to see what the user does when they return. No one has reverted the latest edits to Andheri, even though Farsheed again removed maintenance templates (even the semi-protect template - the semi-protection recently added doesn't prevent Farsheed from editing because they are now auto-confirmed), and re-added material that one editor described as "unintelligible". Although I could probably revert it myself because it's so obviously wrong on so many levels, I don't want there to be an argument that I'm WP:INVOLVED because I'm leaning toward a block. By the way, when Farsheed commented on your user page, you should have moved it to your talk page and responded rather than just deleting it. Engaging the user (not just templating them) might help, and it's generally useful to try.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpacemanSpiff: has reverted Farsheed at Andheri. Although Farsheed has plenty of templates on their talk page, I have nonetheless warned them of edit-warring at Andheri (not a breach of 3RR because the reverts are spaced too far apart).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note Bbb23, my revert was unrelated to this, came across it on an unrelated lookout, but I think your post above sums up the issue quite well, I did ask in the edit summary to discuss any further edits on the talk page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Sir, i'm moving his comments to my talk page. But about responding to him, i would probably do the same.... regional racism .... But @Bbb23: pls tell me, is it against wiki talk page guidelines? because i am not sure about it. BTW, thanks for your understanding in the matter. -- S SET (U-T-C-E) 08:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Farsheed returned to Wikipedia and restored the material, I've blocked them for 72 hours. Shivametsu, the idea was to remove the material to your talk page and respond to it. Just moving it there, as you did, doesn't help much. If I understand your question, you're asking if racism is permitted at Wikipedia. That's easier than incivility: the answer is no. However, I'm not Indian and so may miss some of the subtleties involved, but I don't read Farsheed's comments as explicitly racist. It's poorly written so it's hard to say but I suppose one possible inference is that the "original" people of Mumbai are better (?) than others. Is that what you're getting from it? Who are the original people Farsheed is referring to? In any event, I think the wiser course with this kind of post, which is tame compared to some I've seen, is to respond to the substantive issues rather than focus on any perceived insult. In this case, that would be Farsheed's changes to the lead of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While not "racism" per se, castigating people / editors about their place of origin also has no place on Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Intel

    NO ACTION
    dormant account, no action required NE Ent 02:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Intel is a promotional username and should be blocked indefinitely

    Tariqmudallal (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, first off the proper place for this is usernames for administrator attention. Second, is it really a big deal? Intel made only one edit, back in 2004. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we generally don't block accounts that have been inactive for years... Monty845 01:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for any action, just seems like someone who loves the company just making a quickie 'I love this company' edit and moving on. We have many, many more important issues than this to take care of. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this really worth reporting ? ..... Davey2010Talk 02:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Contentious editing on Brian Nestande

    172.15.179.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding information about the criminal history of Brian's family members [94]. I believe that the detail is excessive (possibly in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK) while the IP contends that it is relevant to the page. Would like input from admins or editors. -SFK2 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    SFK2 may believe that detail is excessive - it is in line with information available on millions of other wikipedia bio pages. Family history is extremely relevant to the "personal" text. Other additions and changes have been made.
    Wikipedia pages are not campaign pages - there is no rule that says that information may only be positive. The information that I have continuously added is true - and, in fact, most of the information I added has been verified in court. References are from trust-worthy news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.15.179.45 (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolute rot. The "brief" summaries you added about people that aren't the subject of the article created a section longer than any other in clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. One of the individuals in question has an article of his own - a link to that article is sufficient. There is no need to rehash the sins of the father in the article about the son. Likewise, the material about his half-sister is completely irrelevant to the subject's biography. To be clear - the subject of the article is Brian Nestande, not Nestande family or Brian Nestande and his family members and some things they did. Stalwart111 08:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and for the record, you're also in clear violation of WP:3RR with 5 reverts to the same article just today. Stalwart111 08:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Stalwart111, your tone is really rude. Please try to be a bit more civil in your conversations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.15.179.45 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, not about to take civility lessons from an edit-warring POV pusher. You deserve a block, not an opportunity to hand out advice. Stalwart111 18:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Stalwart111 18:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User CJK

    CJK recently started editing on the contras article. He immediately got into a POV argument with another use (Boba Fett TBH) - discussions like that occur frequently on the contras page and are nothing out of the ordinary. What concerns me, however, is CJK's aggressive and unhelpful rhetoric. He doesn't seem to be able to assume good faith in other editors (one of his first actions was to open a thread on the talk page called Malicious distortions), and in the discussion immediately (and unprovokedly) resorted to ad hominem attacks ([95], [96]). I reminded him to better avoid these ad hominems ([97]), but CJK just doesn't seem to be able to resist inflammatory remarks implying that his discussion partners are not acting in good faith. For him, it all seems to be "blatant falsehoods" ([98]) and "vicious distortions" ([99]). The subject of the contras article is very controversial and has seen quite a few edit wars already; it needs editors with a cool head. In my opinion, CJK is too emotional and/or biased to constructively contribute here. I request an article ban. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, because a) the diffs presented due not constitute attacks , b) we discuss concerns with editors on their talk page before opening ANI threads, and c) Boba Fett TBH is indeffed blocked as a sock. NE Ent 13:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Manda clan article and source.

    I got an message from an editor that i'll be blocked from editing for reverting his edits in Manda clan article. The editor removed some sourced texts[100] from the article without leaving any notes on the talk page and i reverted those edits requesting reasons in the tatk page[101]. The removed text was sourced from the book The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period by Sir Henry Miers Elliot & edited by John Dowson which is a reliable source but the editor gave me a block notice stating the source is not reliable! Please, note that this historical book has been reprinted several times which shows its notability. I should not be blocked.--Tartarrman (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Looks like Sitush doesn't think your source is reliable per the talk page . First, Sitush can't block you, he's not an admin, BUT I'd suggest running this source by the Reliable Sources Board and see what they say. (Definitely stop reverting each other though, as that will get you blocked -- I've already been there ! )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not going to be blocked (unless you keep reinserting the link). Just keep using the talk page, and perhaps the RS board as Kosh suggests.NE Ent 17:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No administrative action necessary here. Continue to discuss the matter at the talk page until a consensus is reached. Bear in mind that, as a rule, the editor initiating the change needs to prove his/her case for the change. Since Tartarrman is the editor who made the first change to the page today—a page that had gone unchanged since 2 July—the usual practice is to undo those edits if there is a concern about them until consensus emerges to change them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Farhad shahnawaz

    This user only appears to be using Wikipedia to promote himself. The article Farhad shahnawaz was already deleted (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event).

    Despite it having been deleted, he's trying to get it reposted via Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Farhad_shahnawaz.

    However, he now appears to be trying to post the same content on his user page; I appreciate that WP is usually quite lenient with personal material on user pages, but this is simply the same article-style content with no pretence at being a "genuine" user page, from someone who appears to have no real interest in contributing to WP beyond what is de facto spam.

    Ubcule (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Racism below

    White people are much better than any other.

    Blacks are lazy and many of them are criminals.

    jews are awesome! Antisemitism is a mistake.

    Sometimes somebody must burn a X wearing White. For good harvest $-)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=574079158"