Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• I have asked B2C and SmokeyJoe to comment here, as their comments (and lack of follow-up) contributed (inadvertently, most likely) to this report. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• I think that you guys are getting a bit off-topic. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

• Overturn per above post by myself and failure to adequately explain actions in the interim as well as the input of B2C and PantherLeapord. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn original MR closure - Clearly a textbook supervote and should be reversed ASAP. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that we found a consensus. Could someone proceed and restore the original name?--Earthh (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The RM review and the original RM both need to be overturned. --B2C 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• RM1: The result of the move request was: not moved. @Jenks24: (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• RM2: The result of the proposal was moved. --@BDD: (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• MR: Thirty Seconds to Mars – Endorse Close. - There is no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as Endorse Close. No action is required on the article title. -- @Jreferee: (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

No response, yet. --B2C 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Well, for the record, Jreferee said he was not going to. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

What's going on here? I've just nominated Thirty Seconds to Mars for the Good article status, fixing multiple issues and expanding it, but how will we resolve this issue?--Earthh (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The simplest way to resolve this is for Jreferee to revert his close. That way I can clarify my position (as it has been misinterpreted), others will have a chance to chime in, and someone else can close it. However, for reasons I cannot understand, Jreferee (talk · contribs) is not cooperating. I mean, he cites lack of policy basis to revert - but that's an excuse. Anyone can revert anything they've done, including a close. He doesn't need "policy basis" to revert his close. I, for one, am still hoping he'll change his mind, because the alternatives are:

• Someone else reverts the close (preferably an admin after reading this thread - it certainly can't be anyone involved so far, other than Jref).
• Someone starts a new RM as an RFC per SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)'s #4 above.

--B2C 17:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee (talk · contribs)'s obstinacy on this matter is disappointing, to say the least. All that we're asking for is a revert of the move review so I can clarify my position, and give it a few days to see if others have anything to add, and let someone else evaluate the discussion. His refusal to cooperate is bewildering and contrary to the spirit of WP as I understand it. But there we are. I suppose someone else can revert the move review, but it really should be an uninvolved admin. Otherwise, somebody who cares (not me) needs to start another RM. --B2C 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously considering doing just that. As long as Jreferee does not try to get it speedy closed due to some imaginary waiting time then it should be able to get a clearer consensus on this. I will give Jreferre another week or so to do the right thing before I start it. I know that I am being STUPIDLY generous with waiting for so long but I always assume good faith in that Jreferee will do the right thing and revert their closure before the 7 day deadline expires. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

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[[21]] 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[[22]], his hitlist[[23]] page that I was a sockpuppet for hundreds of other editors.[[24]] 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[[25]] on his IP talk page with a second warning not to continue.[[26]]

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.[[27]]

This all just seems to be attacks on IP editors.[[28]] 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[[29]] but it was ignored it while I took more abuse and accusations from BullRangifer[[30]].

I have reported this here[[31]] 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.[[32]]

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)

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)

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"[[33]] 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)

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)

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)

Apparently the editor maintaining this hitlist[[34]] 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)

• I've addressed some issues regarding BullRangifer's incorrect notion as to what accounts for sockpuppetry on his talk page. The question I have here is whether or not it is believed that 174.118.141.197 is connected to an account that was blocked, or if it is only believed that 174.118.141.197 was previously connected to another IP address. Unfortunately, the history behind this is a mess. According to BullRangifer, User:174.118.141.197 is connected to User:99.251.114.120 which is connected to both User:99.251.112.162 and User:KBlott. The only Sockpuppet investigation case page is for KBlott Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KBlott/Archive and does not mention any anonymous editing. It seems like we need an SPI clerk to clean up this Witch hunt. Ryan Vesey 05:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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[[35]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Whoa there, Ryan, I never commented on BullRangifer's behavior. You should be much more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• In view of the above inference perhaps some editors should not be contributing to this discussion after displaying prejudice in this case.[[36]] Unrelated admins would be a good asset to evaluate this complaint without prior bias or need to defend actions. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• This "category" appears to be a misguided form of WP:LTA or WP:SPI report. It should probably be deleted or moved. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(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)

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.[[37]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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) Stricken per agreement below. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

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)

• 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)

• Given the history of the "Rogers Cable Troll", I think it's justifiable to think that a lot of IPs on that network are socks - because historically, many of them have been. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[[38]][[39]] (corrected link) as well as reverted their actual edit, despite other editors complaining[[40]]. 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)

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)

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)

• Drmargi, again, I didn't say that what Brangifer was doing was right; merely that it was justifiable. You can justify a lot of things when you look at underlying factors, whether they're right or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• Oppose: This is naive and reactionary. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. You can't make up your own rules and attempt to enforce them. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. - Per Todd. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ban on tagging is unnecessary -- policy per WP:HSOCK already prohibits tagging unblocked socks. NE Ent 22:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Support, given BullRangifer's refusal to follow clearly documented policy WP:HSOCK. NE Ent 23:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• @NE Ent: ??? There is no refusal. I have repeatedly stated I will abide by the community's decision. In the last part of my comment below I have mentioned a problem with the logic at WP:HSOCK. See Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Illogical_wording_2. We need to fix that. No matter the outcome, I will still abide by the community's decision. Note that I'm not trying to fix it in a manner which benefits my old position, but to fix an internal inconsistency which creates confusion. We have always used the tag and its accompanying category to tag "suspected" socks, but the wording muddies the waters by stating that "blocked accounts should be tagged", which doesn't make any sense in a "suspects" category. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• That doesn't mean it's unnecessary, BullRangifer is actively doing it. This would make WP:HSOCK enforceable. Ryan Vesey 22:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• I don't understand. SPI reports routinely include both registered account names and ips, e.g.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Albright_Netowrks. In any event, the way to deal with socks is to block them, not put disputed tags on their pages prior to determination that they are socks. To the extent that some socks are also trolls, the less fuss the better. NE Ent 13:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• Which is fine (behavior only blocks), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/212.178.246.217/Archive NE Ent 17:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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. Stricken per agreement below. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That interpretation was repudiated by ArbCom about three years ago. GregJackP Boomer! 13:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@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)

• 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)

• 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)

• @Binksternet: As I don't have the time or energy to reopen old SPIs or file new ones, I am not allowed to mention any connection to KBlott here and have stricken my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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[[41]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.141.197 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

• NE Ent, if SPI does not stop IP vandals and socks then we need another tool. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

@Toddst1: As I don't have the time or energy to reopen old SPIs or file new ones, I am not allowed to mention any connection to KBlott here and have stricken my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, KBlott for sure. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet: As I don't have the time or energy to reopen old SPIs or file new ones, I am not allowed to mention any connection to KBlott here and have stricken my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(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)

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)

• 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)

• @MarnetteD: As I don't have the time or energy to reopen old SPIs or file new ones, I am not allowed to mention any connection to KBlott here and have stricken my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• No problem. That isn't something I was asking for. I am simply pointing out that we don't ban editors for one incident. If this kind of incident had occurred with multiple editors over many months or years than a ban would be on the cards. Having done some searching I can find no evidence of that. As things stand this smacks of a witch hunt which is not something that you deserve to put up with. MarnetteD | Talk 15:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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[[42]][[43]] 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)

I have not taken any "decision upon myself," since I can't block them, and any editor is allowed to tag suspected sock puppets, although attempts have been made to limit that duty to admins. Such attempts have failed. I have just been following accepted practice by tagging them. I am not the one who has blocked anyone. I'm not an admin!

Maybe I've been far too peaceful in this situation by not seeking to get every single one of those IPs blocked, but many of them have been relatively peaceful and have been left alone. That's how little I have been engaged in this. I have just tagged them so that when they occasionally popped up on my watchlist I could take a look. If they were engaged in gross disruption, I may have mentioned it to an admin who has blocked them. I can't remember each instance, but I know that many of the blocks had nothing to do with my intervention. Whatever the case, abusive sockpuppets have been blocked, and that's what is supposed to happen. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually no editor is allowed to tag suspected socks, see WP:HSOCK. You can take the suspected sock to SPI, but the tagging policy states "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." You can tag socks that are already blocked, but not ones who have not been blocked. GregJackP Boomer! 00:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You have pointed to EXACTLY the problem I'm addressing in my proposal here: [[44]]. We already have categories for "blocked accounts". The category for "suspects" has always included unblocked suspects, hence its existence. The logic in the current wording completely breaks down. The only other alternative would be to do away with the category and its many associated tags.

BTW, if you check the history of that section, attempts have been made to only allow admins the right to perform tagging, but that has not been successful. Any editor may tag suspected socks. Admins are busy enough, and they appreciate the work which sock hunters do. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be the first to acknowledge that there are trolls who know how to game the system here on Wikipedia and can even crawl in under your skin in a way that annoys you to no end. A great deal of that abuse comes from people who hide in anonymity and then pretend they didn't do it when confronted in another context... precisely the kind of people you are suggesting here as being sock puppets. Of course the best "solution" to dealing with sock puppets is to have discussions where votes don't count and that being a sock puppet is meaningless in the first place.

My concern, first and foremost, is a false positive problem where you might accuse somebody of being a sock puppet or troll when in fact they aren't. I've even had the pleasure of such accusations in the past, so I do take this kind of thing personally when I see it happen to others. When you are down in the trenches for long periods of time seeing nothing but trolls, it is easy to see everybody as trolls. I even had that problem myself, which is why I'm on an extended break (voluntarily) from being an admin on Wikimedia projects at the moment.

I don't know of an easy way to really hammer these kind of blocked users to the wall like you want to have done here. Unless they tip their hand and reveal that they are in fact somebody else better known (and not being a troll for saying *that* just to be slimy), there really isn't much else that can be done. The overriding policy on Wikipedia is that anybody can edit, and that unfortunately leaves room for some trolls to slip in through the cracks with the hope that admins and others can repair the damage faster than the trolls can screw things up. It is one of the joys of editing on a wiki, and that hasn't changed in over a decade. Banning everybody but a select few simply is not what Wikipedia is about. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Robert Horning: Beautifully put! I fully agree. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I have first hand experience of being put down as an IP. It is unacceptable to harass any user, including IP addresses. Thus, I see no reason not to ban this user from posting on IP addresses, as there conduct was much worse then what I was treated. Update, After reading "IP address a human", I say no, IP address is not a reliable way to identify anyone really. IP adresses can and do often change, here where I'm at, I can do it at will (via my local internet provider) The logic is entirely unreasonable, that IP address = human. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Anne Delong and Robert Horning. -A1candidate (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose first, neutral on second. I agree that it is not policy that IPs must create accounts; however;
  1. If they use multiple IPs to make the same edit they should be blocked.
  2. If they are used by a blocked editor, they should be blocked and the edits reverted.

  In this case, the IPs were used by a blocked editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Arthur Rubin: As I don't have the time or energy to reopen old SPIs or file new ones, I am not allowed to mention any connection to KBlott here and have stricken my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree 100% on all points. Arthur is an admin who's been here a long time and recognizes this blocked editor.
  Now if we could just get some admin to block KBlott's IPs here. Because I'm a party to this case, I have a huge COI and can't even start an SPI. I wish someone else would do it. It's really bizarre to be subjected to this by a banned editor. Many who haven't a clue about the history, and even admitting it and not exercise due diligence, are taking their side in this witch hunt!
  Seriously, how many who have commented against me have examined the block log and contribution history I've posted above? If you haven't, your comments are serious failures to AGF. I've only tagged the IPs of a banned editor! Since when is putting a tag on a page such a huge crime, given that the IP is related to a banned editor? Even if I made an occasional mistake, the errors would have been made in defense of Wikipedia's integrity, a justifiable type of error. No one has pointed out such an error, but if they did I'd certainly examine it and fix it. I would be very willing to admit my error and apologize. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Stricken per agreement below. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. How about violating WP:HSOCK? Here? Where someone from WMF had to show up and try and explain it, again? Are you willing to admit that you were wrong to tag the IP in violation of policy? GregJackP Boomer! 05:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

?? You need a better diff. That one doesn't help, but that talk page is instructive about my thinking. It's a totally unique situation, and I did the right thing.

Regardless of that current phrasing at WP:HSOCK, which I wasn't aware had been added until this thread started, we have always added suspected socks of blocked users to that category. Any error on my part was unintentional, and we need an interpretation of what is now confusing language. That newer wording is nonsensical and internally inconsistent and needs to be fixed. "Blocked" and "suspects" are not the same thing, and the category is for suspects. Please help fix this. In this case there is a connection to numerous blocked IPs and to KBlott, so I was adding suspects of blocked accounts/IPs, all in harmony with policy. If I had been aware of that part of policy before this thread started, I would have sought to get that inconsistency fixed earlier. Now I'm trying here: Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Illogical_wording_2. Please give it a chance and don't sabotage it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Stricken per agreement below. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me make sure I get this right. Just above, you state that you would be willing to admit your errors and apologize if an error was pointed out. Then I point out an IP that you tagged, in clear violation of policy, where a WMF representative personally pointed it out to you, that you then untagged, stated that "We need more editors of this calibe", after you untagged him. But it's not an error because he's only an "IP", "a second class editor", and that "Using a dynamic IP automatically means you are operating a sock farm...."

I'm going to try one last time to get through to you. You are violating policy. You need to stop. If you don't stop, I'll propose that you be blocked, to prevent harm to the project.

I believe, based on the numbers of editors who have tried to reason with you, that the !votes are there if a block is proposed. I really hope that you stop, open your eyes, and hear what the community is telling you. GregJackP Boomer! 12:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated many times before, I intend to comply with the community's wishes. I HAVE already stopped, and I won't tag anymore editors, unless a community decision allows it. That's the proper thing to do in any situation. If I happen to bump into any block evading socks, instead of tagging them myself, I'll alert an admin and let them add them to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets, even though a requirement for only admins doing it, although proposed, has never been adopted. It is best I stay away from doing it myself. Is that a satisfactory decision for editors here? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For those who wish to exercise due diligence, I suggest you read through this SPI of one of the related IP socks. It is currently rangeblocked, whereupon it continued using its newly created IP 174.118.141.197:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/99.251.125.65/Archive

You'll see what I mean about the difficulties involved when bringing an IP to SPI. (@Ryan Vesey: started that particular SPI. Unfortunately the situation was too stale to be used for anything, even if KBlott had been mentioned.)

Here are useful links:

Here are the IP links for the IP which started this whole witch hunt above:

• 174.118.141.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP99 was used immediately before the above (IP 174) and is rangeblocked without my involvement:

• 99.251.120.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here is the block log of the IP editor which happened to be chosen for the Category page.

That IP's contribution history is also very instructive.

All of these IPs are related to each other and to KBlott, but things are too stale for SPI. So here we are, with a banned editor running this witch hunt against me. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Stricken per agreement below. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Editors should note that BullRangifer's hitlist page is based on complete nonsense logic. KBlott only edited mainstream medical biology type articles and never Beatles, music articles or alternative healing articles, as the associations with most of these IPs suggest, on the hitlist page, and the attempt at association above. Judging by the quality of KBlott's edits he must have been in the medical profession. Check it out for yourself, as BullRangifer is suggesting. This whole "secret tells" being professed by a non-admin tool enabled user is clearly proving to just be imagination and prejudice. This hitlist page is not the way Wikipedia AGF works and should be deleted, now. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Now this is a popcorn muncher. Stupid thread, really. Doc talk 10:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt raised here, for the first time, about whether to follow the long standing practice with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. I have only followed that practice, but apparently some editors here see things differently and I don't wish to cause more irritation. Right now we need to decide what to do with that category, since some think it should not be used for "suspected sockpuppets", in spite of its plain wording and current use by many editors and admins. An elimination of the category would mean that a number of templates can no longer be used, and it would be difficult to keep track of the activities of the many IPs used for block evasion by blocked users. Is this really the intention of editors in this thread? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Let me try to explain this in a different way. Saying that it is suspected that 99.251.112.162 has been used by 99.251.114.120 is akin to saying that it is suspected that Holiday Inn room 162 has been used by Holiday Inn room 120. Now, if you mean to say that room 120 may have been occupied by John Doe, that's a different story, but still somewhat pointless, as John Doe is no longer there, and is unlikely to return. As a matter of fact, the "John Doe might be here" sign above the door is prejudicial against the unrelated person now occupying the room. If someone is using a static IP for sockpuppetry, and the IP happens to be known and tagged, that is more appropriate, i.e. something like saying that John Doe lives at 101 Main Street. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. I'm aware of this, and I suspect most sock hunters know that sometimes only part of the IP's contribution history is the relevant part, but it's still important to keep in mind. This is still another reason why registering is a good idea. You may wish to comment on an interesting thread about this issue. A number of other sysops are commenting there: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Are_IPs_required_to_register.3F. Thanks for the good comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated personal attacks

The above mess contains multiple accusations that 174 is a sock. Wikipedia practice is (or used to be) clear that such accusations must be backed up by evidence.At least if the target is registered. In any event policy is clear that sockpuppet accusations should be made at WP:SPI. Claims that SPI won't do anything or it's too stale are incorrectly confusing SPI with checkuser. While it is true CU may be precluded due to staleness, CU is not required for processing of an SPI, SPI admins/clerks can also assess an account based on behavioral evidence. It's to to put up or retract the accusations. NE Ent 11:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I concur. All this talk of "secret" evidence and "tells" - this needs to be publicly discussed, the community has always disliked hidden evidence and motives. Put up the evidence or retract the accusations. GregJackP Boomer! 12:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since I don't have time for this, I'm going to strike the statements where I can find them. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Forum shopping

User:Bullrangifer just refuses to stop despite discussions here.[[45]]. Notice the attempt at provocation and insulting tone in this other venue with his "small children" vs. him as an "adult" attacks, also. [[46]] [[47]]. Very insulting "spit in the face" of other editors contributing at ANI working to follow Wikipedia policies. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up work needed on the other cats

Bullrangifer was gracious enough to back down and remove the two-dozen tags on another dynamic IP range see: User talk:64.40.54.128. Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have started to nominate for deletion the other inappropriate sock categories which he created, starting with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 198.228.216.168. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In conjunction with that page [this] attack on the same editor should be removed or stroked out from The National Council Against Health Fraud article talk page as sockpuppet discussions and reprimanding do not belong on article talk pages and the information spewed is just incorrect and against policy. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've untagged probably 50 + improperly tagged IPs and several improperly tagged registered accounts. Three additional cats put up for deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 11:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

Also, he is apparently not open to discussion. --199.123.13.158 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Am I the only one who thinks this IP sounds like User:A Nobody? ThemFromSpace 17:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The IP's first edit [48], reverting TTN's redirect 4 minutes after the edit, followed by following other TTN edits, does scream familiarity with TTN. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    • oh thats just your paranoid deletionists seeing fanboy socks behind every IP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • The articles have varying dates of creation; some are several years old, and some are not. Either way, the date of creation is not relevant to whether it should be kept, merged, or deleted. I do completely agree with your last sentence. BOZ (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
      • The trouble is that, as pointed out before, these articles have a very loud cadre of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSNOTABLE defenders who would shout down any such proposal and would (and have) quickly revert any WP:BOLD redirecting. They'd have to wind up at AfD anyway, there's no reason to waste time in getting there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

Ah, that plan sure did backfire, didn't it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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[49] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)

• And most of the time when they do bother to add additional sources, they're just more sourcebooks or novels, which are then claimed as third-party sources establishing notability...I think the main problem is a serious lack of WP:CLUE about what "notability" actually is, really, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Lord of the Rings? If they tag Fangorn there are going to be serious issues... NE Ent 22:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

That's a good and fair point, Bushranger, and I gotta plead ignorance. I suspect, however, that others are ignorant too, because whenever I've clicked on the supposed link to "a discussion" that parameter apparently hadn't been defined. It's good to know that it's theoretically possible for this template to link to the specific thread though, thanks again! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • "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)
          • 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Counterpoint. This AfD was utterly unnecessary and simply resulted in a 9-day delay before redirection. --erachima talk 10:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

• • • • • can you show me where there have been independent sources that cover the subject in a significant manner and TNN is still stating that the article still should be deleted because of lack of real world impact? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • 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)

• • • • • In my experience with, at least, the D&D monster articles nominated by TTN, the "multiple independent reliable sources" are almost invariably sourcebooks, adventure paths, and the like that, regardless of publisher, are primary sources and establish no notability whatsoever (i.e. a Paizo-published module for a game published by the spooooky wizards who live on the coast is still a primary source for a monster in the game). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

Once more I surprisingly find myself agreeing partially with Tarc. Sometimes AfD is needed to enforce a merge. It is also true that sometimes an AfD is needed to prevent persistent attempts at a merge, by trying to establish the separate article as justifiable. I have repeated asked, & it's almost been adopted a couple of times, that we call AfD Articles for Discussion and discuss all disputes about whether to have a separate article there. It's the best place for general attention. There is merit in a certain degree of consistency, and discussing the disputed items at one place would help achieve this. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

While in the past, I would have agreed that "AfD is not Wikipedia:Merge This For Me", I do agree with some of the points that yes, if you did bring up a merge discussion on the talkpage of an article, generally only stray IPs will appear who would disagree, and not listen to reason. In order for the merge to be final, it must either be a protected redirect or have the content deleted so newbies can't simply revert the merge. Both need administrative action, so you might as well bring it to AfD, even if it clogs up the logs some. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

To go just a little further down this tangent, merge proposals on little-watched pages often get no traction. We should have a centralized merge discussion noticeboard that operates like WP:RM does with requested moves. Keep the discussion on the talk page, but have a single location listing all of the current proposals and their primary arguments. bd2412 T 19:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:DGG: You 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." Do you have any examples of where this has happened? If we have article content that was merged from subsequently deleted pages, then there is potentially a GFDL violation. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:L'Origine du monde

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

---

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)

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)

@ 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)

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)

Seriously, someone got blocked over an 1866 painting? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

ES&L , I don't think any user who has been active for two weeks can have "proven" anything about the potential as an Editor. This is not like some long-time Editors who've been behaving poorly for months (or years) and just get a pass. She/He has been active since September 8th! I thought it used to take a track record of bad behavior over time to warrant an indefinite block. But the threshold keeps getting lower and lower. Just irritating the wrong people can make Admins bypass warnings and go straight to indefinite block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Support ... they're still going on about this? --Rschen7754 18:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support block, one admin mistake and the account essentially became a drama-only account. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• 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 [50] [51] [52], but they seem in good faith. Older edits were about other topics [53] [54], but don't seem problematic either. Also he or she made about 3,000 edits [55] 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 [56] 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)
  • I'm terribly sorry, but I'd like to see some evidence or explanation of me being a "drama monger" for requesting review of WP:HARASSMENT of Reaper Eternal, failure to drop the WP:STICK, and personal attacks against Reaper. Focus on the incident that made me bring them here, which clearly warrants a block, as it's been going on for weeks on end even after warnings and previous AN/Is. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • A quick perusal of some archives, e.g. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_141#Bbb23, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_130#What_purpose_does_this_block_serve.3F easily proves the assertion that you are among the top drama mongers on Wikipedia, dear Charmlet/gwickwire. If Reaper Eternal is so concerned about this issue, he can ask for an interaction ban himself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Seriously? Two Jimbo discussions that I had an opinion in makes me a "top drama monger"? Then what should I say about you who comments on more Jimbo threads than I have? WP:KETTLE much?

        Now, you know as well as we all do that this isn't about me, so retract your "drama monger" statement, kindly. And just as a side request, don't call me dear. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

        • Folks, please can this side issue. It's not germane to the main topic and continuing it will do neither of you any favours. Whoever can restrain themselves from continuing this sub-thread will show themselves to be the bigger person! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• If L'Origine du monde can promise to drop their spat with Reaper Eternal (that means stop talking about it any further, at all, in any way, anywhere), and can agree to stop personally attacking other editors (calling someone incompetent is a personal attack, without proof), then I think nothing needs done. However, the vast majority here have supported a block. Regardless, this needs actioned and closed. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The User:Reaper Eternal was recently made a checkuser. This means he can block people, and no one will question it. His name is worrying. I speak from experience. I was blocked for 3 weeks, ( it took two weeks to receive a reply from the email he told me to use - saying it was not the right one.) he misdescribed technical aspect of the checkuser [ [User:Elockid|Elockid]]'s block as identifying me as a "long-term disruptor of Wikipedia" blackening my name, blanked the eponymous 1866 painting from mine, and other's users pages without discussion, tried to ban my name as offensive,without discussion having identifying 2 of my edits to my User Space as vandalism and disliking me talking on Oral Sex. I used to edit from that IP. There were 3k of responsible edits there from back then. I had linked those edits to this account. Even when checkuser Elockid explained, at my request, that User:Reaper Eternal had misassociated me with the block, User:Reaper Eternal still refused to unban me, apologise, or admit that we have a content dispute. People here calling for me to be banned "again" confirm the damage my reputation continues to suffer. User:Reaper Eternal has not complained to me about my behaviour towards him on or off his wall.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 22:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so we are 100% crystal clear, ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥, people in this very discussion are voting to impose a block on you unless you stop your vendetta against User:Reaper Eternal. You are aware of this, right? So, if you continue with posts like this (above) and pursue some sort of apology for your previous block, it will likely result in a future block, perhaps lengthy.

You understand this, I hope. Because Editors are telling you exactly what you need to stop doing in order to avoid a block and yet you continue on. I just want to be sure that you realize that your actions have consequences and you've read the earlier discussion on this page and so you won't be surprised if your account is blocked again, you'll know the reason why. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seriously? You're warned again for this behavior, and in the face of an indefinite block for this behavior, you continue with the same behavior? I think this goes way past even Liz's good faith (which I commend, might I add, AGF is always good). By the way, L'ODM, you still fail to realize that CheckUsers are privy to much more information that you are willing to accept, and that their blocks are made upon this information which nobody else (aside from other checkusers) can question. If an admin could close this and implement the consensus and obvious need it'd be great. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Charmlet you are not a checkuser. You are a trouble maker. I will take my complaints about Reaper Eternal to the Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee as instructed.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 01:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

There are currently NO pictures featuring the human penis at Penis.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 02:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Already had done so. Please see [57]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I think we're getting very, very close to a WP:CIR block here... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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 [58] (remember bold?) and accompanied by a polite explanatory note [59] 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 [60] 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)

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)

Valid point, corrected. D -> "drama" NE Ent 01:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Correct size???? Or simply annoying? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's only a guideline, not a policy...WP:SIGAPP. --Onorem (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

Who said it was? --Onorem (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• @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)

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)

• Note I moved this section from archive back to here and changed it to a sub-section, as this is part of the over-arching issue that we're discussing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocking

Given this users WP:NOTHERE behavior and the clear consensus reflected here I am issuing an indef block. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I think this is a mistake, imposing an indefinite block against an Editor who clearly didn't have many advocates. And, surprise!, the next day, his/her User Page is "courtesy blanked" (even I'm sure they didn't ask for this "courtesy") and their User Page is proposed for deletion (MfD) even though it hasn't been 24 hours and this Editor might successfully appeal their block (which isn't a ban, after all).
I'm trying to AGF but the rush to judgment and attempt to erase his/her presence on Wikipedia is just mind-boggling. I mean, there are hundreds of Editors who haven't been active for 3, 5, 7 years and their User Pages aren't proposed for deletion. How does this make sense?
I came to AN and AN/I with an open mind but it's clearly also being used as a way to get rid of unpopular Editors. But, on the other hand, if one has allies, Editors are given second, third and nth chances to change their behavior (even when its clear that they won't). There are vandals and there are people that are just kind of irritating and I don't think they should be treated the same and it definitely shouldn't matter whether or not one has friends in high places. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

White Hispanic and Latino Americans

A new editor, User:Szekszter (previously using IP accounts) who does not understand/care to understand WP is making edits to White Hispanic and Latino Americans. The edits remove cited content and conclusions drawn from the U.S. Census and replaces it with personal opinions, drawn on the editor's life experiences (as stated in his edit summaries) and blog content and blog references. Attempts to communicate with this editor have been unsuccessful. He is now resorting to personal attack, calling me 'a bigot and probably a racist' (edit summary 11:57 22 September 2013 to White Hispanic and Latino Americans. Editor needs to be controlled. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just deleted an offensive editor summary from Szekskter, and given a clear warning that personal attacks need to stop, as does the edit warring. The user hasn't edited since this ANI was started, so lets see what happens when they return and see the need for discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Z07x10 editwarring on Eurofighter Typhoon and clearly being WP:NOTHERE

This was reported on WP:AN3 yesterday but nothing has happened there, and the case has also escalated to be more than mere edit-warring so I'm filing a report here. Z07x10 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on various other articles before but not to the extent that he's now doing on Eurofighter Typhoon. He has so far made an impressive seven eight reverts ([61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]) in far less than 24h, plus an eight ninth revert ([69]) just outside the 24h, with his reverts in turn being reverted by five or six different users (which IMHO shows how little support he has for his version...). He's also making totally unsubstantiated claims that his opponents are sockpuppeteers/sockpuppets ([70]), claims that the opinions of one of his opponents don't matter since that opponent is French and "therefore has an agenda in this" ([71]) and also claims ([72]) that he, in his opinion, is entitled to make as many reverts as he wishes since he feels there is a consensus that supports his version (a consensus that everyone else says doesn't exist and that I haven't been able to find on the talk page of the article). Which IMHO clearly shows that Z07x10 isn't here to work cooperatively and build an encyclopaedia. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Just after I filed this report Z07x10 was blocked for 24h for edit warring on WP:AN3 but adding all of the above together (which wasn't known to the admin on AN3), and adding that he also deleted a post made by one of his opponents on the 3RR-board, Z07x10 IMHO deserves/needs a forced vacation from WP that is longer than 24h... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This is priceless [73]. I am Canadian actually, and, I have, I don't think, ever edited a fighter plane article, in recent memory until I reverted some two of this users reverts (and certainly not the Rafale). Oh yes, I can speak French, what with the years of schooling and marrying a French Canadian woman.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The entire latest section on his talk page, added after he was blocked for edit-warring, clearly shows that he needs a long rest from WP. Time he could spend gaining competence. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh! I tried to help this fellow through the mess that was Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon and this top-speed kerfuffle, but given that he's now declaring that Thomas.W is an "ethernet nazi" [74], well... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that they blanked their talk page thus removing the block notice. I've reverted the blanking and strongly suggest revoking talk if this continues while blocked. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The user now claims to have left the project and is apparently requesting the deletion of his page. Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Page? No, it's the usual "delete my account!" flounce. I've pointed them to WP:RTV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Z07x10 is still going at it, repeatedly deleting block notice and declined unblock requests, and now also refactoring Bushranger's warning and comments on the talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• And also making personal attacks with invectives like "asshat" ([75]) and "nazis" ([76]). So he obviously hasn't left the building yet... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Still here, and still editing, has not left. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Another roaming editor here, supporting an indef without talk page access. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "resolved" tag since he never left, but is still editing, and still reverting. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite block proposed by Lukeno94 Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block per above. The way Z07x10 has been going on after returning from his block, with three reverts, blameshifting etc (check his "discussions" with multiple other editors on his talk page) I've lost all faith in his ability to change. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - I tried to help him early on in this and honestly believe he is correct, and backed by sources - but his way of editing is wholly unacceptable, as detailed above and also in things like here which is a blatant tit-for-tat attempt to expand the WP:BATTLEGROUND, and opening a WP:VPP discussion calling for abolition of WP:3RR for "Reverts to an article state that has existed for more than a month". Unfortunatly I have been forced to conclude that this is not someone who is capable of contrtibuting to a collaborative encyclopedia without an attitude adjustment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, we have a pissed off editor who really doesn't get the place - yet. Yes, I've been working hard to actually help him to get it. Yes, Thomas.W NEEDED TO DISENGAGE from this guy's talkpage a few days ago. Someone help to find this editor a mentor, give him some 1RR restrictions, and save the indef for at least a few days ES&L 09:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have disengaged from his talk page, but don't try to blame me for his behaviour. Z07x10 has shown a battleground mentality and a clear lack of competence since he first appeared on WP last October, edit-warring on virtually every article he's been involved in. The page history of his talk page shows that he has been given a steady stream of user warnings (including level-3 warnings) for disruptive editing and vandalism on multiple articles, by multiple editors, since November of last year. Warnings that are no longer visible on the page. He made eight reverts in less than 24h on Eurofighter Typhoon and got a 24h block for it, then started reverting again as soon as he got back from his block. And he has called other editors "nazis" and a lot of other things on his talk page, multiple times. Yet he's still allowed to edit, and people still believe he can change... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What? You seriously don't believe he can change? Nice. ES&L 14:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Not until he gets a bit older than he apparently is. Meaning that I believe that the root of the problem is a lack of maturity. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per the panda (ES&L) NE Ent 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

*Support indef block. Seldom have I seen clearer cases of long-term inability to work cooperatively. Thomas.W makes a compelling case. I would support an unblock if Z07x10 states in his own words how he plans to change his approach to editing. Sources being in disagreement on some technical detail about an aircraft is nothing new. There are sensible ways of dealing with that. Calling other editors "nazis" isn't one of them. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose another block for now... He seems to have stopped edit warring and is now engaged in a sensible discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eurofighter_Typhoon, so I'm inclined to agree with giving him more WP:ROPE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

FockeWulf FW 190

• FockeWulf FW 190 (talk · contribs)

User is persisting in attempts to add commentary to existing articles, and creating new articles that are unsourced editorials. There are, in fact, sources for these topics, but much of this is already covered in the existing articles, or can be added with said references. Most recently user has suggested that reversions of their edits are being made by paid spokespeople for the products, iPhone and Google Glass, so I think it's time to bring this here. JNW (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I take it you mean the 'Concerns of Google Glass' and 'Concerns of the Iphone 5S' articles? I'm trying to find a CSD that would apply - G2, G10 and G11 are all close but not quite enough. Perhaps a bolder admin... GiantSnowman 16:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't think of an appropriate rationale, either, so perhaps redirects to the parent articles are the best solution. But the user is kind of, um, passionate about this, so the gently persuasive tones of another might help. JNW (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure redirects are useful, they're not even gramatically correct. GiantSnowman 15:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've zapped the 'Concerns of the Iphone 5S' as G7. GiantSnowman 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the other one as A3 per the "a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks" clause of the policy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Digressing from the topic, but I have concerns about the username. The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 was one of the most infamous fighter planes used by Nazi Germany, and picking a username related to that regime is, at the very least, of poor taste. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation for a fine aircraft doesn't mean you support the regime that used it at all; one could make the same argument with a different 'evil empire' behind it for User:MiG, for instance, and I don't think anyone objects to that. Nothing wrong with the username, either for its provenance or its taste. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Reporting 68.175.127.180

Hello,

A few weeks ago, I reported this same user for vandalism. He got blocked. A few days ago, on 21 September, he resumed making similar edits, generally changing information (mostly dates) without providing sources for the new information. Here are examples:

Extended content

On Every Breath You Take Edit mate: [77]; Edit made: [78]. These edits have not been reverted yet. On Total Eclipse of the Heart: Edit made: [79]; Edit made: [80]; Edit reverted: [81]; Edit reverted: [82]. On Tasti D-Lite: Edit made: [83]. This edit has not been reverted yet. On Take on Me (a good article): Edit made: [84]; Edit made: [85]; Edit made: [86]; Edits partly reverted: [87]. On Red Red Wine: Edit made: [88]; Edit made: [89]; Edits reverted: [90]. On Phil and Lil DeVille: Edit made: [91]. This edit has not been reverted yet.

This user does not appear to have learned from the previous block and continues to make these edits. I don't know what should be done about him. Thank you. TheMillionRabbit 17:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The edits are now stale, as the person has not edited for over two days. IPs are frequently reassigned, so no block will be issued at this point. Please file a report at WP:AIV if the activity resumes. By the way, there's no need to list all the edits, as everything is readily available in the contribution history.-- Diannaa (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I will report there if necessary. Thank you. TheMillionRabbit 19:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential article manipulation by conspiracy theorists

An email sent to OTRS today included a link to a post to Reddit describing how someone wishes to manipulate Wikipedia along with others to increase the "truth" of articles, and I am reporting this on to ANI as this would most likely be a violation of WP:V (among other policies). This is the Reddit post in question, and a screenshot of the post can be found in the aforelinked OTRS ticket in case the post itself is deleted. --FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 00:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP on reddit has been pretty conclusively shot down - it's unlikley he'll get much support I'm thinking. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Grasshopper, that's all part of the plan. Don't you know that? --64.85.216.126 (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This was a nonstarter anyway. There is so much attention on the pages he's talking about (and the 9/11 pages are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions) that any attempt at changing to a fringe POV, no matter how careful, would get nipped in the bud immediately. This is one of those situations where Wikipedia's defenses against manipulation work as designed. Bobby Tables (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps by coincidence, we have this edit request [92], which seeks to clarify that 757s "reportedly" hit the Pentagon and crashed in Pennsylvania. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What evidence is there that this was intended as manipulation? The OP encouraged submitters to work with the mods and within wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and citation to improve the quality of the pages in question. Much of the content he mentioned is located on other parts of wikipedia and has been accepted as credible information. If any members of wikipedia's staff are concerned that this "movement" has more nefarious purposes, they could message the OP on reddit and see if he'd be willing to let them join the google group he mentioned in his post. It sounds to me like he's interested in working with others to help improve the quality and accuracy of these pages, and is not trying to "attack" them as the person who sent that email describes it. If he's sincere about this, I'm sure he'd be interested in working with wikipedia staff members as well. Magnunath (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Who he would need to work with is the Wikipedia volunteers. The staff is fairly ceremonial and their roles are primarily to keep the computers running. Content is almost entirely determined by the volunteer editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was referring to the people responding here that seem suspicious of his motivations as well as whoever has the authority to reject/undo edits that are made to the pages in question. Magnunath (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone and everyone who cares to edit has such authority, in general. If a dispute occurs, it is supposed to be resolved by Consensus DES ^(talk) 19:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(Unrelated: Good to see you here, FastLizard4. Small world, it seems :)) I was one of the people who reported this on the talk pages targeted by the reddit page. While the 9/11 page also seems to be one of the main targets right now, the Axis of Evil page was also mentioned. I think it would be a good idea to have a few eyes out on each. Of course, conspiracy theories are nothing new for Wikipedia to deal with, but we should always be careful about offsite edit requests of specific pages. While good faith should be assumed, it's important to stress standards of verifiability and reliability of sources. Mr. Anon515 04:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

219.116.115.176 is disruptive

User_talk:219.116.115.176 has been making small changes to many Lexus articles. They are usually small changes such changing one image to a lower quality image(Lexus GS, deleting a link to the Chinese Lexus webpage (which is in English, Lexus IS), deleting images (Lexus GS), restoring underlines in image file names (Lexus IS) or adding multiple images where only a single image was warranted (List of Lexus vehicles). While these are relatively small changes, they cause User:OSX and myself to waste much time comparing the old and new versions. In almost all cases the changes need to be reverted. He/she never leaves comments in the edit summary and has never explained any of his/her actions in spite of us giving reasons in the edit summary for our reverts. He/she also repeats the same action, sometimes multiple times within an hour and sometimes multiple times over a few weeks - always with no explanation given. We have left messages on article talk pages, left comments in the article near where he/she has been making changes, left details reasons for our reverts in edit summaries and left messages on his/her talk page. The only responses have been for the user to revert our revert, repeat the action or to replace the content of his/her talk page with the Japanese words for 'delete'. We have given the user many opportunities to explain him/herself or to change his/her behaviour over the last two months but the user has not responded to any of our requests.  Stepho  talk  22:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, this one warrants a short block. I have left a note on the talk page, feel free to add commentary to avoid WP:BITE. Hopefully they will get the hint. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollback possibly needed

Last night 161.253.117.4 (talk · contribs) added Jewish religious categories to 130 biographies. I've checked 4 - 2 living, 2 dead, none of them mentioned the subject being Jewish. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, these all need to be rolled back. If someone with the script (User:John254/mass rollback.js) already installed could take care of it, that would be awesome. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've mass rollbacked them, as it seems clear they were added without regard for whether the article content would support the categorization. In light of the scale of the additions, I agree the reasonable approach is mass revert. If the IP editor wants to selectively re-add the categories to apporiate articles which specifically mention the category characteristics, that would be fine. Monty₈₄₅ 14:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot gone wild

I'm not sure of the procedure here but could someone please block or stop Cyberbot II from continuing its spam-tagging pending further discussion? It's making 20+ controversial main article tags per minute and it seems bot-edit-warring against editors who try to revert it, while the operator is offline. Please see User talk:cyberpower678 for the beginnings of a discussion on this. Best err on the side of not making a huge mess for human editors to clean up, if the bot gets fixed or properly approved it can always resume its rounds. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have shut down that specific task, because multiple editors raised concerns. I have no opinion on whether the bot functioned correctly or not, but since it is not a very urgent task, some more discussion and clarification can't hurt. Fram (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

These spam tags should be removed automatically, as it would take too long to do it manually.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this change happened (ok if spamming site), I found another (inferiour?) link and changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ARM_Holdings&diff=574425185&oldid=574323253 comp.arch (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well I just woke up, so I am sifting throught everything to determine whether the bot was malfunction or not.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• From what I have been shown, the has been functioning correctly. It's validation engine to the regex list is exactly the same as MediaWiki's. The reason why it's tagging so many at once, is because it's running it's initial round. The bot removes them on it's own once they become whitelisted.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  For example, I just tried to add the link mentioned above right here, and was blocked by the blacklist.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Adele

Uninvolved observer here. Can someone check out the battling between User:Hillbillyholiday81 and User:Hearfourmewesique at Adele? I don't care in the slightest who's right and who's wrong, but so far as I can see they are both being unbelievably stupid and childish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm usually fairly slow to block for edit warring, but I've blocked Hearfourmewesique indefinitely, and Hillbillyholiday81 for 24 hours. Hearfourmewesique's block is indefinite because 5 previous edit warring blocks, the last for 21 days, haven't worked. Hillbillyholiday81 was blocked because he acknowledged he was edit warring on his talk page after being warned, and still continued to do it. Feel free to unblock either one without checking with me first if you think it's appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with Floq's blocks. I'm interested in the dispute that provoked the battle. Hillbillyholiday's removal is a @John:-like removal, which has become one of the disputes du jour. Hillbilly removed all references to The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror, The Times (online), Celebrity Babies, and a Guardian music blog (I might have missed some). For the most part just references were removed, but in some cases material was also removed (I assume without looking closely that Hillbilly followed John's protocol and removed material if the only references were "unreliable" ones). The current version of the article is Hearfourmewesique's. I think more battles of this nature may ensue if something isn't done about the overarching issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Times and the Guardian are definitely RS - the rest not, especially the Mail. GiantSnowman 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

An excellent thing to bring up on the article talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocking a user who removed unreliable sources from a BLP seems somewhat unconstructive. BLPSOURCES is very clear about us not using tabloids on BLPs and BLP violation is a valid defence against 3RR. Unblock, anyone? --John (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I endorse Floq's blocks. As you already know, I am opposed to this wholesale removal of sources from BLP articles without a consensus for change to the policy. Until that happens, material/sourcing issues need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis on the article talk page or at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A change to the policy which says ...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources? Which part of this is so hard to understand? It is those wishing to plaster our BLP articles with tabloid slime who would need a change in policy to allow this. It would be great meantime if well-meaning admins could desist from enabling this to happen in contravention of existing policy, as in this case. --John (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I know what the policy says, but there are key words that have to be interpreted in the policy, namely whether the material is "contentious" and whether the sources are tabloids. As I've said before you want a bright-line rule about certain sources; for that, a policy change is needed. Also, some of the removed sources weren't in your list (as I understand your list).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement" Short of this type of pettifoggery, of course the Mail is an unreliable tabloid, and of course the claims it was is still being used to back up are contentious. --John (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a pissing match with you, John, so after this post, I'll stop, and you're welcome to the last word(s). My guess is there are many individual issues on individual pages in which we would be in complete agreement. That said, Clinton, a lawyer, was employing unfortunately lawyer-quibbling techniques when he said that. Another unfortunate lawyer technique is when they don't have support of an argument, they use words or phrases like "obviously" and "of course" and "self-evident", etc. (Sometimes those qualifiers are justified.) I think these issues are far more complicated than you make them out to be. I think the policy is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. And I think you're going about this wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to have the last word, I want to redress this apparent misunderstanding among otherwise intelligent and well-informed editors who I otherwise respect. Take a look at this list, gleaned after a few minutes on a popular search engine. After reading that list, could you still maintain with a straight face that the Daily Mail is a reliable source on BLPs? --John (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just one person. You're just one person. Convincing me that The Daily Mail is an unreliable rag doesn't put this issue to rest. Let's go back to part of the policy you quoted: " Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." First, it says "should" as opposed to "must". Second, it says, by implication, that a tabloid may be used when it's not the only source. Remember, in many cases, the removed sources were additional sources. What you really want to do is change the policy to focus more on the sources than on the material. So, your change might read, "The following sources may never be used: [John's list]."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm neither opposed, nor in favour of whatever it is they were edit-warring about, since I haven't given it enough thought, or investigated the specifics. I'm opposed to edit-warring though, and to that extent I support the blocks as this might stop it junking up my watchlist as it has for a while now. Unreliable sources should be removed, yes, but if there's contention about what that entails, which there evidently is, a zillion back and forth reverts on a highly visible article is not the answer. There are plenty of places to discuss it without that. Endorse also Ghmyrtle's "unbelievably stupid and childish" assessment. Begoon ^talk 17:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, cross-post of thread on my talk page, which might be relevant here too:

I have proposed an unblock of this user at AN/I as I believe your block was both contrary to policy (BLP enforcement, which this was, is exempt from 3RR) and against the interests of the project (by blocking the editor who was trying to improve sourcing and take out poorly sourced material, you have preserved a non-compliant version of the article). Will you reconsider the block? --John (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If this was BLP enforcement to remove contentious or controversial statements sourced to non-reliable sources, I would not have blocked. However, I don't see any particularly contentious or controversial statements (certainly Hillbillyholiday didn't remove any), and as such, this didn't need to be edit warred over. They were each at like, what, 11RR? After having been warned about it? One of the things pounded into my head during admin boot camp is, being right isn't a defense against edit warring. I would want some kind of assurance that they'll stop before I unblock.

That said, you're an admin, with an unblock button of your own. No reason to think your judgement isn't as good as mine. Like it says at the top of this page, I won't fight or raise a stink or whine about wheel warring or something lame like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your openness to having your admin actions undone; I personally would never undo another admin's actions without at least trying to discuss with them first, which is why I am here. I notice that one of the things HBH was removing was this: In May 2011, Adele caused some minor controversy with critical statements about high taxes.. I too would have removed this as it is a classic BLPSOURCES violation, a contentious statement sourced to a publication with a reputation for printing lies. While I agree that edit-warring over this was suboptimal, HBH was definitely enforcing BLP. Could you please unblock? --John (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue this at the ANI thread, John, so I don't have to try to keep track of who said what where. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there is value in limiting the cases where edits are exempt from 3RR; edit warring like this, for example, would practically prevent anyone else from editing the article. I think a 24 hour block for 11RR is not excessive, and is likely to prevent something similar from happening in the future. If anyone wants to handle it differently - an unblock contingent on not edit warring the article again, or something - feel free. I do agree with Bbb that the underlying issue should probably be discussed somewhere. But that wasn't the reason for the block. I actually would agree with the removals, myself. But 11RR is hard to overlook. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Instaurare violating topic ban again

After having it clearly pointed out to him only a month and a half ago that he is still topic-banned from LGBT subjects, he has added a shooting at an anti-LGBT group, evidently motivated by their anti-LGBT positions, to Domestic terrorism in the United States: here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning, rather than a block, in spirit of AGF. GiantSnowman 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that the whole big discussion last month was clear enough. This isn't ignorance of the restriction, it's Instaurare trying to see how many times he can violate it without being blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If that was the case then there would have been more than one borderline edit. GiantSnowman 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Style Network/Esquire Network pagemove question

Can someone please make sure the pagemove from Style Network to Esquire Network was done correctly for GFDL attribution? I thought it was a basic pagemove using tools and hadn't looked when the move took place on Monday, but the Style Network's history suggests a poorly managed move with cutting and pasting not using tools. Nate • (chatter) 15:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to do something there. I'm not really sure whether its eligible for histmerge, which is the preferred solution. It has a bit of history that would conflict, but we may just be able to discard the pre-paste history... will wait for some additional thoughts on that. If we can't histmerge, the alternative is attribution templates on the talk page + an edit summary making attribution. Monty₈₄₅ 17:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The only edits to Esquire Network before then were just varying between rd's to G4 (TV channel) and Style Network, so the pre-paste history wouldn't be an issue, I just want to make sure everything's all kosher. We always have these issues with network articles it seems; I try to prepare everything for a proper pagemove, and then somebody else just copy-pastes it without thought. Nate • (chatter) 17:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I left a caution on User:Chris1294's talk page (and a notification of this discussion). I don't see any essential edits that need to be saved if a histmerge is done, but I am not an expert. Maybe list it at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen and see what happens. Rgrds. --64.85.214.181 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I placed a histmerge header on the Esquire page to hasten the process, it all looks clear-cut for merging. Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Breast implant WP:ALLEGED problem

I'd like some help with an edit war over Breast implant which starts from a problem with WP:ALLEGED.

We've had a long debate about this in Talk. I tried to discuss it with Taylornate but he just stopped participating and made his own changes, blanking out a lengthy, balanced discussion.

In summary, there are many people who believe that breast implants cause systemic diseases such as scleroderma. In the WP:MEDMOS medical literature, there was some evidence for this many years ago, but subsequent evidence seems to have rejected this theory. Nonetheless, there are many people who believe this, including women with breast implants who develop autoimmune diseases, and there are many sources that would be WP:RS for non-medical articles that make this claim. I think it's important to give readers both sides of the argument, including enough evidence for them to make up their own minds, which according to the medical literature, seems to be that breast implants do not cause systemic disease. Taylornate wants to delete everything except three medical references, giving what he thinks is the truth -- and indicating his skepticism by refering to them as "Alleged." I think this violates WP:NPOV and WP:ALLEGED.

I think the problem here is that Taylornate doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. We're not supposed to decide who's right and wrong in Wikipedia's own voice. We're just supposed to get the most reliable sources on each side, give both sides fairly, and let the reader decide. Could somebody else try to explain that to him?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breast_implant#Alleged_complications

But this comment in Talk is exactly on point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breast_implant#Alleged_health_risks

Alleged health risks

I came here to study the silicone breast implant controversy but found nothing on it. All I found is study after study saying there is no risk.

But what I want to know is why people said there was a risk, even if doctors and scientists were saying there wasn't one. I'd also like to see the history of lawsuits, such as the one which drove Dow Corning to near-bankruptcy.

Who started the rumor that breast implants cause disease? Who promoted this belief? Who profited from it? When (if ever) did courts stop accepted expert testimony from people claiming that the implants cause disease? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to answer Uncle Ed's question, with answers from the peer-reviewed medical literature. But Taylornate deleted my answer, and essentially said, "I'm right, you're wrong, and if there are people who believe breast implants cause systemic disease, their ideas don't deserve the respect of a hearing, and there's no need to have a Wikipedia article that explains what they believe and why they're wrong." --Nbauman (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting? It sounds like you need WP:DR, not here. GiantSnowman 16:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought I could get an admin to give an explanation of WP:NPOV and WP:ALLEGED as it applies here.

Where on WP:DR should I go? --Nbauman (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

NBauman, have you considered the possibility that it may be you who does not understand how Wikipedia works?--Taylornate (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

List of the most common surnames in Europe

Dear Administrators!

I need some help. User JasseRafe removed a well-referenced part in the List of the most common surnames in Europe article without any consensus ([93]). You can find the years in the academic source (Reverse dictionary of historical Hungarian family names). This user also attacked me here: [94]. Thanks for help.--Rovibroni (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see the attack. Do you still think that "Simon" is a Hungarian name? Drmies (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Muslims are our enemies

They hate us and our way of life, we musr protect World against this miseries.